Monday, April 30, 2012
"Illegal Immigrants" Now A Hate Crime?
In a push to make everyone politically correct according to their own standards, MoveOn.org has produced and aired a video that says using the word “illegal immigrants” to describe people in the country who entered in violation of our immigration laws fits the definition of a hate crime. In their own words: “Calling a person "illegal" denies their human dignity. The slur opens the door to racial profiling and violence, and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration.”
Apparently MoveOn.org isn’t familiar with the definition of the word “illegal”. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “illegal” as: “not according to or authorized by law; unlawful.” So exactly what part of that definition does not apply to people who sneak into the country in violation of our laws?
MoveOn.org insists we should call these people “undocumented immigrants”, “unauthorized immigrants” or “NAFTA refugees.” Really? NAFTA refugees? I’m thinking those who own and operate MoveOn.org have lost their collective minds.
We are a nation of laws – at least we used to be. Organizations such as MoveOn.org want to not only ignore laws with which they disagree but also want to limit our rights to free speech. Illegal immigration is just that – illegal immigration. It should actually be called “illegal entry” because people who sneak into the country without doing it legally are not immigrants but illegal aliens. “Immigrant” is defined by Webster as: “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” Wikipedia defines “permanent residence” as: “the person is authorized to live and work in the United States of America on a permanent basis.” When you look up “undocumented immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrants” Wikipedia goes to “illegal immigrants” and that definition. Maybe MoveOn.org should read that…
By their own words, MoveOn.org admits that these “undocumented”, “unauthorized” immigrants are in the country illegally. Their insistence that these people be called anything other than “illegal” is absurd. But then – many of us expect nothing less than absurdity from MoveOn.org.
In the comments section after one article I read there was a suggestion that since MoveOn.org is advocating and supporting illegal entry into the country, which threatens our national security, maybe they should be investigated as a terrorist group. Of course, that would mean our Attorney General would have to get involved in the investigation and he’s busy trying to prevent Arizona from enforcing immigration laws. I’m sure he’ll be deeply involved in any investigation of people who call illegal aliens what they are – illegal. After all – what’s more dangerous – people entering the country illegally or those who complain about it?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Hold The Mainstream Media Responsible...
On April 21st, in Mobile, Alabama, Matthew Owens was beaten nearly to death by a large group of black men. Matthew Owens is white. According to police, Owens there were some kids playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about 8:30 Saturday night and Owens “fussed” at them. It doesn’t say how or what Owens said. Police say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with everything but the kitchen sink. Owens is currently in Intensive Care suffering from multiple, serious injuries.
What Parker says happened next makes this tragic incident even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owens bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now that’s justice for Trayvon."
There have been numerous incidents of black on white violence in the weeks since the Trayvon Martin story went nationwide. Interestingly, the mainstream media, who covered the Martin story extensively and falsely (admittedly) portrayed George Zimmerman as a racist, cold-blooded murderer, hasn’t really covered these other stories. Last week a 13 year old white boy was doused with lighter fluid and set on fire by two black teenagers in Kansas City. As they walked away the suspects said "That's what you get, white boy." It made the local news. Where were NBC, ABC and CNN, who not only covered the Trayvon Martin story but have now admitted to editing recordings and altering the story to make it appear that the incident happened differently than it did.
Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee and Rosie O’Donnell to defend the rights of the victims of these crimes? Fighting for civil rights, protesting and publicizing the need for those rights is a good thing. But aren’t those civil rights supposed to apply to everyone? Isn’t beating a man almost to death because he’s white or setting a kid on fire because he’s white just as heinous as doing it because someone is black? Again, I understand that Trayvon Martin is dead and I’m not trivializing that at all. The problem here is that George Zimmerman has been tried and convicted in the media using falsified evidence and just because real justice has not been carried out, to date, people are using it as an excuse to seek vigilante justice on other, innocent people. And the main stream media is directly to blame.
This post isn’t about those who are angry concerning the Martin/ZImmerman case and are wanting revenge as much as it is about the completely irresponsible reporting and blatant lies about the Martin/Zimmerman case that caused the anger in the first place. The Martin shooting was a tragedy that never should have happened. What’s happening now because of the pathetic lies reported by the main stream media is most likely going to be worse.
Recently, new evidence has been revealed that supports George Zimmerman’s version of the story. Yesterday, when Zimmerman was released from jail on bond (which is his right), the Twitter net waves opened up to a slew of hate-filled death threats against him. Some people have decided that the justice system simply is not working to their satisfaction and wish to take matters into their own hands. (One person even said that since Zimmerman was released on bond he can’t be re-tried for the same crime but that’s another story entirely.) Zimmerman has been convicted by a large percentage of people regardless of supposedly being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And I blame the mainstream media.
Do you people remember the Rodney King case and its aftermath? The retaliation for Zimmerman’s verdict has already started and he hasn’t even been tried yet. And if George Zimmerman is acquitted of the second degree murder charges, which many legal experts say he will be because whatever happened it didn’t seem to be intentional, what do you think will happen then? I am truly afraid that the aftermath of that occurrence will make the Rodney King violence look tame. The racism and hatred are being stoked by the main stream media, who should be held accountable for any and all violent actions taken because of their blatantly untrue reporting.
I say it’s time to start holding these mainstream media outlets responsible. Families of those who have become victims of violent racial attacks since they (the media outlets) began falsely reporting the facts of the Martin/Zimmerman case should lawyer up and file a very large lawsuit against NBC, ABC and CNN, for starters. They should ask for the right to add any other news agency that altered any of the evidence and presented it as fact that caused George Zimmerman to appear to be a racist perpetrator of a hate crime. Since they have all admitted publishing things that were not quite true, they should be held liable. I’m thinking millions of dollars could be had before this is over.
What Parker says happened next makes this tragic incident even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owens bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now that’s justice for Trayvon."
There have been numerous incidents of black on white violence in the weeks since the Trayvon Martin story went nationwide. Interestingly, the mainstream media, who covered the Martin story extensively and falsely (admittedly) portrayed George Zimmerman as a racist, cold-blooded murderer, hasn’t really covered these other stories. Last week a 13 year old white boy was doused with lighter fluid and set on fire by two black teenagers in Kansas City. As they walked away the suspects said "That's what you get, white boy." It made the local news. Where were NBC, ABC and CNN, who not only covered the Trayvon Martin story but have now admitted to editing recordings and altering the story to make it appear that the incident happened differently than it did.
Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Spike Lee and Rosie O’Donnell to defend the rights of the victims of these crimes? Fighting for civil rights, protesting and publicizing the need for those rights is a good thing. But aren’t those civil rights supposed to apply to everyone? Isn’t beating a man almost to death because he’s white or setting a kid on fire because he’s white just as heinous as doing it because someone is black? Again, I understand that Trayvon Martin is dead and I’m not trivializing that at all. The problem here is that George Zimmerman has been tried and convicted in the media using falsified evidence and just because real justice has not been carried out, to date, people are using it as an excuse to seek vigilante justice on other, innocent people. And the main stream media is directly to blame.
This post isn’t about those who are angry concerning the Martin/ZImmerman case and are wanting revenge as much as it is about the completely irresponsible reporting and blatant lies about the Martin/Zimmerman case that caused the anger in the first place. The Martin shooting was a tragedy that never should have happened. What’s happening now because of the pathetic lies reported by the main stream media is most likely going to be worse.
Recently, new evidence has been revealed that supports George Zimmerman’s version of the story. Yesterday, when Zimmerman was released from jail on bond (which is his right), the Twitter net waves opened up to a slew of hate-filled death threats against him. Some people have decided that the justice system simply is not working to their satisfaction and wish to take matters into their own hands. (One person even said that since Zimmerman was released on bond he can’t be re-tried for the same crime but that’s another story entirely.) Zimmerman has been convicted by a large percentage of people regardless of supposedly being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And I blame the mainstream media.
Do you people remember the Rodney King case and its aftermath? The retaliation for Zimmerman’s verdict has already started and he hasn’t even been tried yet. And if George Zimmerman is acquitted of the second degree murder charges, which many legal experts say he will be because whatever happened it didn’t seem to be intentional, what do you think will happen then? I am truly afraid that the aftermath of that occurrence will make the Rodney King violence look tame. The racism and hatred are being stoked by the main stream media, who should be held accountable for any and all violent actions taken because of their blatantly untrue reporting.
I say it’s time to start holding these mainstream media outlets responsible. Families of those who have become victims of violent racial attacks since they (the media outlets) began falsely reporting the facts of the Martin/Zimmerman case should lawyer up and file a very large lawsuit against NBC, ABC and CNN, for starters. They should ask for the right to add any other news agency that altered any of the evidence and presented it as fact that caused George Zimmerman to appear to be a racist perpetrator of a hate crime. Since they have all admitted publishing things that were not quite true, they should be held liable. I’m thinking millions of dollars could be had before this is over.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Responsible Journalism Or Just Another Way To Sell Papers?
A couple of days ago the Los Angeles Times printed several photographs of U.S. soldiers posing in Afghanistan with body parts of dead terrorists. Apparently they thought this was the right thing to do. Why though, I’m not quite sure.
Journalism, real journalism, should report the news honestly, fairly and accurately. However, there are some things that could and should be handled in a way that benefits all concerned rather than used to sell newspapers or internet hits. The Times thought, and rightly so, that these pictures were despicable and this behavior was not only unbecoming of U.S. soldiers but also twisted and sick. They thought something should be done about it. They also know, from past experience with the Quran burning incident and the Abu Ghraib photos, that American soldiers (who had absolutely nothing to do with the shameful behavior) get killed as a result of photos like these being published to the world.
The L.A. Times chose to put the lives of all our military members in increased jeopardy to sell newspapers. They could easily have sent copies of the pictures to the Pentagon with a message that said “You need to do something about this and let us know what you did or we will go public with this information.” I suppose it’s possible they did that and the Pentagon refused to take action but I highly doubt it.
And yes - America has the right to know about things like this however, this was an incident involving a few soldiers, not a widespread, sick conspiracy involving the entire Army.
The Times has basically said to our military members serving in Afghanistan and Iraq “We don’t care about you and your safety. We’re going to sell papers.” It’s shameful.
The L.A. Times apparently has abandoned responsible journalism for sensationalism at the risk of anyone who they choose to put out there. Of course, they are a rather liberal newspaper and therein may lie the problem.
Any soldiers killed in the next few weeks in retaliation for the photographs lie directly on the heads of the L.A. Times CEO and editors. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen. But we all know it will.
Journalism, real journalism, should report the news honestly, fairly and accurately. However, there are some things that could and should be handled in a way that benefits all concerned rather than used to sell newspapers or internet hits. The Times thought, and rightly so, that these pictures were despicable and this behavior was not only unbecoming of U.S. soldiers but also twisted and sick. They thought something should be done about it. They also know, from past experience with the Quran burning incident and the Abu Ghraib photos, that American soldiers (who had absolutely nothing to do with the shameful behavior) get killed as a result of photos like these being published to the world.
The L.A. Times chose to put the lives of all our military members in increased jeopardy to sell newspapers. They could easily have sent copies of the pictures to the Pentagon with a message that said “You need to do something about this and let us know what you did or we will go public with this information.” I suppose it’s possible they did that and the Pentagon refused to take action but I highly doubt it.
And yes - America has the right to know about things like this however, this was an incident involving a few soldiers, not a widespread, sick conspiracy involving the entire Army.
The Times has basically said to our military members serving in Afghanistan and Iraq “We don’t care about you and your safety. We’re going to sell papers.” It’s shameful.
The L.A. Times apparently has abandoned responsible journalism for sensationalism at the risk of anyone who they choose to put out there. Of course, they are a rather liberal newspaper and therein may lie the problem.
Any soldiers killed in the next few weeks in retaliation for the photographs lie directly on the heads of the L.A. Times CEO and editors. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen. But we all know it will.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Where Are The Civil Rights Activists? Where Is The Outrage?
(Kansas City, MO) In early March, just a few days after Trayvon Martin was shot, there was another potential hate crime that has received very little attention from the media.
It was a young 13 year old white boy set on fire by two 16 year old black teenagers in Kansas City, Missouri. The victim attends Kansas City's East High School and believes the perpetrators do too.
According to KMBC, the boy's mother said:
"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open ... (One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."
According to WIBW, the cops are still trying to find who did this as of March 27.
Of course, I wasn't there and these are simply the allegations as reported by the media. But here are my obvious questions... where are Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama on this case? Where’s the outrage from the main stream media and the accusations of racism and hate crimes? Is this case less outrageous than the Martin Case? The boy survived the attack with burns on his face and head and scars (particularly emotional) that may never heal. (Can you imagine being chased down and set on fire by other people?)
The news article says they poured gasoline on him and lit it with a lighter which “produced a large fireball that burned his face and hair.” The kid was apparently extremely lucky. If he’d inhaled those flames as they swirled around his face he could easily have died from having his lungs burned. I understand that’s a particularly horrible way to die. If there had been more gasoline involved his face and head could be terribly disfigured. But he survived. And the article says he suffered “first degree burns”, which are pretty comparable to a sunburn. Talk about lucky.
Again I ask you – is this crime less serious than the Martin shooting simply because Martin died? Anyone who has read my blogs about the Martin case knows I’m very much saddened by the death of a 17 year old kid and want justice, whatever justice is deserved and rational, to be served. I’m not minimizing Trayvon Martin’s death in any way. I’m saying that deliberately pouring gasoline on someone, particularly a 13 year old, and setting them on fire is just as bad as shooting someone – maybe worse. What did this kid do to deserve being set on fire?
So where is the media? Where are the civil rights activists who are so against racism and hate crimes? Where is the President? After all - if the President had taken on more of his mother’s family traits this 13 year old boy could look like him, couldn’t he? Are Rosie O’Donnell and Spike Lee trying to find out and post the addresses of the two perpetrators? Or is it somehow "different" because the victim was white instead of black?
One has to wonder at all these things considering the media and political attention given the Trayvon Martin case. Will this boy’s parents be invited to Washington DC for a civil rights conference? Will All and Jesse go to their home to stand with them against racially motivated hate crimes? It could happen, I suppose, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the news coverage of it. I happen to like breathing….
It was a young 13 year old white boy set on fire by two 16 year old black teenagers in Kansas City, Missouri. The victim attends Kansas City's East High School and believes the perpetrators do too.
According to KMBC, the boy's mother said:
"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open ... (One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy'."
According to WIBW, the cops are still trying to find who did this as of March 27.
Of course, I wasn't there and these are simply the allegations as reported by the media. But here are my obvious questions... where are Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama on this case? Where’s the outrage from the main stream media and the accusations of racism and hate crimes? Is this case less outrageous than the Martin Case? The boy survived the attack with burns on his face and head and scars (particularly emotional) that may never heal. (Can you imagine being chased down and set on fire by other people?)
The news article says they poured gasoline on him and lit it with a lighter which “produced a large fireball that burned his face and hair.” The kid was apparently extremely lucky. If he’d inhaled those flames as they swirled around his face he could easily have died from having his lungs burned. I understand that’s a particularly horrible way to die. If there had been more gasoline involved his face and head could be terribly disfigured. But he survived. And the article says he suffered “first degree burns”, which are pretty comparable to a sunburn. Talk about lucky.
Again I ask you – is this crime less serious than the Martin shooting simply because Martin died? Anyone who has read my blogs about the Martin case knows I’m very much saddened by the death of a 17 year old kid and want justice, whatever justice is deserved and rational, to be served. I’m not minimizing Trayvon Martin’s death in any way. I’m saying that deliberately pouring gasoline on someone, particularly a 13 year old, and setting them on fire is just as bad as shooting someone – maybe worse. What did this kid do to deserve being set on fire?
So where is the media? Where are the civil rights activists who are so against racism and hate crimes? Where is the President? After all - if the President had taken on more of his mother’s family traits this 13 year old boy could look like him, couldn’t he? Are Rosie O’Donnell and Spike Lee trying to find out and post the addresses of the two perpetrators? Or is it somehow "different" because the victim was white instead of black?
One has to wonder at all these things considering the media and political attention given the Trayvon Martin case. Will this boy’s parents be invited to Washington DC for a civil rights conference? Will All and Jesse go to their home to stand with them against racially motivated hate crimes? It could happen, I suppose, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the news coverage of it. I happen to like breathing….
Some Things Never Change...
The following article was posted on “Sodahead.com” this morning, April 16, 2012. I looked at the mainstream media outlets but couldn’t find the same information. But then, I’ve looked for negative information about President Obama in the mainstream media outlets before. Know what? It’s really difficult to find – sometimes even impossible. The mainstream media doesn’t like to criticize or discount President Obama for some reason – not even in the name of good, honest journalism or good old political corruption. Go figure.
Anyway – this should come as no surprise to anyone. The one thing I will say about it is that President Obama is not the first, the only, or the last politician to do these things. The article says all parties and politicians are guilty of it to a degree. But given Mr. Obama ran on a platform of change and transparency, his incidents just seem to be a reassurance that some things never change and some people just don’t seem to care. President Obama seems to be the poster child for “You can fool some of the people all of the time.”
OBAMA IS USING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO FUND CAMPAIGN DONATIONS
Under the guise of "investing" in so-called green energy, the Obama Administration is perpetrating yet another massive scam on the American people. It has now been documented that Obama is using your hard-earned tax dollars to line the pockets of his biggest campaign donors.
But don't take our word for it...
According to research done by Hoover Institution Fellow Peter Schweitzer, the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans handed to Solyndra - the now bankrupt company that was run by Obama campaign bundler George Kaiser - is just the "tip of the iceberg.”
In fact, a staggering 80% of the federal grants and loan guarantees made to green-tech firms by Obama's DOE since 2009 were made to companies whose chief executive or chief investors were major contributors and big money men to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
Schweitzer's research reveals a devastating picture of corruption in Washington, D.C. Democrats, Republicans, Congressmen, Senators, administration officials and bureaucrats - the corruption is widespread.
Billions upon billions of dollars literally have poured into the coffers of Obama's biggest campaign donors whose quasi-green products, like bankrupt Solyndra's solar panels or the exploding Finnish eco-car, were not only questionable, but very clearly doomed to failure from the beginning.
Given the number of reports warning the Obama Administration against many of the "green" loans and government handouts, it is now obvious that the money transfers were never meant to rescue the American economy or create jobs... Rather, the program from the very beginning was about nothing more than lining the pockets of loyal Obama supporters.
Even the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has chastised the Obama Administration for the manner in which DOE loans and handouts were granted. According to GAO:
Many of the loans lacked adequate documentation and performance measures.
Obama's DOE granted many loans based on favoritism while denying or disadvantaging other equally and often more qualified potential borrowers.
And DOE's own inspector general, Gregory Friedman, has testified that many of the contracts have been steered to "friends and family."
Yet despite all this, Barack Obama wants to double down on the program. In fact, Obama's Department of Energy has announced its intention to issue even more "green energy" loans. How many major Obama 2012 donors do you think will be on the receiving end of those new loans and grants?
Let's not wait to find out. It's time to be proactive and demand that Congress - holder of the purse strings - immediately step in and STOP ALL "GREEN ENERGY" LOANS and HANDOUTS NOW! Furthermore, we must demand a more complete and full investigation into the Obama Administration's green scam.
We must act now, before yet another taxpayer dollar is flushed down the green scam toilet.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
Anyway – this should come as no surprise to anyone. The one thing I will say about it is that President Obama is not the first, the only, or the last politician to do these things. The article says all parties and politicians are guilty of it to a degree. But given Mr. Obama ran on a platform of change and transparency, his incidents just seem to be a reassurance that some things never change and some people just don’t seem to care. President Obama seems to be the poster child for “You can fool some of the people all of the time.”
OBAMA IS USING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO FUND CAMPAIGN DONATIONS
Under the guise of "investing" in so-called green energy, the Obama Administration is perpetrating yet another massive scam on the American people. It has now been documented that Obama is using your hard-earned tax dollars to line the pockets of his biggest campaign donors.
But don't take our word for it...
According to research done by Hoover Institution Fellow Peter Schweitzer, the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans handed to Solyndra - the now bankrupt company that was run by Obama campaign bundler George Kaiser - is just the "tip of the iceberg.”
In fact, a staggering 80% of the federal grants and loan guarantees made to green-tech firms by Obama's DOE since 2009 were made to companies whose chief executive or chief investors were major contributors and big money men to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
Schweitzer's research reveals a devastating picture of corruption in Washington, D.C. Democrats, Republicans, Congressmen, Senators, administration officials and bureaucrats - the corruption is widespread.
Billions upon billions of dollars literally have poured into the coffers of Obama's biggest campaign donors whose quasi-green products, like bankrupt Solyndra's solar panels or the exploding Finnish eco-car, were not only questionable, but very clearly doomed to failure from the beginning.
Given the number of reports warning the Obama Administration against many of the "green" loans and government handouts, it is now obvious that the money transfers were never meant to rescue the American economy or create jobs... Rather, the program from the very beginning was about nothing more than lining the pockets of loyal Obama supporters.
Even the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has chastised the Obama Administration for the manner in which DOE loans and handouts were granted. According to GAO:
Many of the loans lacked adequate documentation and performance measures.
Obama's DOE granted many loans based on favoritism while denying or disadvantaging other equally and often more qualified potential borrowers.
And DOE's own inspector general, Gregory Friedman, has testified that many of the contracts have been steered to "friends and family."
Yet despite all this, Barack Obama wants to double down on the program. In fact, Obama's Department of Energy has announced its intention to issue even more "green energy" loans. How many major Obama 2012 donors do you think will be on the receiving end of those new loans and grants?
Let's not wait to find out. It's time to be proactive and demand that Congress - holder of the purse strings - immediately step in and STOP ALL "GREEN ENERGY" LOANS and HANDOUTS NOW! Furthermore, we must demand a more complete and full investigation into the Obama Administration's green scam.
We must act now, before yet another taxpayer dollar is flushed down the green scam toilet.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
Saturday, April 7, 2012
It Pays To Be An Illegal Alien
Apparently, people in the country illegally have more rights than U.S. citizens/property owners. An Arizona rancher finds 26 illegal aliens on his property, calls the authorities and holds them at gunpoint (outnumbered 26 to 1) until the authorities arrive. Now the rancher has to pay the illegals for inflicting stress on them. Only in America.
Supreme Court Orders Arizona Rancher to Pay Illegal Immigrants $80,000
3/4/12
Arizona Rancher, Roger Barnett, had been stuck in a vicious legal battle from 2004 to 2011. Many illegal immigrants were trespassing on his property and he held a group of 26 of them at gun point.
According to the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the illegal immigrants' rights were being infringed upon. Their case: Barnett did not feel threatened by the illegal immigrants and therefore he could not have been acting in self-defense. A nearby rancher was murdered by illegal immigrants in 2009.
First of all, if you have a gun you wouldn't feel threatened. Secondly, it is his property. You give up your rights once you trespass someone's property without permission -- let alone coming crossing the border.
He was ordered to pay $80,000 because three of the illegal immigrants had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Ummm?
From the Arizona Daily Star:
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a 2009 ruling against Cochise County rancher Roger Barnett, forcing him to pay about $87,000 in damages related to his assault of illegal immigrants on his ranch in 2004.
The jury found him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress, and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages. The $87,000 he must pay reflects that original amount plus interest.
So if your property is invaded by illegals and you attempt to protect it you end up having to pay them for stress. Now that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? I guess the rancher should have invited them to the house for a barbeque and given them a place to sleep instead. Absolutely amazing.
Supreme Court Orders Arizona Rancher to Pay Illegal Immigrants $80,000
3/4/12
Arizona Rancher, Roger Barnett, had been stuck in a vicious legal battle from 2004 to 2011. Many illegal immigrants were trespassing on his property and he held a group of 26 of them at gun point.
According to the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the illegal immigrants' rights were being infringed upon. Their case: Barnett did not feel threatened by the illegal immigrants and therefore he could not have been acting in self-defense. A nearby rancher was murdered by illegal immigrants in 2009.
First of all, if you have a gun you wouldn't feel threatened. Secondly, it is his property. You give up your rights once you trespass someone's property without permission -- let alone coming crossing the border.
He was ordered to pay $80,000 because three of the illegal immigrants had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Ummm?
From the Arizona Daily Star:
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a 2009 ruling against Cochise County rancher Roger Barnett, forcing him to pay about $87,000 in damages related to his assault of illegal immigrants on his ranch in 2004.
The jury found him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress, and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages. The $87,000 he must pay reflects that original amount plus interest.
So if your property is invaded by illegals and you attempt to protect it you end up having to pay them for stress. Now that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? I guess the rancher should have invited them to the house for a barbeque and given them a place to sleep instead. Absolutely amazing.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Zimmerman/Martin Part 4 - Another First!
OK, this is absolutely a first. Part 4 of an ongoing story. It seems another media outlet has admitted they were giving out fals… uh – wrong information concerning the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. That’s three networks in the last few days that have said they were reporting information that was not true.
Earlier this week, NBC announced that the 911 audio tape they had been playing, which seemed to indicate George Zimmerman profiling Trayvon Martin as black while Zimmerman was watching and following him through his (Zimmerman’s) neighborhood, had been edited to make it sound different than the original tape. On the original tape Zimmerman mentioned nothing of Martin’s color until he was asked specifically by the 911 operator and Zimmerman’s response was “I think he’s black.”
ABC put out a copy of a police video showing George Zimmerman being escorted, in handcuffs, into the Sanford police department for questioning. (This in itself was interesting since the early reports simply said Zimmerman told police he shot in self defense and was he was released – sounding like he was never really questioned about the incident.) ABC said the tape clearly showed Zimmerman had no injuries or blood on him and the he was obviously lying about Martin hitting him and banging his head on the ground. A couple of days later ABC enhanced the video tape and it clearly does show injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head. It was also learned that the police had taken Zimmerman for medical treatment before taking him to the police
station.
Last week CNN reported that George Zimmerman had made the statement “f**king coons” to the 911 operator during the telephone call. They used that to determine the motive for Zimmerman shooting Martin was obviously racial. Today, CNN says they have enhanced the audio tape and while they can’t be positive, it sounds very much like Zimmerman actually said “f**king cold” rather than making a racial slur.
I find myself close to retracting my original opinion on this entire case based on the false information we were all given by the media over the last couple of weeks. What I know to be true right now is that George Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood armed with a gun, which was not, in itself, illegal since he was licensed to carry concealed. He saw Martin and called 911 reporting a “suspicious guy” walking through the neighborhood. He apparently did not make any racial slurs but he did get out of his vehicle and follow Martin against the advice of the 911 operator. (Again, I don’t think this is illegal in any way. It might not be smart but that’s not a crime.)
Somehow the two met face to face and an altercation ensued. Zimmerman says he was in fear of his life and shot Martin in self defense. While I’m not sure about the self defense part I do believe Zimmerman probably was in fear for his life since witnesses say Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him about the head.
I have said all along that the key to this entire case is that initial contact between Zimmerman and Martin and what happened at that moment. Zimmerman says he turned back and Martin then followed him and attacked him. Others think (but there are apparently no witnesses) that Zimmerman accosted Martin and Martin simply go the best of this situation. Hopefully the ongoing investigation will reveal the whole truth, without media distortion, of what really happened. Until then I hope people can remain calm and open minded about the truth of the case and back off of convicting anyone of anything until ALL the facts are known.
Either way you look at it – George Zimmerman’s life, as he knew it, is over. If he’s tried and convicted he’ll suffer the consequences of his actions. If the investigation exonerates him of any crime those who believe him guilty will never allow him to have a normal life (and I believe his life will be in danger if that happens.)
Trayvon Martin’s death was a tragedy. Anytime a 17 year old kid dies it's a tragedy. I would be willing to bet that George Zimmerman would take it all back in a minute if he could. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. (With apologies to Dennis Miller.)
I thought I had this ready to publish then something else occurred to me. What will happen if the FBI and the independent investigators decide George Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, as Zimmerman said, and Zimmerman was justified in shooting him in self defense? Are those who have already convicted him going to discount the new investigation(s) in favor of their own conclusions based on what they believe is the truth? How many people will decide the new investigators obviously have no credibility either because George Zimmerman is guilty of something??!!!! There is a very scary situation going on here that could get even worse before it gets better. I would ask each and every one of you who has already convicted Zimmerman to wait for the complete truth. As my good friend (who is a police officer and former homicide detective) has said more than once: “You weren’t there. You don’t know what really happened.” Let’s please all leave it to the professional law enforcement officials to determine the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Earlier this week, NBC announced that the 911 audio tape they had been playing, which seemed to indicate George Zimmerman profiling Trayvon Martin as black while Zimmerman was watching and following him through his (Zimmerman’s) neighborhood, had been edited to make it sound different than the original tape. On the original tape Zimmerman mentioned nothing of Martin’s color until he was asked specifically by the 911 operator and Zimmerman’s response was “I think he’s black.”
ABC put out a copy of a police video showing George Zimmerman being escorted, in handcuffs, into the Sanford police department for questioning. (This in itself was interesting since the early reports simply said Zimmerman told police he shot in self defense and was he was released – sounding like he was never really questioned about the incident.) ABC said the tape clearly showed Zimmerman had no injuries or blood on him and the he was obviously lying about Martin hitting him and banging his head on the ground. A couple of days later ABC enhanced the video tape and it clearly does show injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head. It was also learned that the police had taken Zimmerman for medical treatment before taking him to the police
station.
Last week CNN reported that George Zimmerman had made the statement “f**king coons” to the 911 operator during the telephone call. They used that to determine the motive for Zimmerman shooting Martin was obviously racial. Today, CNN says they have enhanced the audio tape and while they can’t be positive, it sounds very much like Zimmerman actually said “f**king cold” rather than making a racial slur.
I find myself close to retracting my original opinion on this entire case based on the false information we were all given by the media over the last couple of weeks. What I know to be true right now is that George Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood armed with a gun, which was not, in itself, illegal since he was licensed to carry concealed. He saw Martin and called 911 reporting a “suspicious guy” walking through the neighborhood. He apparently did not make any racial slurs but he did get out of his vehicle and follow Martin against the advice of the 911 operator. (Again, I don’t think this is illegal in any way. It might not be smart but that’s not a crime.)
Somehow the two met face to face and an altercation ensued. Zimmerman says he was in fear of his life and shot Martin in self defense. While I’m not sure about the self defense part I do believe Zimmerman probably was in fear for his life since witnesses say Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him about the head.
I have said all along that the key to this entire case is that initial contact between Zimmerman and Martin and what happened at that moment. Zimmerman says he turned back and Martin then followed him and attacked him. Others think (but there are apparently no witnesses) that Zimmerman accosted Martin and Martin simply go the best of this situation. Hopefully the ongoing investigation will reveal the whole truth, without media distortion, of what really happened. Until then I hope people can remain calm and open minded about the truth of the case and back off of convicting anyone of anything until ALL the facts are known.
Either way you look at it – George Zimmerman’s life, as he knew it, is over. If he’s tried and convicted he’ll suffer the consequences of his actions. If the investigation exonerates him of any crime those who believe him guilty will never allow him to have a normal life (and I believe his life will be in danger if that happens.)
Trayvon Martin’s death was a tragedy. Anytime a 17 year old kid dies it's a tragedy. I would be willing to bet that George Zimmerman would take it all back in a minute if he could. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. (With apologies to Dennis Miller.)
I thought I had this ready to publish then something else occurred to me. What will happen if the FBI and the independent investigators decide George Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, as Zimmerman said, and Zimmerman was justified in shooting him in self defense? Are those who have already convicted him going to discount the new investigation(s) in favor of their own conclusions based on what they believe is the truth? How many people will decide the new investigators obviously have no credibility either because George Zimmerman is guilty of something??!!!! There is a very scary situation going on here that could get even worse before it gets better. I would ask each and every one of you who has already convicted Zimmerman to wait for the complete truth. As my good friend (who is a police officer and former homicide detective) has said more than once: “You weren’t there. You don’t know what really happened.” Let’s please all leave it to the professional law enforcement officials to determine the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
As Goes California So Goes The Country....?
It is often said that things happen first in California then spread to the rest of the country. This article was written by Roger Hedgecock, former mayor of San Diego. Is it a dire warning to the rest of the country or merely a dissatisfied citizen venting? You decide.
Written by Roger Hedgecock
I live in California . If you were wondering what living in Obama's second term would be like, wonder no longer. We in California are living there now.
California is a one-party state dominated by a virulent Democrat Left enabled by a complicit media where every agency of local, county, and state government is run by and for the public employee unions. The unemployment rate is 12%.
California has more folks on food stamps than any other state, has added so many benefits and higher rates to Medicaid that we call it "Medi-Cal." Our K-12 schools have more administrators than teachers, with smaller classes but lower test scores and higher dropout rates with twice the per-student budget of 15 years ago.
This week, the once and current Gov. Jerry Brown had to confess that the "balanced" state budget adopted five months ago was billions in the red because actual tax revenues were billions lower than the airy-fairy revenue estimates on which the balance was predicated.
After trimming legislators ' perks and reducing the number of cell phones provided to state civil servants, the governor intoned that drastic budget reductions had already hollowed out state programs for the needy, law enforcement and our schoolchildren. California government needed more money.
Echoing the Occupy movement, the governor proclaimed the rich must pay their fair share. Fair share? The top 1% of California income earners currently pays 50% of the state's income tax.
California has seven income tax brackets. The top income tax rate is 9.3%, which is slapped on the greedy rich earning at least $47,056 a year. Income of more than $1 million pays the "millionaires 'and billionaires' " surcharge tax rate of 10.3%.
Brown's proposal would add 2% for income over $250,000. A million-dollar income would then be taxed at 12.3%. And that's just for the state.
Brown also proposed a one-half-cent sales tax increase, which would bring sales taxes (which vary by county) up to 7.75% to as much as 10%. Both tax increases would be on the ballot in 2012.
The sales tax increase proposal immediately brought howls of protest from the Left (of Brown!). Charlie Eaton, a sociology grad student at UC Berkeley and leader of the UC Student-Workers Union, said, "We've paid enough. It's time for millionaires to pay."
At least five other ballot measures to raise taxes are circulating for signatures to get on the 2012 ballot in California . The governor's proposals are the most conservative.
The governor and the state legislature continue to applaud the efforts of the California High Speed Rail Authority to build a train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even though the budget is three times the voter-approved amount, and the first segment will only connect two small towns in the agricultural Central Valley. But hey, if we build it, they will ride.
And we don't want to turn down the Obama bullet-train bucks Florida and other states rejected because the operating costs would bankrupt them. Can't happen here because we're already insolvent.
If we get into real trouble with the train, we'll just bring in the Chinese. It worked with the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989 earthquake, the bridge connecting Oakland and San Francisco was rebuilt with steel made in China. Workers from China too. Paid for with money borrowed from China. Makes perfect sense.
In California, we hate the evil, greedy rich (except the rich in Hollywood, in sports, and in drug dealing). But we love people who have broken into California to eat the bounty created by the productive rich.
Illegals get benefits from various generous welfare programs, free medical care, free schools for their kids, including meals, and of course, instate tuition rates and scholarships too. Nothing's too good for our guests.
To erase even a hint of criticism of illegal immigration, the California Legislature is considering a unilateral state amnesty. Democrat State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes has proposed an initiative that would bar deportation of illegals from California.
Interesting dilemma for Obama there. If immigration is exclusively a federal matter, and Obama has sued four states for trying to enforce federal immigration laws he won't enforce, what will the President do to a California law that exempts California from federal immigration law?
California is also near fulfilling the environmentalist dream of deindustrialization.
After driving out the old industrial base (auto and airplane assembly, for example), air and water regulators and tax policies are now driving out the high-tech, biotech and even Internet-based companies that were supposed to be California's future.
The California cap-and-trade tax on business in the name of reducing CO2 makes our state the leader in wacky environmentalism and guarantees a further job exodus from the state.
Even green energy companies can't do business in California. Solyndra went under, taking its taxpayer loan guarantee with it.
No job is too small to escape the regulators. The state has even banned weekend amateur gold miners from the historic gold mining streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
In fact, more and more of California's public land is off-limits to recreation by the people who paid for that land. Unless you're illegal. Then you can clear the land, set up marijuana plantations at will, bring in fertilizers that legal farmers can no longer use, exploit illegal farm workers who live in hovels with no running water or sanitation, and protect your investment with armed illegals carrying guns no California citizen is allowed to own.
The rest of us only found out about these plantations when the workers' open campfire started one of those devastating fires that have killed hundreds of people and burned out thousands of homes in California over the last decade.
It's often said that whatever happens in California will soon happen in your state.
You'd better hope that's wrong.
Written by Roger Hedgecock
I live in California . If you were wondering what living in Obama's second term would be like, wonder no longer. We in California are living there now.
California is a one-party state dominated by a virulent Democrat Left enabled by a complicit media where every agency of local, county, and state government is run by and for the public employee unions. The unemployment rate is 12%.
California has more folks on food stamps than any other state, has added so many benefits and higher rates to Medicaid that we call it "Medi-Cal." Our K-12 schools have more administrators than teachers, with smaller classes but lower test scores and higher dropout rates with twice the per-student budget of 15 years ago.
This week, the once and current Gov. Jerry Brown had to confess that the "balanced" state budget adopted five months ago was billions in the red because actual tax revenues were billions lower than the airy-fairy revenue estimates on which the balance was predicated.
After trimming legislators ' perks and reducing the number of cell phones provided to state civil servants, the governor intoned that drastic budget reductions had already hollowed out state programs for the needy, law enforcement and our schoolchildren. California government needed more money.
Echoing the Occupy movement, the governor proclaimed the rich must pay their fair share. Fair share? The top 1% of California income earners currently pays 50% of the state's income tax.
California has seven income tax brackets. The top income tax rate is 9.3%, which is slapped on the greedy rich earning at least $47,056 a year. Income of more than $1 million pays the "millionaires 'and billionaires' " surcharge tax rate of 10.3%.
Brown's proposal would add 2% for income over $250,000. A million-dollar income would then be taxed at 12.3%. And that's just for the state.
Brown also proposed a one-half-cent sales tax increase, which would bring sales taxes (which vary by county) up to 7.75% to as much as 10%. Both tax increases would be on the ballot in 2012.
The sales tax increase proposal immediately brought howls of protest from the Left (of Brown!). Charlie Eaton, a sociology grad student at UC Berkeley and leader of the UC Student-Workers Union, said, "We've paid enough. It's time for millionaires to pay."
At least five other ballot measures to raise taxes are circulating for signatures to get on the 2012 ballot in California . The governor's proposals are the most conservative.
The governor and the state legislature continue to applaud the efforts of the California High Speed Rail Authority to build a train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even though the budget is three times the voter-approved amount, and the first segment will only connect two small towns in the agricultural Central Valley. But hey, if we build it, they will ride.
And we don't want to turn down the Obama bullet-train bucks Florida and other states rejected because the operating costs would bankrupt them. Can't happen here because we're already insolvent.
If we get into real trouble with the train, we'll just bring in the Chinese. It worked with the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989 earthquake, the bridge connecting Oakland and San Francisco was rebuilt with steel made in China. Workers from China too. Paid for with money borrowed from China. Makes perfect sense.
In California, we hate the evil, greedy rich (except the rich in Hollywood, in sports, and in drug dealing). But we love people who have broken into California to eat the bounty created by the productive rich.
Illegals get benefits from various generous welfare programs, free medical care, free schools for their kids, including meals, and of course, instate tuition rates and scholarships too. Nothing's too good for our guests.
To erase even a hint of criticism of illegal immigration, the California Legislature is considering a unilateral state amnesty. Democrat State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes has proposed an initiative that would bar deportation of illegals from California.
Interesting dilemma for Obama there. If immigration is exclusively a federal matter, and Obama has sued four states for trying to enforce federal immigration laws he won't enforce, what will the President do to a California law that exempts California from federal immigration law?
California is also near fulfilling the environmentalist dream of deindustrialization.
After driving out the old industrial base (auto and airplane assembly, for example), air and water regulators and tax policies are now driving out the high-tech, biotech and even Internet-based companies that were supposed to be California's future.
The California cap-and-trade tax on business in the name of reducing CO2 makes our state the leader in wacky environmentalism and guarantees a further job exodus from the state.
Even green energy companies can't do business in California. Solyndra went under, taking its taxpayer loan guarantee with it.
No job is too small to escape the regulators. The state has even banned weekend amateur gold miners from the historic gold mining streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
In fact, more and more of California's public land is off-limits to recreation by the people who paid for that land. Unless you're illegal. Then you can clear the land, set up marijuana plantations at will, bring in fertilizers that legal farmers can no longer use, exploit illegal farm workers who live in hovels with no running water or sanitation, and protect your investment with armed illegals carrying guns no California citizen is allowed to own.
The rest of us only found out about these plantations when the workers' open campfire started one of those devastating fires that have killed hundreds of people and burned out thousands of homes in California over the last decade.
It's often said that whatever happens in California will soon happen in your state.
You'd better hope that's wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)