Boycott Berkeley
Jan 31, 2008 Military
Who would have ever thought that a city in the United States would view members of the military as uninvited and unwelcome intruders? Well it has happened and while that might be a bit of a surprise, where it happened will surprise no one. Berkeley California has decided that the Marines at a recruiting station there are not welcome and they have done so with a 6-3 vote after which the Mayor stated:
“I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don’t belong here, they shouldn’t have come here, and they should leave,” said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast. Contra Costa Times
Unless I missed something that cesspool of a city is still in the US so how can Marines not belong there. The Marines are part of a group of people who made it possible for the idiots in Berkeley to say what they want and to vote this way. The Marines are doing their job and to their credit none of them have beat the hell out of the protesters who harass them all the time.
The City Council there also gave code pink a free parking space in front of the station and a free unlimited noise permit for certain times so that the group can continue to harass the Marines who have shown remarkable restraint in all this. It is unfortunate that they have to put up with a bunch of aged hippies who go through life stoned while trying to relive the “glory” years of the 60s.
I believe the federal Government should pull the Marines out of there and remove all other military units including National Guard and Reserve Units. Then the government should stop all federal money from going to the town. Not one damned cent should go there. I have read where many are saying that if a disaster occurred there that people would be begging for military support and those folks said the military should refuse to go. The reality is the people who serve are much better than the self serving twits who infest that city and they would go help to make sure their fellow citizens were helped. The military would be there for the very people who want them out.
I know I will never visit that place and I would like to see all other real Americans boycott the place. Let the liberal twits who agree with them buy from them. Don’t go there and if you absolutely have to be there for any reason then don’t buy anything. If the place gets hit with an earthquake or fire then don’t send your money to help them and if you belong to a fire department do not volunteer to go help. I imagine if the place was burning they would be begging for military helicopters to do water drops. Screw them.
Maybe the next time a terrorist decides to fly a plane into a building we will be lucky and it will be the City Council in Berkeley and get rid of the mindless twits that pretend to be Americans.
I am tired of people who treat the members of the military badly but have no problems living under the blanket of freedom afforded by those very members.
Let’s ship them to Club Gitmo!
Boycott Berkeley! Let’s save the seals and club Code Pinko members instead.
Others with similar items:
Michelle Malkin | Cao’s Blog
Tags: Berkeley, code pinko, harassment, Marines, twits
Illegal Aliens Have a Bad Day
Jan 31, 2008 Immigration
This has to be the greatest story about ILLEGALS to come out in a while. A van load of ILLEGALS ran into the back of a car in Arizona on Tuesday. Now that might not seem like much of a story except the car they hit was owned by the Department of Homeland Security.
The report states that the van was overloaded with people, there were no injuries and all 11 people in the van were turned over to immigration.
If we could just have a bunch more chance meetings like this we might be able to fix the ILLEGAL alien problem in this country.
Source:
KTAR
Tags: accident, homeland security, illegal aliens, immigration officials
Were Huckabee and Paul in the Debate?
Jan 31, 2008 Political
This is from the CNN website:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, winner of the Iowa caucuses, hoped to position himself well among evangelicals and other conservatives to turn around several consecutive losses since Iowa. Long-shot candidate Ron Paul, a representative from Texas, also participated in the debate. CNN
Is it fair to say that Ron Paul, of Mike Huckabee for that matter, actually participated in the debate? Almost all of the questions were directed to Romney and McCain while Huckabee and Paul sat on the sidelines waiting to be asked a question or invited to respond to a McCain or Romney answer.
It was obvious to me from the start that CNN was determined to form the debate around Romney and McCain and provide America with who they believe to be the top choices rather than allowing the viewers to see all the candidates to take a decision. At one point Huckabee informed the moderators that he was part of the process as well and the barrage of questions they promised turned out to be one. Ron Paul stated he wanted to elaborate on something he was not permitted to discuss earlier and Anderson Cooper cut him off and promised him that in a few minutes he [Paul] would get a chance. More than five minutes passed as Romney and McCain were asked question after question while Paul was ignored.
It is also fair to say that Huckabee and Paul (even more so Paul) were kept on short leashes and not given anywhere near the time the other two received to address issues and attack each other. When Huckabee answered he was more thoughtful and expressed cogent thoughts without attacking anyone and Paul actually seemed like the adult on the stage. At one point McCain and Romney spent nearly ten minutes arguing about who said what regarding timetables. When Paul finally got to speak he said that they should be addressing the issues rather than arguing about petty stuff like who said what and when:
I don’t even think they should have gone [to Iraq], so keeping them for 100 years, where’s the money going to come from? (APPLAUSE)
You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they’re arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with.
They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are going to have guns and butter?
You know, the ’70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the ’60s. Now we’re doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing, and you’re talking about these technicalities about who said what when?
I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn’t stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died.
So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, “How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?”
There were no Al Qaida there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It’s unconstitutional. It’s an undeclared war.
And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it’s time to debate foreign policy and why we don’t follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war. CNN
I have to agree with Paul on this one (with regard to the debate). These guys spent a lot of time arguing about who said what on an issue they both agree with. No matter what one says about Paul, he makes sense on some of the issues and he is right that the issues matter more than who said what and when especially when they both agree with the policy.
Huckabee and Paul were ignored through a large portion of this debate. It almost seems that they received as much attention on stage as they would have if they had been in the audience. Governor Schwarzenegger got more face time than they did and he was sitting in the crowd.
Tags: cnn debate, mike huckabee, reagan library, ron paul
Hillary Can Control Bill
Jan 31, 2008 Political
In a recent ABC interview the involvement of former President Bill Clinton was addressed by Hillary. She indicated that any statements he made were not intended to be offensive. Then Cynthia McFadden asked Hillary if she could control Bill.
Her response was; “Oh of course.â€
How is it we are supposed to believe that she can control him when she could not do that in all the years since they met? She sent her father and brother to Arkansas (before they were married) while she was away to keep him from sleeping around and there have been countless women who admitted to having consensual affairs as well as those who claimed to have been raped by him. Then, of course, there was Monica Lewinsky and that whole ugly affair. Despite their denials and defamation of Gennifer Flowers she turned out to be telling the truth when Bill admitted to having an affair with her. Despite his denials and cover up by Hillary, the Lewinsky affair turned out to be true. Even though he denied it and his people tried to portray her as a star struck kid, she turned out to be the one telling the truth.
So tell me, how is is she can control him when she has failed to do so since the time they met?
Source:
ABC Political Radar
Tags: bill, Clinton, control, Hillary, lies, out of touch, sex
Maryland Will Violate Rights to Get DNA
Jan 30, 2008 Political
The Governor of Maryland is proposing that the state allow DNA to be collected from people who have been arrested for a crime but have not yet been convicted. As it stands now, a person must first be convicted before DNA may be collected and this is how it should remain. Scott D. Shellenberger, the state’s attorney for Baltimore County, has written a piece in the Baltimore Sun indicating that the Governor’s proposal should be passed. He states that this legislation could prevent crime and he cites a case where a man raped a woman and then raped a young girl. It turns out this guy had been arrested but not convicted in the past so there was no DNA on file. Shellenberger contends that if we had collected his DNA the first time he would have been identified after the first rape and the young girl would not have been the victim. This is obviously true but it does not negate the fact that collecting the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime violates their Constitutional rights. I submit that state’s attorneys failing to do their jobs are more dangerous than not collecting DNA and I will address that later.
People have an expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches. Taking DNA from a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, Minnesota’s Court of Appeals held that taking DNA from juveniles and adults who have had a probable cause determination on a charged offense but who have not been convicted violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.[1] It is also important to note that nothing would stop the state and its law enforcement agencies from using DNA for DNA dragnets or from deeper analysis to determine what maladies might affect people. Mr. Shellenberger contends that they don’t need to look at all parts of the DNA, just the parts used to identify. Just because they don’t need to does not mean they will not. The Governor will eventually try to force universal health care on us. What would stop the state from passing a law allowing them to use the DNA to determine eligibility or fee schedules or to see if a person would be a liability in a job? Once they have it, they can pass laws to abuse it in any manner they wish.
It is terrible that the young girl was raped. I am willing to bet that the offender had more than a few brushes with the law and was probably incarcerated at one time. It seems that they could have collected what they needed at that time but let’s assume this guy had never been convicted. Should the state be allowed to conduct a search for DNA without probable cause from a person who is presumed innocent? They cannot be collecting the DNA to connect him with the current crime because they have already arrested him which means sufficient evidence existed for the arrest. Therefore, they are trying to collect (and search as determined by our courts) for evidence linking the suspect to other crimes (or for that use in the future) though no probable cause exists for the collection. Attorney Shellenberger is advocating violating the Fourth Amendment in order to catch criminals. It is a shame that the young girl was raped and that others are victims of crime but violating the rights of people to catch them makes the people in our legal system no better than the criminals.
Now, I contend that state’s attorneys are more of a danger than the failure to collect DNA. It is the people who run our legal systems who allow criminals to go free instead of putting them in jail. Shellenberger used the case of the young girl but how about the case of Maryland State Trooper Theodore Wolf? He was the state police officer killed by two men who were out on bond awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of assault and weapons charges (in New York). How about Baltimore City police Detective Troy Lamont Chesley who was shot and killed in a robbery attempt by a 21 year old with at least 17 arrests on his record and who was due in court the day after the murder on a past gun charge? If he had been in jail Chesley would be alive. How many arrests does it take for state’s attorneys to get the picture? Of course judges play into this picture so the entire legal system is to blame.
The recidivism rate for violent offenders is well over 50% and yet state’s attorney’s and judges let these people out of jail all the time. If we kept them in jail we could reduce violent crime by at least 50%. While Mr. Shellenberger is advocating violating our rights perhaps he can tell us why it is that child sex offenders (who have a near 100% recidivism rate) are continually released so that they can sexually abuse and murder young children. One thing is likely in all the cases I cite, the people had already been convicted so their DNA was probably on file and yet it did not prevent them from committing other crimes. What allowed them to do so was a legal system that let them out of jail and state’s attorneys that accept plea deals which put violent people back on the street.
Collecting DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime is a violation of their rights just as it would be to start collecting DNA from newborns to establish a database for the future. As Americans we have a certain expectation of privacy and we expect that our rights will not be violated. It is unfortunate that the very same state’s attorneys and judges who let people go free when their rights are violated would violate the rights of people presumed innocent in order to do their jobs.
Mr. Shellenberger, the Governor is wrong on this issue and you are wrong to support it. Violating a person’s rights is never appropriate.
If you want to prevent crime how about doing your job?
[1]American Constitution Society
Tags: dna, fourth amendment, legal abuses, rights