Sanity in the World?

Into all lives, a little Sanity must fall.

My Photo
Location: Michigan, United States

See post here: About Me

Friday, April 28, 2006

Bastardizing the American Anthem

The Bastardation of the Star Spangled Banner:

Nuestro Himno
Published April 26, 2006

Verse 1
Oh say can you see, a la luz de la aurora/Lo que tanto aclamamos la noche al caer? Sus estrellas, sus franjas flotaban ayer/En el fiero combate en senal de victoria,/Fulgor de lucha, al paso de la libertada,/Por la noche decian: “Se va defendiendo!”

Coro: Oh, decid! Despliega aun su hermosura estrellada,/Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada?

It’s time to make a difference the kids, men and the women/Let’s stand for our beliefs, let’s stand for our vision/What about the children los ninos como P-Star

These kids have no parents, cause all of these mean laws.
See this can’t happen, not only about the Latins.
Asians, blacks and whites and all they do is adding
more and more, let’s not start a war
with all these hard workers,
they can’t help where they were born.

Verse 2
Sus estrellas, sus franjas, la libertad, somos iguales
Somos hermanos, es nuestro himno.
En el fiero combate en senal de victoria,/Fulgor de lucha, al paso de la libertada,/Por la noche decian: “Se va defendiendo!”

Coro: Oh, decid! Despliega aun su hermosura estrellada,/Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada?

I came across this, supposedly has been translated from Spanish to English:

(Translated from Spanish)

Verse 1
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail as night falls?
Its stars and stripes floated yesterday
In the fierce combat, the sign of victory
The flame of battle, in step with liberty.
Throughout the night it was said, "It is being defended."

Oh, say! Does it still show its beautiful stars
Over the land of the free, the sacred flag?

Verse 2
Its stars and stripes, liberty, we are the same.
We're brothers, it's our anthem.
In the fierce combat, the sign of victory,
The flame of battle, in step with liberty.
Throughout the night it was said, "It is being defended."

"Oh, say! Does it still show its beautiful stars?
Over the land of the free, the sacred flag?"

You can listen to the new version of our national anthem at Hot Air.

For example the lines, "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there" have been changed to, "In the fierce combat, the sign of victory, the flame of battle in step with liberty through the night it was said it was being defended."

It will contain several lines in English that condemn U.S. immigration laws. Among them: "These kids have no parents, cause all of these mean laws ... let's not start a war with all these hard workers, they can't help where they were born."

Wikipedia, not the best source, but that is what Wikipedia had to say on it.

Bmoore3 at The Hive hit on something very interesting and true:

I guess I just don’t get it. The French sing “La Marseillaise” in French. The Chinese sing their anthem “March of the Volunteers” in Chinese. All other countries national anthems are sung in their countries native language. Why do Hispanics feel the U.S. National Anthem should be sung in a language other than the language of America? When Francis Scott Key wrote “The Star Spangle Banner”, it was after a battle that was the turning point for America. He looked over the fields where the “Red, White and Blue” still stood flying after a decisive battle. He was an American and saw what our flag meant to Americans. He was inspired to write the words

I guess I just don’t get it. The French sing “La Marseillaise” in French. The Chinese sing their anthem “March of the Volunteers” in Chinese. All other countries national anthems are sung in their countries native language. Why do Hispanics feel the U.S. National Anthem should be sung in a language other than the language of America? When Francis Scott Key wrote “The Star Spangle Banner”, it was after a battle that was the turning point for America. He looked over the fields where the “Red, White and Blue” still stood flying after a decisive battle. He was an American and saw what our flag meant to Americans. He was inspired to write the words...

He did not look over the battlefield and see “The Red, White and Green” of Mexico, and he did not write these words in Spanish for it was an American experience. A war fought by English speaking Americans. This Anthem should remain in English. Sing it in English or don’t sing it at all. And don’t change it to suit your separate culture. Don’t expect us to allow our National Anthem to be changed because illegal immigrants need a “rallying theme” for their demonstrations. Could you imagine what Mexico would do to U.S. Citizens if they went to Mexico to demand their anthem be changed to English and sung in public forums? The Federales would be in the streets armed to the teeth.

Ask yourselves, if immigrants that come into your country, say China, Canada, France, ect. and decided to change that countries National Anthem, that is normally sung in it's main language, what do you think the reaction would be?

I have heard that supposedly this is going to be an exact version of the english version, just sung in spanish, but I have seen excerpts from other places, like above, that has 'extras' added to the the spanish version, that it will not be the same as the American Version. Do you think that if an immigrant group decided to change and make another countries National Anthem into another language and change the meaning behind it to suit their own purposes, do you think these countries would sit back and allow this? That they would not be deeply offended by such actions?

What is next, an Illegal Immigrant Bill of Rights?
Illegal Immigrant Mexican/American Constitution?
Stuck on Stupid says, "What Next? A Latino Pledge of Allegiance?

It seems like the Laws of America only apply to those not in Congress most times, and now they wish to extend that umbrella so the Law does not pertain to Illegal Immigrants. All in the name of politics.

Here is a wake up call for you in Congress, while you pander to these Illegal Immigrants, realize of course, you are pissing off a good portion of your American Voting Base, whether it be Democrat or Republican. If you enjoy your jobs, which I know you do, I think you better wise up and start listening to your constituents!

MDiaz at Wizbang had an excellent analogy about illegal immigrants:

A man had a 10000 acre farm. He built up the land and added all the trappings a person could want. He invited people over all of the time to swim in the pool, and reap the rewards of his labor. People came from all around staying for days in his gardens, and living off the land.

One day a neighbor who was not as well off snuck in to his land and decided to set up a small cottage in a remote corner of the land. He worked hard and built up the little he had, as best as he could. Pretty soon other neighbors not as well off were doing the same. They ate of the land owner's gardens, and live stock. Used the land owner's electricity to power their houses, and swam in the land owner's pool.

All the while the owner's cost to maintain the land was rising. His electricity bill went up, the cost of replanting went up, and extra hands were needed to til the land that had, at one time, produced more than enough food. The land owner was no longer as wealthy as he used to be, and his family suffered for it. His invited guests no longer had food to spare, and his house was close to ruin.

The owner discovering what had happened, asked them to leave. When this didn't work he called in the police to help evict them. The trespassers decided to make a stand and claim the land as their own. They hired lawyers to defend their right to the land. They made accusations that the land rightfully belonged to them. They played the pity card and stated that all they wanted was the same chances that the land owner's family had.

The trespassers made a spectacle of themselves and made the landowner out to be an evil miser who wouldn't share his wealth when in truth all he wanted was for them to wait for an invitation.

When it comes down to it, it is called RESPECT.
I do not see respect for America in changing the National Anthem of America to suit your purposes.
I do not see respect for America in flying the Mexican Flag above an American Flag on American Soil.
I do not see respect for America in turning the American Flag upside down.
I do not see repsect for America in you saying that this is YOUR land.
I do not see respect for America in you saying give you citizenship OR ELSE!
I do not see respect for America in you breaking our Laws.
I do not see respect for America with your DEMANDS.

You do not ask to be given a chance, you DEMAND it of America. You break the Laws of America by coming into America illegally, you get offended when people call you an illegal alien (which you are, you are here in America ILLEGALLY) and you make DEMANDS of America.

How dare you!

How dare our politicians pander to you, and coddle you. If you are here illegally, you should basically have no rights that an American Citizen enjoys, because you are not one. If you decided to go through the immigration process like millions of other LEGAL immigrants before you, we would not be having this discussion, for you would be an American citizen, and not an illegal alien who snuck across the border. MDiaz I believe hits it right on the head with the analogy they put forth.

Whether you believe it or not, you will offend many people with this action of changing the American Anthem both in words and language.

Did you not learn anything of the reactions from Americans when you decided to turn the American Flag upside down, and fly the Mexican Flag above the American Flag on American soil?

Hotair has the following update:

Get a load of this wild interview on Fox News Channel’s Dayside with illegal alien strike advocate Javier Rodriguez. He praises the new illegal alien national anthem (”You have to go with it”), trashes our troops in Iraq (”you’re killing children”), and accuses Americans of “not allowing [illegal alien children] to go to college.”

See the video at Hot Air and at Expose the Left

See Sanity's Related Posts:
Georgia Governor Does What Congress Won't

Mexico and Americans Illegal Immigrant Comparison

Politicians Pandering to Illegal Immigrants

Immigration Bill Stalls - President Blames Reid

Where is the ACLU?

Odd Questions, Honest Answers

Others Blogging on this issue:
Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, California Conservative, Left Wing = Hate, Latino Issues, Mark in Mexico

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Qatar to Politicians: Shut Up

Gas supply fears drive up price of fuel. This is a proven fact throughout history.
As the rhetoric with Iran began the fuel prices rose...
Even when we went to war in Iraq, the prices rose...

These were because of fears in the market. These fears drive the prices up.

Even the Qatari Energy Minister sees this and suggests that if the politicians would quit with the rhetoric which is driving the prices up, if they would stop, he thinks prices would drop at least $15 a barrel.

Qatar: Price of oil would drop $15 if politicians shut up

ABU DHABI Qatar plans to invest $5 billion through 2010 in an attempt to increase the production of crude oil.

Qatari Energy Minister Abdullah Bin Hamad Al Attiyah said the price of oil would drop by $15 should politicians end their expressions of concern over a halt in supplies.

Al Attiyah said the record oil prices of more than $75 per barrel was the result of fears and speculation within the market.

Qatar intends to allocate $5 billion over the next five years to boost oil production capacity to 1.1 million barrels per day.

Current production was reported at 850,000 barrels per day.

"We are putting a lot of effort and investment into increasing our oil output," Al Attiyah said on the sidelines of the International Energy Forum in Doha on April 23.


Meanwhile it is true that oil companies are posting fantastic increase in profits, I believe that is partially due to increase in demand, but I have to admit it is shocking that oil profits are as much as they are:

The report comes amid consumer outcry in the U.S. about soaring gasoline prices. The average retail price of gasoline in the U.S. is now $2.91 a gallon, or 68 cents higher than a year ago.

In January, Exxon Mobil posted the highest quarterly and annual profits of any U.S. company in history: $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the full year.


NBC excoriated the company for "cashing in" at 9.5 cents per dollar, without noting how that's half the federal gas tax per gallon.


Question, if the oil companies are making record profits and the amount of profit they are making is HALF of what the Federal Gas Tax is, just how much is the Government raking in with federal taxes twice what the profit is for the oil companies?

So not only does Gas get taxed at the pump, but the oil companies also pay taxes on the profits they make (remember, their profit is HALF of what the Federal Government takes per gallon at the pump).

15 percent of profits went directly to shareholders in the form of cash dividends, and the biggest chunk, 40 percent, was used to repurchase Exxon's own stock." But ExxonMobil paid 83 percent as much as the $8.4 billion it earned, $7 billion, $2 billion more than a year earlier, in just federal income tax -- and a lot more in other taxes.

So while politicians play up the fear game, getting driven around on our taxpayer dollars in their own SUVs, grandstanding and driving the fear of higher gas prices and fanning flames of blame at the oil companies, we see what is NOT being reported, that 7 BILLION of the 8.4 Billion profit reported went to the Federal Government for taxes.


We don't hear about this in the grandstanding of the politicians, nor in the news media. They report on the profits but not the taxes at the pump and not the taxes paid out on those profits to the Federal Government.

Exxon earned 9.5 cents on every dollar of gasoline and oil sold, cashing in at every stage of the process." Yes, ExxonMobil cashed in by investing and working to get their product to the retail customer while the federal government collected 18.4 cents per gallon in tax for doing nothing, while many states swiped twice that.


Meanwhile, senators are proposing taking the profits of the oil companies and redistributing it back to the public.

Where I have I heard this type of rhetoric before?
You make too much, your too rich, we will take from you to give to the poor....

Not only does the government take 7 Billion of the 8.4 Billion in profits, but now makes the suggestion that out of what is left, that the oil companies should give back what remains of their profits to the public in $100 rebates? What is that, 2 tanks of gas?

Out of those remaining profits, these companies need to expand, reinvest back into the companies with supplies, machinery, upgrades, meeting newer federal government standards, pay employees, pay for services, pay investors...ect.

House and Senate conferees - as part of a broader tax package - were also considering a measure that would change accounting rules involving oil held in inventory, which would force the five biggest oil companies to pay an additional $4.3 million in taxes.


What do you think that will do?
Do you think if they hit the oil companies up for more taxes, when they are paying out of that 8.4 Billion, they have paid 7 Billion already in taxes, and the Senators want to hit them with MORE taxes, do you think that will reflect more or less at the pump?

I say it will drive prices up more to help offset the government leeches.

Meanwhile senators still stall on allowing drilling in ANWR, which would allow the US to become more independent on our oil, which in turn would bring the price of gas down since the crude oil would be ours and not by the barrel from OPEC. But let's be realistic, we will never completely free of buying from OPEC, the demand is too great. We will need to develop other sources to help us reduce our dependency on oil.

Political Gateway thinks that High Oil Prices: It's the Democrats, Stupid

He brings up an excellent quote about Enviromental whackos, which constantly push and lobby the Government for steeper and steeper standards for manufacturing and gasoline. Standards that the government is looking at relaxing to help relieve the high gas prices:

Environmentalists are not actually concerned with the well-being of man. Their real motive is to sacrifice man to nature by stopping industrial activity. For instance, Adam Kolton of the Alaska Wilderness League states, "Drilling the wildest place in America is objectionable no matter how it's packaged." David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, states, "We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have ... more value -- to me -- than another human body, or a billion of them."

Expect Clean-air activists to rally and protest now that this is being considered.
Also expect more appearances from the Angry White Man, Al Gore, with cords standing out in his neck and his face as flushed as Ted Kennedys, to rant about an increase in Global Warming if standards are relaxed.

Ann Coulter does make an interesting observation about Democrats and their grandstanding about gas prices now:

It's Hard Out Here For A Pump

By: Ann Coulter

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station."

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package." The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production. This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years.... But that's not going to happen .... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter - another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told - on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true - that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.

Does she accurately portrait the Democrats agenda when it comes to gasoline, big oil and reduction of dependence?

I realize she is highly snarky when it comes to talking about Liberals and Democrats, but if you dig through that, she does make some excellent points.

As we begin the ramping up of politics for elections, you can bet there will be a few major items being looked at: Iraq, Illegal Immigration (Border Security), and High Gas Prices.

Start looking at where your politicians stand on each point, remember this when it comes time....

See Sanity's Related Posts:
Gasoline Prices Predicted to Surge

Others blogging this issue:
Leaning Straight Up, Sister Toldjah, Michelle Malkin, Ms. Underestimated, Expose the Left, Stop the ACLU, Church and State, The Unalienable Right, Texas Rainmaker, Amy Proctor

NKU Professor and Student Co-horts Charged

Northern Kentucky University Professor who incited students of hers to help her in destruction of private property has been charged along with those that helped her.

The Women's Study professor whose feelings of outrage at a protest display for abortion of simple white crosses and a sign that said 'Cemetery of the Innocent' decided to display her anger by inciting several students to embark on criminal mischief in which they tried to say was their 1st Amendment Right to do, equating white crosses and the sign to that of Nazi Displays in Fountain Square.

Fortunately the Court System does not agree with them and they have been charged with Criminal Mischief, and Theft and the professor had an extra charge of Criminal Solicitation.

A professor and six students at Northern Kentucky University were charged Wednesday with misdemeanors related to the April 12 destruction of an anti-abortion display on campus.

Sally Jacobsen of the literature and language department, has been charged with criminal mischief, theft by unlawful taking and criminal solicitation. The third charge relates to evidence that she encouraged students to participate in the destruction, County Attorney Justin Verst said.

The six students, who range in age from 21 to 27, were charged with criminal mischief and theft by unlawful taking.

The theft charge is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $500 fine.

The criminal mischief and solicitation charges are class B misdemeanors punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $250 fine.

Verst said additional students might be charged as their identities become known.

Four hundred crosses representing aborted fetuses were pulled from the ground and thrown in trash cans around campus.

A sign explaining the temporary display, which had been approved by university officials as an expression of free speech, was also removed.

Jacobsen told reporters that she had "invited" students in her graduate-level British literature course to exercise free-speech by destroying the display.

She said she was offended by the simulated cemetery, which she considered intimidating and harmful to women who might be considering abortions. NKU's campus newspaper, the Northerner, published photos of Jacobsen dismantling part of the display.

Since the incident became public, NKU's president has received hundreds of e-mails from throughout the country condemning the professor's actions. She was placed on leave last week, and substitutes were assigned to her classes for the rest of the semester...


Additional students may be charged as their names are discovered.

She had no idea there would be so much fallout, and she is sorry for the hurt she caused.

Unfortunately this is the mindset of alot of those that get caught doing the wrong thing or breaking the Law. It is also the mindset of those that act on their feelings and not with their heads, and find how they acted and how people reacted to how they act, suddenly sorry for what they did.

They say it is never their intentions to cause such outrage...
Or they were exercising their 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech...

It is not till the public at large condemns such actions that they finally notice that perhaps they stepped over the line.

I will counsel this though, even though I deplore the actions she took in the theft and destruction of private property because of her 'feelings of outrage', hate mail sent to her is just as deplorable. There is no reason why such mail should ever have to be sent. You stoop to the levels they react in and become that which we so hate in what they do and become no better than those who act like this professor and her student co-horts did.

Jacobsen will plead not guilty, Grubbs said. Grubbs said the dismantling of the display doesn't amount to a criminal act.

"The intent was just an expression of freedom of speech," Grubbs said. "She saw harm coming from it, and she was just expressing her attitude towards the harm."

Unfortunately she still does not realize Destruction, Vandalism and Theft of Private Property is not a protest right under the First Amendment. You do not have the right to trample on the rights of others.

NKU sophomore Katie Walker, president of the Right to Life group responsible for the display, said one of the students called her to apologize a day after the vandalism. She could not recall the student's name.

"She was very upset about the whole thing. She said she kind of felt intimidated into those actions, and she felt horrible about it."

Understanding AFTER the criminal act has been done, but understanding none the less. It is also very eye opening and disconcerting that the student felt 'intimidated' into those actions, and I assume that intimidation came from the NKU professor. Scary thought that students can be so intimidated by their professors that they engage in destructive acts on behalf and with their professor.

"It wasn't just theft. It wasn't just vandalism. It was the violation of a right we hold sacred," Walker said, referring to free speech. "That kind of behavior needs to have repercussions."

I believe this is true also.
Whether this professor wishes to believe or not, she trampled on the free speech of others. She could have exercised her free speech any number of peaceful ways, but instead decided to act in an aggressive destructive manner, in destroying, vandalizing and theft of private property that other students had gotten permission from the NK University to put up.

She did not have permission of the owners of the display nor the University to take down the display either.

Verst said that based on the evidence presented by NKU police, he would have brought charges regardless of the Right to Life group's position.

"I thought it was pretty clear-cut. Obviously, there's strong feelings on both sides as to the issue involved, but the subject matter of the signs didn't play into my decision."

Lastly, Verst is correct, no matter what the position, it did not matter.
It was pretty clear cut about the Law.
No matter what your feelings are, you still need to obey the Law.

See Sanity's Related Posts:
NKU Professor Sally Jacobsen Update

Professor Equates Crosses to Nazi Displays

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Humpday Across the Blog-O-Sphere

What is being discussed on some of my favorites blogs....

Michelle Malkin breaks it down about the horrifying case of illegal alien serial killer Angel Resendiz. Another reason why we need a crack down on Illegal Immigration.

Michelle Malkin also has the low down on the Unhinged Democrat Campaign Workers who went on a tire slashing spree against Republican vehicles on Election Day 2004. All I can say is...about time.

Sister Toldjah has the 6 Degrees of Mary McCarthy, in which McCarthy has links with Joe Wilson (PlameGate), Sandy Berger (Likes to walk around with Classified Documents shoved down his pants), Ty Cobb (Clinton's Defense Attorney for the Whitewater Investigation), Donations and Links to John Kerry (Kerry has been defending her outright), Richard Clarke and many others. Read it. It is really amazing the links this person has.

Sister Toldjah also has the confirmation of Tony Snow as White House Press Secretary. Here is hoping that Mr. Snow keeps the media on track, and in their place as reporting the news....not making it.

Texas Rainmaker has an excellent break down of the gas crisis with "More Pain in the Gas" with several updates. Nice graphics with oil profits vs other industries profits to put things in perspective. He also breaks down the Pump Price Components, where the price is coming from and how much of it goes for profit, crude oil, taxes, ect. Definately a worthwhile read.

Expose the Left has the video segment of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele who appeared on FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes. He talks about the politics of hate that the Democrats are engaged agaist him because he is a Black Republican. Alan Colmes defends the Democrats while Steele puts Alan Colmes in his place. Give it a watch.

Leaning Straight Up has an excellent break down and reporting of the callousness and cold-heartedness of ABC News and Diane Sawyer, that caught a girls beating on tape, reported the story and ignored the crime itself - and the victim. It's all about the news story after all. Still think they have the public interest in mind when reporting stories? ABC had proof that would have helped convict a child abuser, but because of the time elapsed, he walks free because of the Statute of Limitations has passed, all due to ABC News and Diane Sawyer. Thanks Karl, this was truly an eye-opener.

Say Anything has the laugh of the day for me, which came in the form of an email that stated the following:

A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country. Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil. We just didn't know we were getting low.

The reason for that is purely geographical. Our OIL is located in Alaska, California, Oklahoma. Texas, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming.

Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington DC.

Political Money Line shows Sen. Clinton’s War Chest Grows to $19.7 Million.

Atlas Shrugs talks about a Victor Davis Hanson book called Mexifornia and offers up additional information about illegal immigration that has been overlooked, like the following:

Some little discussed tidbits

These first 10 from the Los Angeles Times.

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

Go and read the rest, it is very interesting.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Segregation Returns to Nebraska?

NEBRASKA'S legislature has covered itself in shame, voting to turn back the clock on race relations by allowing the Omaha school district to divide itself along racial lines.

The action violates the Constitution's equal-protection clause, and it is in direct opposition to the 52-year-old Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that said segregated public schools are unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, didn't have the fortitude to veto the bill. He signed it into law, meaning that Omaha will be permitted to divide its schools into three districts: white, black, and Hispanic, beginning in 2008.

Nebraska legislators fell for the argument that separation along racial lines will give minorities more control over their children's educational progress.

Sadly, the state's only black senator, Ernie Chambers, who is from Omaha, is part of the problem. He correctly points out that all-black schools frequently lack resources and experienced teachers. But he's wrong in believing that carving up the 45,000-student system into racial groups will somehow ensure that minorities are not cheated by a system that favors whites.

Public schools with large minority populations nationwide similarly lament a lack of resources and concede that their teachers are inexperienced. Most districts, though, use techniques to improve minority students' performance. Until now, nobody has suggested resurrecting Jim Crow.

Ironically, Omaha schools are less segregated than most large cities. Omaha's is 46 percent white; 31 percent black, 20 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent Native American. Returning to segregation is not the way to improve conditions between races. It will only widen a rift that's already too wide, too old, and quite frankly, tiresome.

The bill ought to be - and presumably will be - declared unconstitutional. Nebraskans who took the time to think know this. Omaha Sen. Pat Bourne decried the bill, adding that his state is one of the first in 20 years to move backwards on race relations. Attorney General Jon Bruning is sure there will be lawsuits. Omaha School Superintendent John Mackiel said the bill won't stand. Legislators are expected to develop yet another plan.

If this is some sort of a cruel joke to turn attention to how public school districts shortchange minorities, it's working. But the proposed solution is no improvement. There is no time clock on laws established to ensure equality for every American, regardless of race, color, or creed.

Plenty is wrong with the nation's public schools, and the sorry performance of minority students is one problem. However, there are better ways to address their academic shortfall. State-sponsored segregation is not one of them.


Segregation is never the answer.

We as a country went to long and fought to hard to END Segregation.

I understand when resources are thin or not enough to deal with teaching many students, but that is when you find ways to get the resources, expand your teachers, and the ability of your teachers to do more. Pay your teachers better.

Anything to help education, and to meet the responsibility of teaching the children, BUT Segregation along racial lines is NOT the answer. You bring back the era of Jim Crow, and era best left dead and forgotten.

This is an embarrassing leap backwards in racial equality.

More than 50 years after the United States Supreme Court said American children should not be separated by the color of their skin, Omaha students may soon head to class in school districts essentially divided by race.

Ernie Chambers, the Nebraska state senator behind the new law, says Omaha is already divided economically, socially and racially. "Segregation," he says, "exists right now."

"Our children are failing, the schools are failing," Chamber says. "The gap between the achievement of white children and black children in their respective schools is not narrowing."

Chambers says each group should be allowed to govern their own schools.


The gap between achievement of white children and black children in their respective schools is not an excuse to separate them by race and have them go to racially segregated schools!

Chambers mentions a divide between them, but I don't see an explanation on WHY there is a gap between them.

Is Chambers saying that teachers are not teaching as well or not enough to minority children of Black and Hispanic? If so, is he hinting that teachers are racially motivated in their teachings?

I would like to know why the gap exists, but somehow I don't think it has anything to do with race. It could be a number of things from economic factors to motivation. This does not mean that children of different race or color are not being taught because of being a different race or color.

Segregation is not the answer.

Sandra Jensen, the president of the Omaha School Board, calls it a step back. "This is 2006, for goodness sake," Jensen says, "And what they've done is gone back to pre-Brown vs Board of Education."

"This is a dangerous sign of the fragmentation of the United States into separate racial communities," says Harvard University's Prof. Gary Orfield, adding, "It would be a horrible precedent."

Student Veronica Barrientos agrees. "In my opinion, I think it's an embarrassment," she says.

Some students, like Justin Blackson, fear it sends the wrong message. "That just kinda makes everything that our civil rights leaders did... kinda puts it in vain," he says.


Brown vs Board of Education

Plessy vs Ferguson

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954. Linda Brown was denied admission to her local elementary school in Topeka because she was black. When, combined with several other cases, her suit reached the Supreme Court, that body, in an opinion by recently appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren, broke with long tradition and unanimously overruled the 'separate but equal' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, holding for the first time that de jure segregation in the public schools violated the principle of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Responding to legal and sociological arguments presented by NAACP lawyers led by Thurgood Marshall, the court stressed that the 'badge of inferiority' stamped on minority children by segregation hindered their full development no matter how 'equal' physical facilities might be. After hearing further arguments on implementation, the court declared in 1955 that schools must be desegregated "with all deliberate speed."

Restricted in application to de jure (legally imposed) segregation, the Brown rule was applied mainly to Southern school systems. After strong resistance, which led to such incidents as the 1957 Little Rock, Ark., school crisis, integration spread slowly across the South, under court orders and the threat of loss of federal funds for noncompliance. The Brown decision gave tremendous impetus to the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and hastened integration in public facilities and accommodations. Segregation maintained by more subtle and intractable forces, however, has remained an important element in American society. De facto school segregation, caused by residential housing patterns and various other conditions rather than by law, has been attacked by the busing of students and other mechanisms.


The law, which opponents are calling state-sponsored segregation, has thrown Nebraska into an uproar, prompting fierce debate about the value of integration versus what Mr. Chambers calls a desire by blacks to control a school district in which their children are a majority.

Civil rights scholars call the legislation the most blatant recent effort in the nation to create segregated school systems or, as in Omaha, to resegregate districts that had been integrated by court order. Omaha ran a mandatory busing program from 1976 to 1999.

"These efforts to resegregate schools by race keep popping up in various parts of the country," said Gary Orfield, director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard, adding that such programs skate near or across the line of what is constitutionally permissible. "I hear about something like this every few months, but usually when districts hear the legal realities from civil rights lawyers, they tend to back off their plans."

Nebraska's attorney general, Jon Bruning, said in a letter to a state senator that preliminary scrutiny had led him to believe that the law could violate the federal Constitution's equal protection clause, and that he expected legal challenges.


David Sokol, the chief executive of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, which employs thousands in Nebraska and Iowa.

"This is going to make our state a laughingstock, and it's going to increase racial tensions and segregation," Mr. Sokol said in an interview.


Brenda J. Council, a prominent black lawyer whose niece and nephew attend Omaha's North High School, said of the law, "I'm adamantly opposed because it'll only institutionalize racial isolation."

Other black leaders in Omaha criticized the new law.

"This is a disaster," said Ben Gray, a television news producer and co-chairman of the African-American Achievement Council, a group of volunteers who mentor black students. "Throughout our time in America, we've had people who continuously fought for equality, and from Brown vs. Board of Education, we know that separate is not equal. We cannot go back to segregating our schools."

More here:

Arguments Against
Those against the Bill consider it state-sponsored segregation. In particular, Omaha Senator Pat Bourne warned, "We will go down in history as one of the first states in 20 years to set race relations back."

Bourne accuses Senator Chambers of ignoring the facts, and points out that contrary to Senator Chambers' assertions, schools have indeed already begun to successfully integrate: 58% of elementary schools, 64% of middle schools, and 74% of high schools have a more diverse student population than their surrounding neighborhoods, he said. In addition, he says that administrators already spend $1300 more per student in non-White areas. He also warns that under the new Bill, enrollment funding would not follow a student choosing to attend a different school, and that administrators would have the sole authority to determine when a school is at capacity. These points, he suggests, may create disincentives to go out of district, will not only result in more segregation, but also unequal funding.

Senator Gwen Howard of Omaha also opposes the Bill and articulated strong words once it passed: "History will not, and should not, judge us kindly." Still others are suggesting that the bill is in violation of the Constitution's equal-protection clause, and warn that lawsuits will almost certainly be filed.


It sounds as if this bill is allowed to stand, it could very well increase the difficulty and damage to schools. In doing this, funding would cut in schools per child, since schools get a certain amount per child that attends, separating them like this would cut funding for Black and Hispanic even more. The majority is 46% White, 31% Black, 20% Hispanic, and 3% Native American. If you separate along racial lines, making school districts of each race, for each race, then funding would reflect per student to each racially divided school district.

If the greater group per student is white, which district will get more money per student?

When the other districts are still failing, are still having problems, what will be blamed then?

Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, signed the measure into law. Sen. Pat Bourne of Omaha decried the bill, which passed 31-16. "We will go down in history as one of the first states in 20 years to set race relations back," the Democrat said. "History will not, and should not, judge us kindly," said Democratic Sen. Gwen Howard of Omaha.

I am sure this will be challenged Constitutionally, and I believe this will be over turned by the higher courts.

It seems there is already legal precedent in Brown vs Board of Education and Plessy vs Ferguson, that shows that this is unconstitutional. But I suppose that is for the higher courts to decide and interpret.

This does look bad for the school district and Omaha, even if deemed legal, which I don't think it will be, this still makes it look very bad for racial equality in Omaha, Nebraska.

Nebraska Bill LB1024 can be seen HERE (PDF Format)

Gov. Heineman's Statement Before Signing Schools Bill, LB 1024

Gov. Heineman's Statement on Second-Round Advancement of LB 1024

Gov. of Nebraska, Dave Heineman: Background

Others blogging this issue:
The Buck Stops Here (Has a good take on it), Beyond the Segregation/Integration Paradigm, The Return of Separate But Equal, Discriminations

Friday, April 21, 2006

Tribute to the Troops

View the video on the side bar (Scroll Down).


From farms in the country, from cities and towns,
from places quite humble, from places renowned,
from fact'tries, from stores and from offices tall,
from service professions, from shops in our malls,
come citizen soldiers our country to serve
as full-time professionals, guard or reserve.

From mothers and fathers and husbands and wives
from children and lovers and friends in their lives
our citizen soldiers depart despite tears
on missions of danger in spite of their fears
as seflessly, proudly and bravely they serve
that freedom of conscience and Faith be preserved.

To you who defend us, we proudly proclaim,
our pride in the deeds you have done in our name.
To citizen soldiers our humble refrain:
We thank you, we thank you for deeds in our name.

In caves and in tunnels where murderers train
unspeakable terror they face in our name.
With principled discipline, training and skill
in taming the instinct to kill or be killed,
our citizen soldiers have honored our name,
so, proudly we thank them for deeds in our name.

They serve in the skies and at sea and on land,
in mountains and jungles and deserts of sand,
on foot and in foxholes, in trenches and tents,
in tanks and on submarine mission descents,
in planes and on ships and on carrier decks,
in Humvees and hangars and convoys on treks.

To you who defend us, we proudly proclaim,
our pride in the deeds you have done in our name.
To citizen soldiers our humble refrain:
We thank you, we thank you for deeds in our name.

For risks to themselves they increase as they strive
to minimize dangers to innocent lives,
so we and posterity freedom retain,
unspeakable evil they face our name.
Our citizen solders have honored our name,
so thank them we must for their deeds in our name.

[Final Chorus]
To you who defend us, we proudly proclaim,
our pride in the deeds you have done in our name.
To citizen soldiers our humble refrain:
We thank you, we thank you for deeds in our name.

Copyright 2005 Lyrics: James R. Wrenn, Jr.; Melody: Lindsey Smith, William D. Brown & James R. Wrenn, Jr.

Vocal (for "demo" version): Bradley S. Bennett

Big Hat Tip: PoliSat

Friday Funnies

Thursday, April 20, 2006

NKU Professor Sally Jacobsen Update

It seems that NKU Professor Sally Jacobsen has been removed from her remaining classes and put on Administrative Leave. She is also set to retire by the end of the semester.

Statement by President James C. Votruba

Posted 04/18/2006
I am writing to comment on the recent destruction of an approved campus display created by the Northern Kentucky Right to Life student organization.

One of the important roles that a university must play is to be a forum for debate and analysis concerning the important issues of the day. Often these issues are surrounded by strident rhetoric and strong emotions, which makes it even more incumbent on the university to create and nurture an intellectual environment in which reason and evidence prevail and where all points of view can be heard.

Northern Kentucky University has a distinguished record of addressing important public issues in a balanced way. We are proud that, as a campus, we are not the captive of one ideology or point of view. At their best, universities are not places of comfortable conformity. They are places where ideas collide as students and faculty search for deeper understandings and perspectives.

While the University supports the right to free speech and vigorous debate on public issues, we cannot condone infringement of the rights of others to express themselves in an orderly manner. By leading her students in the destruction of an approved student organization display, Professor Sally Jacobsen’s actions were inconsistent with Northern Kentucky University’s commitment to free and open debate and the opportunity for all sides to be heard without threat of censorship or reprisal.

It has been heartening that student and faculty groups that do not necessarily support the position of Northern Kentucky Right to Life have come out strongly in support of the organization’s right to be heard through their display. This reflects a commitment to the importance of free speech and inquiry as a hallmark of our University.

Professor Jacobsen has been removed from her remaining classes and placed on leave from the University. She will retire from the University at the end of this semester. The Faculty Senate, representing more than 1,000 NKU faculty members, has taken strong action today that affirms the importance of free expression as a defining quality of the University. Our campus has spoken with a strong and unified voice. Further action may occur once a full investigation has been completed.

The action taken by the University should be considered in the context of Professor Jacobsen’s entire 27-year career at NKU. Nevertheless, her recent lapse of judgment was severe and, for a period of time, has caused some in our community and beyond to question whether Northern Kentucky University upholds freedom of expression. My answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. NKU lives its commitment to free expression and responds when that commitment has been compromised.

America is, today, debating a variety of polarizing issues around which people feel great passion. It is not surprising that these strong sentiments find their way onto college campuses. However, our role is to add light to these debates, not more heat. If we don’t serve this role, who will?


Her NKU Webpage has been removed also: Link
This may be what happens when a professor is put on Administrative Leave, I do not know.

Sister Toldjah has an article on contact and Jacobsen's apology:

The Northern Kentucky University professor responsible for dismantling an anti-abortion display April 12 has stopped talking to the media and has been placed on administrative leave.

Dr. Sally Jacobsen returned The Northerner’s calls Tuesday evening and said she has been advised by her attorney not to grant any more interviews. She directed further inquiries to her attorney, Margo Grubbs of Grubbs Law Firm in Covington, Ky.

However, in an e-mail dated April 18, Jacobsen wrote to students whom she invited to join the demonstration. “I want to do everything I can to keep any of you from being specifically named,” she said. “And I am very sorry I got you involved in this.”


The Display has been restored and an apology has been issued from professor Jacobsen, though by the president of the University, there is still a full investigation to come and further action may be warranted.

The president of the University makes an excellent plea for understanding, and of calm debate when it comes to differing ideas and issues.

He agrees that what this professor did was severly wrong, but they took into consideration her 27 years of teaching at NKU, which I think is the only right thing to do. You do not judge a person solely on a bad choice, even if it was a severe as this one is. You take into account everything.

There will always be differing ideas and opinions in all that we think and feel, but we must learn to not act in the heat of the moment, nor let common sense be over run by your feelings.

I too am guilty of this, but for a good debate of ideas and opinions, we need to learn to do so without violence, or infringing on each others own rights of both privacy and freedom of speech.

See Sanity's Related Posts:
NKU Professor and Student Co-horts Charged (Newest)

Professor Equates Crosses to Nazi Displays

Others Blogging this issue:
Sister Toldjah, RightWinged, Leaning Straight Up

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Media's Gas - Rumsfeld says, "This Too Shall Pass"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed confidence on Monday that the controversy over retired generals demanding his resignation will pass, and the White House emphasized its support for him.

Six retired generals, including two who commanded Army divisions in Iraq and one who headed efforts to train Iraqi security forces, have sharply criticized Rumsfeld, saying he disregarded military advice and ruled by intimidation.

"Well, you know, this, too, will pass," Rumsfeld said in a radio interview on Monday when asked about the retired generals and the news media attention given to their criticism.

President George W. Bush on Friday gave Rumsfeld an emphatic vote of confidence, saying that the 73-year-old Pentagon chief's "energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period," and that he "has my full support and deepest appreciation."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Monday, "There are many challenges that we face, and the president has tasked Secretary Rumsfeld and our commanders to meet those challenges, and they are meeting those challenges."


I do not think Secretary Rumsfeld is overly worried about what the media is trying to play up with these few generals speaking out.

There will always be differing opinions on how things should run.
These few generals did not think Secretary Rumsfeld was doing this right, so they waited years to retire, then to speak out.

Meanwhile there are plenty of other generals, and other officers that fully support Secretary Rumsfeld.

Unfortunately though, the Media will only hype and play up the few that dissent, and we will barely hear of the ones that support.

Support is not news, but dissenting generals they can spin into a frenzy of media attention!

Asked how it felt to go from Washington sex symbol to having "practically the entire media jump on the case of these six generals demanding your ouster," Rumsfeld said, "You know, this, too, will pass."

"I think about it, and I must say, there's always two sides to these things, and the sharper the criticism comes, sometimes the sharper the defense comes from people who don't agree with the critics," Rumsfeld said.

The attacks on Rumsfeld's leadership and military judgement have carried unusual weight because his critics include three recently retired senior commanders in Iraq and a former operations chief of the Joint Staff.


Four other retired generals, writing in The Wall Street Journal newspaper Monday, said it was inappropriate for active duty or retired officers to criticize the civilian leadership during a war.

"Calling for the secretary's resignation during wartime may undercut the US mission and incites individual challenge to the good order and discipline of our military culture," they wrote.

The four -- John Crosby, Thomas McInerney, Burton Moore and Paul Vallely -- said Rumsfeld was "arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had."


The Pentagon has long had a practice of briefing retired senior officers and experts with Washington think tanks but it intensified in 2003 when many of the so-called "armchair" generals were criticizing US tactics on television.


Personally, I really consider this story a non-story.
I don't see it getting much traction in the public first of all.

Second, if the media was looking for any type of balance, they would be looking to both sides, and be including those that are in support of Secretary Rumsfeld.

I think the Secretary said it best with:

"I think about it, and I must say, there's always two sides to these things, and the sharper the criticism comes, sometimes the sharper the defense comes from people who don't agree with the critics," Rumsfeld said.

Image Credit: Link

From Expose the Left:

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The president knows as I know that there are no indispensable men. “The graveyards of the world are filled with indispensable people.” No, he knows that I serve at his pleasure, and that’s that.


See Sanity's Related Posts:
LT Colonel of the US Army Responds

Putting 6 Retired Generals into Perspective

Others Blogging this issue:
Sister Toldjah, Expose the Left, Instapundit, JunkyardBlog, Flopping Aces, The Political Pit Bull, Right Wing News, Outside the Beltway, Don Surber, Big Lizards, David Limbaugh, Texas Rainmaker, Say Anything

Georgia Governor Does What Congress Won't

Ga. Governor Signs Strict Immigration Bill

ATLANTA - Georgia's governor signed a sweeping immigration bill Monday that supporters and critics say gives the state some of the toughest measures against illegal immigrants in the nation.

"I want to make this clear: we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not, anti-immigrant," Gov. Sunny Perdue said at the signing.

"We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."

There is nothing wrong with wanting everyone who lives in the state of Georgia, and the United States, to abide by the Law.

In all the protest, in all the arguements, I have yet to hear anyone really address the fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the Law. I read that illegals want this or that for free, or they want citizenship RIGHT NOW, but do not address that they bypassed proper procedures in getting into the United States and broke its Laws.

I have yet to hear their reasoning behind the thinking that if they break the Law, and bypass proper procedures for entering the country (ahead of law abiding immigrants who go through the process for citizenship)why they think they deserve special treatment above any other immigrant who came to this country legally.

I hope this begins a trend in the States, as the inaction of the Government causes the States to take a more direct action in dealing with this issue.

The law requires verification that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of employees.

The law also requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest.

The measure is believed to be the first comprehensive immigration package to make it through a statehouse this session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Many of the new law's provisions will not take effect until July 1, 2007.

The bill drew protests at Georgia's state Capitol and prompted a daylong work stoppage by thousands of immigrants.

Tisha Tallman, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said she was studying potential legal challenges to the bill.

The new law will not affect emergency medical care and educational benefits for those in kindergarten through 12th grade, which federal courts have said must be provided regardless of immigration status.

Exemptions were also added for some other services like prenatal care and the treatment of communicable diseases.

The move to tighten rules in Georgia comes as lawmakers in Washington wrestle with competing proposals to shore up controls at the border, create a guest worker program and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Outside the Capitol on Monday, a few hundred supporters of the legislation applauded loudly when word came that Perdue was signing the proposal.

The crowd waved American flags and cheered as state Rep. Melvin Everson, one of the Georgia House's two black Republicans, denounced illegal immigration as a cancer and proclaimed: "The last time I checked, America was the land of English — not Spanish."

And they hollered as Republican state Sen. Chip Rogers, the bill's author, called it "the strongest single bill in America dealing with illegal immigration — bar none."

At the bill signing, Rogers said he has been approached by lawmakers from South Carolina and Colorado who were interested in crafting similar proposals for their states.


The basics in health services and education is met, they will not be cut from those services, but other services they will.

I am not sure what type of sanctions will be imposed on employeers who hire illegal immigrants though, they were not specific, but I do hope it is something that will make the business's think twice when hiring illegals.

I would like a comprehensive break down on this, so we understand it a bit better, but by the way it seems they have the main portions of it in good order, cutting out certain services that are not life threatening, keeping life-saving services and K-12 Education, and sanctioning business's that hire illegals.

Let's hope that Congress is watching and taking notes.

The American People are sick of inaction, and a large portion of voters see this as a MAJOR issue, not only about illegal immigration but in the Security of our Nation.

Get it together Congress, because the States are making you look like buffoons.

"It's our responsibility to ensure that our famous Georgia hospitality is not abused, that our taxpayers are not taken advantage of and that our citizens are protected," Perdue said before signing the law.

But Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, backed by key law enforcement officials, vetoed the bill in her state, the nation's hot spot for illegal crossing of the roughly 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border, saying there were no resources to pay police and prosecutors for an increased burden.

Under the proposal, first-time offenders would have faced a misdemeanor charge and up to six months in jail. A second offense would have been a felony, punishable by up to one year in jail.

Arizona officials also were concerned about its effect in the community.

"There is a real concern that crimes will go unreported by immigrants for fear that they would be turned into federal agents," said Wendy Balazik, a spokeswoman for the 20,000-member International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Law enforcement would lose valuable information."

But state Rep. Russell Pearce said the governor needs to take a stand to slow the flow into Arizona.

"It is a federal responsibility, it is everyone's responsibility," said Pearce, a Republican behind several bills targeting immigrants. "When are we going to wake up and start enforcing the law?"

So Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would enforce the law, because they do not have the resources to deal with it?

So does this mean that enforcing the Law is selective, and up to the Governor and law enforcement, to decide which laws to enforce and which not to?

If you do not have the resources, don't you think it is time to get the resources to deal with an increasing problem of illegality in your state Governor Napolitano?

Other provisions of the Georgia law prohibit employers from claiming a tax deduction for wages of $600 or more paid to undocumented workers, impose prison terms for human trafficking and limit the services commercial companies can provide to illegal immigrants.

"It's a punitive bill," said Sara Gonzalez, president and chief executive of the Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "This is a very complicated issue, and I don't see any good coming out of this."

"If you are not a U.S. citizen, you should not receive a U.S. benefit," said Steve Bray, a Georgia resident who was waving a U.S. flag and said he supports legal immigration.


Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce says that they do not see anything good coming of this, but I and others who consider this nation very weak on border security, do.

* It is time to hit the business's that think they can hire illegals with impunity.

* It is time to hit the illegals who come in here seeking a free ride or to bypass normal entry into America.

* Illegals, some of them, want to berate and degrade America and what American Citizens want for our country - yet they insist it is their RIGHT to come into this country illegally; they insist on coming into the America even though they have nothing good to say about it, it seems.

I see that no matter what kind of bill or law is passed that tries to deal with illegal immigration, illegals and Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will ALWAYS have a problem with it, will always 'see nothing good coming of it'.

That is because they do not want anything to be done, and believe they should have automatic citizenship, and assorted other free 'Rights'.

Congress better start waking up, because there is a large portion of the American Citizens that are just plain fed up with the inactivity of our Government in protecting our borders.

See Sanity's Related Posts:
Bastardizing the American Anthem

Mexico and Americans illegal Immigrant Comparison

Politicians Pandering to illegal Immigrants

Immigration Bill Stalls - President Blames Reid

Where is the ACLU?

Odd Questions, Honest Answers

Others Blogging on this issue:
Michelle Malkin, JURIST, California Yankee, Conservative Outpost, Public Figures....Beware, The Buzz, PeachPundit, Slobokan's Site O Schtuff,

Pity Party Planned for Poor Killer Moussaoui

From the AP:

Moussaoui's Mental Health Questioned

The battle over Moussaoui's mental health has begun in earnest. A defense psychologist, Xavier Amador, testified Monday that Moussaoui is a paranoid schizophrenic who suffers from delusions.

Jurors must decide whether Moussaoui should be executed or serve life in prison without parole, their only options since Moussaoui has already pleaded guilty to conspiring with al-Qaida to fly planes into U.S. buildings.

One of Moussaoui's jail guards offered a few more details of Moussaoui's dream during testimony Monday. Deputy Vikas Ohri said Moussaoui has told him that after Bush frees him, he will "fly to London, write a book, make some money and go back to the mountains of Afghanistan and be al-Qaida."

He said he has also seen Moussaoui standing in front of a wall talking to himself. He asked Moussaoui about it once, and Moussaoui said he was practicing for court.


Is this going to be the standard for when terrorists are brought before a court?
We will look at their history, they were beaten, they were degraded...
Why must we excuse their actions?

Dammit people it is time we stop playing games with terrorists, both in and out of the court rooms.

Questions on his mental health? Are you friggin kidding me?
He is a terrorist. He freely admits it.

Moussaoui has told him that after Bush frees him, he will "fly to London, write a book, make some money and go back to the mountains of Afghanistan and be al-Qaida."

He must be thinking of Clinton and being pardoned that way.

But if this stupidity of questioning his mental state, he may not be far from the truth with the rest of that quote, if they set this terrorists free.

From Reuters:

Moussaoui said mentally ill, mistreated as child

Defense lawyers trying to save Zacarias Moussaoui's life presented evidence on Monday that the September 11 conspirator was a schizophrenic who had an abusive father and an unsettled childhood.

Witnesses were brought forward to try to blunt the impact of Moussaoui's recent testimony on the first day back in court since he announced that he had no remorse for the September 11 hijackings and said he wished Americans more pain.

Moussaoui has pleaded guilty to six counts of conspiracy in connection with the September 11 attacks and his lawyers are trying to convince the 12-person jury not to sentence him to death.

Dr. Xavier Amador, a witness who is an expert in schizophrenia, said he had diagnosed Moussaoui with the disease and said several other experts had confirmed his opinion.

Several witnesses, including Moussaoui's two sisters, said he had a rough childhood and an abusive father who beat all four siblings and their mother.

"Zacarias ... suffered from not having been loved by his father," said his oldest sister, Nadia, in videotaped testimony. "We were terrorized."

Clinical social worker Jan Vogelsang said Moussaoui was in and out of orphanages for the first six years of his life, as his mother struggled to deal with her four children while trying to separate from her abusive husband.

As he grew up, Moussaoui was seen by his friends as outgoing and fun. Several childhood friends from France said Moussaoui enjoyed parties and going out at night as a teenager.

One friend, Gilles Cohen, said he and Moussaoui had often joked about how they could be friends even though Cohen was Jewish and Moussaoui was of Moroccan descent.

Cohen's testimony came shortly after Moussaoui yelled "death to the Jew" at a break. Moussaoui often yells out curses after the judge and jury leave the room and has frequently targeted Jews, including his lawyer Gerald Zerkin.

Moussaoui's friends said he changed after he went to London in 1992 to study international business and learn English. They said had become much more serious about Islam, had grown a beard and was less outgoing.

An imam at the mosque Moussaoui first attended in London said Moussaoui was initially pleasant and eager to learn about Islam but then got involved with fundamentalists.

In videotaped testimony, Brixton mosque chairman Abdul Haqq Baker said he eventually asked Moussaoui to leave the mosque once he got involved with more extremist Muslims. Baker said Moussaoui became disrespectful and he was concerned he might try to spread extremist views.


Moussaoui said mentally ill, mistreated as child

Are we suppose to feel sorry for him?
Hell, I will give you a tip about me, I was mistreated as a child also, does this mean I can go around killing people?

See through this rediculous ploy.
Keep playing the the 9/11 tapes, show the pictures, REMIND the jury and the media this is what he is on trial for.

Several witnesses, including Moussaoui's two sisters, said he had a rough childhood and an abusive father who beat all four siblings and their mother.

How many people have been abused, have been beaten, and they do not become terrorists.

"Zacarias ... suffered from not having been loved by his father," said his oldest sister, Nadia, in videotaped testimony. "We were terrorized."

Nice way to try and equate why he became the way he is, because he was 'terrorized', so obviously the sane conclusion would be that he would become a terrorists because of it, right?

An imam at the mosque Moussaoui first attended in London said Moussaoui was initially pleasant and eager to learn about Islam but then got involved with fundamentalists.

In videotaped testimony, Brixton mosque chairman Abdul Haqq Baker said he eventually asked Moussaoui to leave the mosque once he got involved with more extremist Muslims. Baker said Moussaoui became disrespectful and he was concerned he might try to spread extremist views.

Does schizophrenia explain his clarity up to the point he got involved with extremist Muslims? It is only when he got involved with terrorists that suddenly he is mentally unstable or schizophrenic? I do not buy it.

So does this mean he is crazy also?
Maybe he was beaten as a child, or 'terrorized' as a child.
Maybe he is not responsible for his actions.

Incase you do not remember him:

A University graduate careened his silver Jeep Grand Cherokee through the Pit on Friday about noon, striking nine pedestrians and sending six to UNC Hospitals.

Michelle Malkin posts on it Here, Here, Here, and Here.

And how about these kids?

Does this mean they are mentally unstable?
They will not be responsible for their actions when they kill people?

But remember, they are only misunderstood.
If we TALK to them, try and UNDERSTAND why they are killing...

They do not want to talk.....

There is no reasoning with terrorists, and those that support them....

They seek your death.
They think it will grant them virgins and a place in heaven with your deaths.

Is there any reasoning with terrorists who think they will be rewarded with a place in heaven and 72 virgins if they kill you?

Proclaiming "I am al Qaeda," terrorist conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui disrupted the opening of his sentencing trial Monday and was tossed out of court as selection began for the jurors who will decide whether he lives or dies.

An often volatile figure in his proceedings, Moussaoui was removed from the courtroom four separate times. "This trial is a circus," he declared. "I want to be heard."


Twice he declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. "I will take the stand to tell the whole truth about my involvement," he said.

"I am al Qaeda. They (his lawyers) are Americans. I'll have nothing to do with them."


A French citizen, Zacarias Moussaoui, 37, pleaded guilty last April to six counts of conspiring with al Qaeda in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The only person convicted in a U.S. case in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Moussaoui has said that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden personally instructed him to fly an airplane into the White House. The convicted terrorist was arrested on immigration violations in late August 2001 and was in custody at the time of the attacks. On April 3, 2006 a jury recommended that Moussaoui be put to death.

Falls back into protecting our borders again, does it not?
He was arrested on IMMIGRATION violations.

How many other acts of violence, deaths, rapes, and other crimes can be averted if we just enforce Immigation Laws!

Could 9/11 have been averted if we did?

The testimony of Rosbrook, who was staying at a hotel near the twin towers that day, was the emotional peak of an emotional day. A day on which jurors saw people choosing to jump to their deaths rather than stay inside the trade center. Witness after witness -- children who lost their parents, police officers who lost their partners and a mayor who was worried he'd lost his city -- spoke of the jumping, the desperation.

"That was a man on fire as he fell through the canopy. Those are the remains of his body," Rosbrook testified in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

A former New York City firefighter spoke of seeing his close friend die after he was hit by a falling person -- and he spoke of the body parts he saw on the streets as the towers were aflame. A New York City police officer broke down as he remembered his wife, also a police officer, who died evacuating people from the burning buildings.

Jurors even heard from the most famous New Yorker of all, former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who turned heads as he strode into the courtroom but offered the same heart-rending testimony as everyone else, recalling how he ran for his life as debris rained down around him.

"It was the worst experience of my life," Giuliani told the rapt jurors as he testified next to a scale model of the towers. "It meant the loss of friends I can't possibly replace. . . . Every day, I think about it; every day, a part of it comes back to me. It can be the people jumping, the body parts, seeing a little boy or girl at a funeral."

Through it all, family members of Sept. 11 victims remained mostly stoic as they sat in court, wiping away an occasional tear or silently shaking their heads. A member of Moussaoui's defense team had tears in her eyes. A court clerk placed several boxes of tissues in the jury box during a break in the proceedings.

Moussaoui, the only person convicted in the United States on charges stemming from Sept. 11, had a different reaction. If he wasn't looking bored or glancing at the clock, he was smiling -- especially when prosecutors played more than 10 video clips that showed the hijacked planes hitting the towers and the buildings burning and crashing to the ground.

And when his attorney offered condolences to Giuliani for "the many losses you have suffered," Moussaoui furiously shook his head.


I do not think we should allow Moussaoui to become a martyr , he should rot in a maximum security prison with hardened criminals for the rest of his life.

Moussaoui Unfazed as 9/11 Attacks Detailed

Defendant Smiles as Prosecutor Describes Doomed Flight During Death Penalty Trial

The moment Raskin described the plane hitting the tower, Zacarias Moussaoui nodded, a smile creasing his lips. As he left the courtroom, where jurors will determine whether he lives or dies for his role in the attacks of that day, he pumped his fist and shouted, "God curse America!"


Waiting for the Liberal 'feel good' left to come and protest in front of the court in support of Moussaoui:

It hasn't happened, but I think it is only a matter of time.

Others Blogging on this issue:
Michelle Malkin, ShrinkWrapped, The Counterterrorism Blog, Decision '08, The Anti-Jihad Pundit, The Uncooperative Blogger, Big Lizards, Black Five, Sicilian Notes, Tel-Chai Nation, Debbie Schussel