the silence of good men is what allows evil to continue

The scummy, evil, anti-Christian, anti-American, socialistic ACLU has shown it’s true face even more by fighting to DENY people their freedom of speech.

Despite a federal appeals court ruling this month that lets Tennessee put “Choose Life” on license plates, it isn’t clear when — or even if — the tags will ever hit the road.

The American Civil Liberties Union is likely to appeal to the full panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, said yesterday.

Pirate’s Cove notes:

So, people in Tennessee are performing their Constitutional Right to Free Speech and want the plate. The ACLU, on the other hand, wants to deny said people their Free Speech. Instead of seeing if people in Tennessee want a, say, “Choose Choice” plate, the ACLU will use their Communist Party background to say “Nyet! We will choose your Rights for you.”

Tennessee should not let the ACLU and other groups hold the plates hostage, said state Rep. Glen Casada, R-College Grove.

“They’re playing it too safe,” Casada said. “Just because there’s a chance for appeals, there is no reason to stop what the 6th Circuit said was OK to do. … It’s time to move forward.”

This is absolutely right. Tennesee should fight back.

First of all, the ruling does not allow state dollars to promote one viewpoint while “silencing another.” Nothing in the ruling or in the State’s desire to promote life silences anyone from being pro-choice. Pro-choice advocates have the same alternatives available to them as before the license plates were created.

from Stopthe ACLU

What right is being violated here, none, As stated, the ACLU is fighting to deny people rights. Did you hear the ACLU fight to allow the Christian teacher in Vermont to continue to post his painting of George Washington painting. No. But they will defend terrorists, athiests, and child pornographers. Well just in case you still don’t get it……

“Communism is the Goal”

Roger Nash Baldwin: Founder of the ACLU

Looks like the big story today has been the duel reporting between the Washington Times and the New York Times about the testimony of 5 FISA judges.

The NYT’s reports it like so:

Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

Five former judges on the nation’s most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president’s constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

While the Washington Times reports it like this:

FISA judges say Bush within law

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

“If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.”

WTF!

What is going on here? Were these two reporters at the same hearings or on alternative planes of existance?

Powerline thinks he has the answer:

These reports can’t both be right. If what the Washington Times says is correct, the New York Times’ account is deeply misleading, if not outright false. As we noted here, Eric Lichtblau has a huge personal investment in the idea (wrong, I think) that the NSA program is “illegal.”

I think he has hit the nail on the head. Recall that this reporter and this paper were the ones who illegally leaked a highly classified operation in the first place, all to get their names emblazoned across the foreheads of liberals everywhere. Lichtblau has a HUGE stake in this story and will spin this anyway he can to make himself come out smelling like roses.

Steve Spruiell at NRO located the transcript and compared Lichtblau’s summary with the transcript:

In the second paragraph of the story, Lichtblau wrote:

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president’s constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

The only reporting I can find in Lichtblau’s story to back up this assertion is contained in the next paragraph, where he writes:

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law “like everyone else.” If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, “the president ignores it at the president’s peril.”

It only takes one look at the transcript to see how Lichtblau has changed the meaning of this quote by taking it out of context. At the time, Baker was on the receiving end of an aggressive line of questioning from Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein. Here’s the relevant passage:

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Now, I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress’ power to pass laws to allow the president to carry out domestic electronic surveillance. And we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority — are those rules then binding on the president?

[U.S. District Judge Allan] KORNBLUM: No president has ever agreed to that.

When the FISA statute was passed in 1978, it was not perfect harmony. The intelligence agencies were very reluctant to get involved in going to court. That reluctance changed over a short period of time, two or three years, when they realized they could do so much more than they’d ever done before without…

FEINSTEIN: What do you think, as a judge?

KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, “I surrender all of my power to a statute.” And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president’s authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority.

FEINSTEIN: I’d like to go down the line, if I could, Judge, please. Judge Baker?

[U.S. District Judge Harold] BAKER: Well, I’m going to pass to my colleagues, since I answered before. I don’t believe a president would surrender his power, either.

FEINSTEIN: So you don’t believe a president would be bound by the rules and regulations of a statute. Is that what you’re saying?

BAKER: No, I don’t believe that. A president…

FEINSTEIN: That’s my question.

BAKER: No, I thought you were talking about the decision…

FEINSTEIN: No, I’m talking about FISA and is a president bound by the rules and regulations of FISA?

BAKER: If it’s held constitutional and it’s passed, I suppose he is, like everyone else: He’s under the law, too.

FEINSTEIN: Judge?

[U.S. District Judge Stanley] BROTMAN (?): I would feel the same way.

FEINSTEIN: Judge Keenan?

[U.S. District Judge John] KEENAN: Certainly the president is subject to the law. But by the same token, in emergency situations, as happened in the spring of 1861, if you remember — and we all do — President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and got in a big argument with Chief Justice Taney, but the writ was suspended.

KEENAN: And some of you probably have read the book late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “All the Laws But One.” Because in his inaugural speech — not his inaugural speech, but his speech on July 4th, 1861, President Lincoln said, essentially, “Should we follow all the laws and have them all broken, because of one?”

FEINSTEIN: Judge?

(UNKNOWN) [probably U.S. District Judge William Stafford]: Senator, everyone is bound by the law, but I don’t believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the president’s power under the necessary and proper clause under the Constitution.

And it’s hard for me to go further on the question that you pose, but I would think that (inaudible) power is defined in the Constitution, and while he’s bound to obey the law, I don’t believe that the law can change that.

FEINSTEIN: So then you all believe that FISA is essentially advisory when it comes to the president.

(UNKNOWN): No.

FEINSTEIN: That’s what you’re saying.

I don’t mean — my time is up, but this is an important point. If the president isn’t bound by it…

SPECTER: Excuse me. It was four and a half minutes ago. But pursue the line to finish this question, Senator Feinstein.

FEINSTEIN: I don’t understand how a president cannot be bound by a law.

(UNKNOWN): I could amend my answer to saying…

FEINSTEIN: But if he is, then the law is advisory, it seems to me.

(UNKNOWN):* No, if there’s an enactment, a statutory enactment, and it’s a constitutional enactment, the president ignores it at the president’s peril.

* Lichtblau attributes this quote to Harold Baker

Throughout the long line of questioning, each judge appears to support the argument that the president did not act illegally when he used his constitutional authority to order the NSA to eavesdrop on people in the United States receiving phone calls from suspected al-Qaeda terrorists. Baker merely stated the obvious — that if the president had circumvented a statute without having the constitutional authority to do so, he would be doing so at his peril.

I wonder if Lichtblau can point to anything in the transcript that justifies his assertion that “several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president’s constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.” Because the transcript I read indicates that the exact opposite is true.

Chalk this up to another liberal reporter telling a fairytale to get the President in trouble. There is no way in hell this will come out any other way other then the President has the authority under the constitution to protect this country. And listening to Al-Qaeda as they call into the US is just freakin common sense. The FISA court judge who resigned was upset because they looked at the issue through a law enforcement lense. This is NOT and never will be a law enforcement issue again, especially after Clinton treated this as such and look at the results. 9/11.

from Flopping Aces

You may have seen the headline yesterday: the Gallup poll reported a shift in political identification, such that self-described Democrats now outnumber Republicans by a single point. Editor & Publisher described this as “a (perhaps) historic shift.” But wait! Haven’t the parties been more or less in a dead heat for some time now? Yes. And what does that say about all the other polls you’ve seen in the last year, where Democrats typically outnumber Republicans by anywhere from five to thirteen points in the survey sample?

Captain Ed makes the point eloquently:

A one-point difference, especially in a poll of 1,000 adults, falls within the margin of error in any case. It’s interesting and revealing to see E&P cast this as a “historic shift” when Gallup reports that this has been unchanged for almost a year. Either E&P has a strong case of analytical illiteracy or they want to put a spin worthy of John McEnroe on what amounts to a lob.
But one issue does arise from this fresh polling, one that undermines practically every political survey published in the past couple of years. If party identification is so close as to be a dead heat, why do polling services routinely underrepresent Republicans? CBS polls routinely overpoll Democrats so badly that their results are hardly worth the effort of analyzing. Their last major poll had a disparity between Democrats and Republicans of thirteen points — which they corrected to a nine-point difference. Surprise! It found that Bush’s approval numbers had dropped!

Here’s another that CQ noted earlier this year. Despite undersampling Republicans by 5 points, the NSA terrorist surveillance program managed to garner majority support, with or without warrants. CBS actually had their raw numbers correct in this poll, but “corrected” them through weighting to give Democrats a five-point edge. Again, it should surprise no one that this allowed CBS to report that Bush had suffered another drop in support in May of last year.

Now we have a benchmark against which to measure these polls. Any poll purporting to take the political temperature of the American electorate that doesn’t reflect these rather steady numbers should receive the scorn it deserves. The polls that we have seen thus far in 2006 all fail the sampling test…

I actually did see one poll last year that over-sampled Republicans, but that’s more or less like catching a glimpse of a passenger pigeon. Baseball genius Bill James has been on my mind, because we’re trying to track him down to invite him to be a guest on our radio show. James once wrote that he thought Wrigley Field was partly responsible for the Chicago Cubs’ generations-long record of futility, in this way: because Wrigley is so batter-friendly, the Cubs’ management has persistently over-rated their own hitting talent, and thus have been too willing to stand pat with rosters that are in fact inadequate. I wonder whether the polls similarly lead the Democrats to overestimate their electoral prospects, thereby contributing to their Cubs-like futility in recent years.

from Powerline

Click Here!.

The absolute failure of Martin O’Malley’s school system has reached the point where the state has to take over to save the students being deprived of a quality education. From WBAL.

Following years of failing grades and failing students, the state is moving forward with plans to take over 11 Baltimore City schools.

State school Superintendent Nancy Grasmick presented her plan to the Maryland State Board of Education on Wednesday morning. The board deliberated for two hours before voting to approve the plan and use the power of the federal No Child Left Behind Act to step in — which could represent the first action of its kind nationwide.

As you can imagine, Baltimore City officials are not to happy, as The Baltimore Sun quotes.

City school officials were furious late last night. “This political [expletive] is eroding our ability to educate the children of our city,” said Brian D. Morris, chairman of the city school board.

And WJZ has this from O’Malley himself.

Mayor O’Malley vowed to fight the board by enlisting the help of state lawmakers or taking the state board to court.

That’s great. While kids in his school system are failing and not getting the education they need, Martin O’Malley is running around threatening lawsuits. Maybe he should spend more time fixing the failing Baltimore City school system and less time worrying about filing lawsuits.

Just think, if O’Malley becomes Governor, he might just bring his “success” with the Baltimore City school system to the entire state of Maryland….

by the HedgeHog.

Baltimore County’s “business newspaper,” The Jeffersonian, reports in its March 28, 2006 edition that the county is proposing to buy 20 apartment buildings in the troubled 2400 and 2500 blocks of Yorkway. The problem is the outrageous deal they have offered the owner. She will receive $2,200,000 cash, and either payoff or relief of an additional $5.3 MILLION in outstanding loans and other obligations. That $7.5 MM benefit, spread over the 80 rental units translates to the county paying her slightly more than $93,000 per unit, for apartments that are in Section 8 rental. They propose to buy some more apartment buildings in the same two blocks, so the area can be “redeveloped.” At the rate the money is being spent, this will mandate the construction of dwellings costing in the half-million dollar range, easily three times the average sale price for existing homes in Dundalk. This is a lousy way to solve crime problems among Section 8 tenants, and a disservice to the surrounding residents, who for having the temerity to stay put will have their tax assessments raised at the same time their properties will become less competitive if offered for sale.

Here’s a letter I wrote to Councilmen Olszewski and Oliver (the former being councilman for the district where the properties lie, and the latter being councilman for the district in which I live.)

I am aghast at Mr. Smith’s proposal to have the county buy the 20 apartment buildings from Landex Corporation, as it has been described in The Jeffersonian. Ms. Siegel has, with the management of these apartments, created a public nuisance and allowed it to continue. It is wrong to reward her with over $2 million in cash, and wipe her other financial obligations off the books. Here are a few reasons why:

1. This proposal reveals a serious double-standard on the county’s part. If I owned a two- or four-unit building whose tenants posed a public nuisance, the county would probably prosecute me. Prosecution of drug offenses would likely result in government seizure of the building. Siegel has multiplied the situation by a factor of twenty, yet the county is rewarding her, substantially.

2. The total cost works out to more than $93,000 per unit. By fair market standards, that is a generous price, even if the apartments were converted to market-rate rental or condominium ownership. If, as the Jeffersonian reports, the plan is to demolish the buildings, fair market price should be the price of the land, perhaps reduced by the demolition costs. If the condemnation proceeded according to standard practice, the owner would be compensated according to the highest-and-best use of the property, irrespective of the existing improvements. The current proposal has all the earmarks of a sweetheart deal.

3. It is doubtful that the community will benefit from having these buildings demolished and the land redeveloped. In the eyes of existing property owners, infill development has only negative consequences–it raises tax assessments for them, while depressing the potential resale values of their properties. Ask anyone who owns a 30 year old house next to a spanking-new subdivision.

4. It appears that Section 8 is here to stay, and we’d best learn to deal with it. If it’s true that people receiving the vouchers are more troublesome and crime-prone, it would be best to keep them concentrated in one area. To deliberately spread out the problem disturbs more people in more neighborhoods, and strains police resources all the more.

5. Finally, if Section 8 vouchers often end up in the hands of petty criminals, substance abusers, drug dealers and other such people, local governments need to hold HUD responsible. The feds need to establish and vigorously enforce standards of behavior when they are doling out money. At the very least, they ought not support people who engage in criminal acts.
Accordingly, I hope you will not vote to support the purchase of these properties, as the deal has currently been structured. There may be problems on Yorkway, but this is not the way they should be approached.

If either of these councilmen respond, I’ll post their replies. But don’t hold your breath…

by Blogger 1947

by Steve Whisler – March 29, 2006

Everyone should be aware of recent Baltimore Sun articles by Eric Siegel on March 21st, 27th, and 28th about a troubling social experiment to move Baltimore City’s public housing residents into wealthier suburbs in surrounding counties.

Driven by an 11-year-old court case (Carmen Thompson et al. vs. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development), a federal judge is likely to rule that suburbs surrounding Baltimore City must absorb 3,000 new low-income public housing units and nearly 4,000 vouchers over the next 10 years.

I am very troubled about this effort to sprinkle the poor among various suburban neighborhoods with the hope to improve their plights. It almost parallels the fallacy that one would become wealthy if they merely socialized and interacted with those who are already wealthy.

Even more disturbing is that public housing residents will be moved into more than 200 census suburban tracts characterized as communities of opportunities. As the president of one of Baltimore County’s largest community organizations, I can assure you that my counterparts throughout the county and I have no idea where these communities of opportunity might exist.

Perhaps there may be some merit to the notion that Baltimore City’s poorest will be exposed to better schools, jobs, and opportunities – not a very difficult assessment if one compares opportunities in the City and surrounding counties. However, one thing is certain – we in the suburbs already experience tremendous shortfalls in public infrastructure, including overcrowded and underperforming schools, short-staffed police precincts and fire stations, dwindling open space, overcrowded traffic on our streets – you get the picture.

I personally believe this is an attempt to disperse poverty into prospering, well-to-do neighborhoods so that the poor will be less visible and barely noticed by society. There also may be some gains for liberal candidates at ballot boxes in neighboring counties. I doubt this effort will result in substantial gains for those who live in or near the brink of poverty. As usual, they will be cast aside and their voices will no longer be in unison, but diluted among those who experience a not-so-bad lifestyle in the suburbs.

As it stands now, many of the poor exist in noticeable pockets in our society … this visible group of people prompts societal concern and action by some politicians. If politicians implement this strategy to spread out the poor across wealthier neighborhoods, the plight of the poor may worsen, particularly if society develops a perception that the problem of poverty in our city and counties is not that bad anymore.

I personally do not know the answer to this complex problem that contributes to the plight of Baltimore City’s public housing residents. Whatever happens, I and other community leaders in the counties ask that we be made part of the process. However, I predict that we will forced to yet again react instead of work alongside elected leaders to help ease the plight of the poor and preserve the fragile infrastructure in which we live, work, and play.

US cuts off contacts with Hamas-led government
By Paul Eckert

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States ordered its diplomats and contractors on Wednesday to cut off contacts with Palestinian ministries after a Hamas-led government was sworn in, the State Department said.

At the same time, President George W. Bush expressed support for the Palestinian people but repeated his position no U.S. funds should go to the Hamas leadership they elected.

“I think that aid should go to suffering Palestinians, but nor should it go to a government, however, which has expressed its desire to destroy its neighbor,” Bush said during a question-and-answer session after he delivered a speech on Iraq.

Hamas is formally committed to the destruction of Israel and is classed by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. It won a landslide victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections in January.

the link is here.

Free Muslims Coalition Applauds Decision to Release Abdul Rahman;

Demands Further Constitutional and Legislative Change

The Free Muslim Coalition (FMC) applauds the decision of the Afghan Supreme Court to
withdraw charges against Abdul Rahman who was charged with “attacking Islam” for
converting to Christianity. The Afghan government must however ensure
Mr. Rahman and his family’s safety or provide him with safe passage to a country which
can.

Furthermore, the release of Mr. Rahman must be complemented by constitutional and
legislative change to ensure that the freedom of religion and conscience are preserved,
and that no further prosecutions for apostasy can occur again.

According to Sami El-Behiri, co-founder and Vice President of FMC,
the freedom to choose ones own religion is sacrosanct and must be respected: “When it comes to faith only God can judge people. Religion is a direct relationship between the
person and God and at the end God will evaluate this relationship”.

“Any decision to prosecute violates the freedoms of religion and
consciousness guaranteed by the Quran, Islamic jurisprudence, and international
human rights law,”
says Thomas Haidon, chief legal advisor to FMC.

“Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution proclaims that Afghanistan will
honor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and treaties it accedes to. As
a signatory to the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Afghanistan is
legally obliged to uphold the right of the individual to choose — and change — their
own religion as set forth in article 18. Prosecution, as well as any subsequent
punishment, places Afghanistan in violation of international law.”

Confirming the Quran’s religious freedom guarantees, Islamic scholar, Professor Khaleel
Mohammed, cites several verses, including “There shall be no
compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never
breaks. GOD is Hearer,
Omniscient. [2:256]”

by Free Muslims

Chavez Readies Troops to Battle U.S.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said he wants to update military training methods to prepare for a “war of resistance” against U.S. troops.

He said Venezuela’s military has begun instilling in soldiers the concept of “asymmetric war” – in which guerrilla tactics like hit–and–run attacks are used to counter a stronger military force.

“It’s our responsibility to prepare ourselves for a war of resistance,” Chavez said during his weekly broadcast.
from NewsMax

The Democratic platform was devoted entirely to denouncing the war and was so extreme that many considered that they had lowered their sword before the enemy (surrender)

Quick, when was this?

Answer: 1864. But it could equally apply now.

The pro-slavery, peace with the south party has continues their history of treason by openly siding with our enemies, whether it is Chavez or Saddam.

Needs more examples, Let’s take Carter, the worst president in history.

He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory. He oversaw the elections in Haiti, against the expressed wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” Regarding North Korea’s dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him “vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country,” adding “I don’t see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”

Virtually all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” was “overly simplistic and counterproductive.” from vcrisis.

Vote Democrat.

Head of Arab League Pushes Nuke Programs

Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League, called on the Arab world today to get their nuclear programs going “with all speed and momentum.”

You know … for peaceful purposes. Nudge. Wink.

KHARTOUM, Sudan – The head of the Arab League called on Arab states Tuesday to work toward “entering the nuclear club” by developing atomic energy — a new concern for a Western world already trying to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fretting about a possible Mideast arms race.

Amr Moussa’s comments came as a surprise at a troubled Arab League summit meant to tackle crises ranging from Iraq to the Palestinian peace process. …

Moussa spoke to the gathered leaders at the opening of the summit, saying, “I would like to call on the Arab world to enter into the world of peaceful use of nuclear energy with all speed and momentum.”

“This is a legal right ensured for all states that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” he said.

Just yesterday, Charles Krauthammer envisioned a nightmare future, not of nuclear proliferation but of hyperproliferation.

That future is headed toward us, and it’s coming fast.
from LGF

And how does the media respond??? Here is some crap from CNN, as it continues to show why their ratings suck.

Hamas is not a terrorist orgnization. Terrorists dont run hospitals, schools and welfare schemes. It was wrong to label Hamas as such. Hope the US govt. corrects itself soon and help the palestinians in their quest for independence.

A group that believes there is no freedom of speech or religion is growing and becoming ever more agressive.
………….and nuclear.

And the Democrats and the MSM coddles them.

Wake up America!

Vermont Dems to Weigh Impeachment

by Cal Thomas

Observing the pro-immigration demonstrations in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta and elsewhere in recent days, I wondered: whose country is this? Why are many illegal aliens who broke our laws to get here and who continue to break our laws to stay here, demanding that the United States not only allow them to remain, but support them with the taxes of law-abiding citizens? Have we gone mad?

“Thousands Rally For Immigrants’ Rights” read a headline about the Phoenix march. What rights? If they are here illegally, they have the right to leave. They have no rights under our Constitution, anymore than I might expect the rights of a Mexican citizen should I choose to live illegally in Mexico. Marchers in Los Angeles carried Mexican flags, which should tell us about their primary allegiance.

There were work stoppages and school walkouts. Every person who left school or job should be required to prove they are in America legally. If they cannot, or will not, they should be deemed illegals and deported.

Immigration is developing into a major political issue. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, made a bid for the votes of illegals and their enablers last week. Clinton promised to fight a bill passed by the House in December and debated this week in the Senate. It would subject illegals, and those who knowingly employ them, to criminal penalties. Invoking biblical justification for her opposition to the House measure, Clinton said it “is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus himself.”

Democrats have been trying to make inroads on religious language and religious symbolism from the near-monopoly held by Republicans. But, like Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, who once spoke of the Old Testament book of Job as his favorite New Testament book, Sen. Clinton misfired. In the parable told by Jesus, robbers set upon a man, beat him, and left him “half dead.” A priest and a Levite passed by, refusing to help the victim. A Samaritan, despised by the Jews, stopped to help the man and also paid an innkeeper from his own pocket to care for him (Luke 10:30-37).

Notice that Jesus didn’t call on a government program for help. As for how this relates to illegal immigration, Jesus never counseled breaking laws.

Here is the real problem with illegal immigration. Many Americans believe we are losing our unique national identity. Census Bureau figures indicate the Washington, D.C., regional population will become “majority minority” in less than a decade. The biggest influx between 2000 and 2004 was among Hispanics, a considerable number believed to be here illegally.

The same demographic profile is reflected, or will soon be reflected, in many other major metropolitan areas and, in the case of California, an entire state. It isn’t race or ethnicity that bothers most legal residents of this country. It is our failure to make non-hyphenated Americans out of them. Instead of becoming English-speaking Americans, too many are retaining the language, customs, culture and political agendas of their native lands. No nation can long survive such an invasion without assimilation.

Forty-two states are currently considering bills related to immigration policy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nineteen of these states would restrict public benefits for illegals. Congress should act to create some uniformity.

A “guest worker” provision for those already here might work, but there should be restrictions on how long they can stay and a requirement that they return home before applying for legal admittance. Accompanied by much tighter control of our borders, such an approach would be in America’s best interests. And could we please put this country’s best interests first for a change?

Under no circumstance should there be amnesty for illegals, by whatever name politicians wish to call it. New illegal immigrants should not be allowed in until those already here are either fully and legally assimilated, or sent home when their work permits expire.

Too many politicians appear ready to sell the security of their country for the votes of illegals and their supporters. They must not be allowed to do so. Illegal immigration, along with national security, which are related, should be the top issues in the 2006 and especially 2008 elections.

from Townhall.com

It appears to me that it is unique among all the countries of the world that only in the Democracies are there so many ready to embrace those out to destroy them. It is difficult to me how anyone can consider such self hatred and loathing of their own country can only be destructive to it. Anyone wanting an example only needs to go to their nearest University.

Yale is apparently considering the addition of a new major in Modern Middle Eastern Studies, and some students think the problem with the current program is that it’s too pro-United States.

NELC major Tammer Qaddumi ‘06 said he thinks the current NELC program is “totally outdated” due to its emphasis on ancient and classical studies. But he described the classes on the Middle East in other departments as “trigger-word” classes along the lines of “Terrorism 101” that study Middle East issues from a U.S. perspective.

“What you want is classes that deal with contemporary political issues in the Middle East but that do it from an organically Middle East perspective,” Qaddumi said.

It appears it is not enough to not only learn history from the enemies perspective, why not have him sit besides you in class.

The group who facilitated Taliban spokesman Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi’s funding and acceptance to Yale is The International Education Foundation, and here’s a PDF document from their web site that shows the fuzzy-headed fluffy bunny reasoning behind it: International Education Bridge: The Pitch for Hashemi. (Hat tip: gs.)

OUR PLAN
…is to create a learning bridge between the people who “blame us” and the people “we blame”. Learning about them as they learn about us – international education. The first phase is modest: to take one former Taliban government official from Afghanistan and get him into a top university in the United States and support his education – and understanding.

And, while at that university, this Afghan will teach about the perspective and logic that led up to the Taliban playing a part in the action against us. Behind every action is a unique perspective and rationale. When this person returns to the political world in Afghanistan – he will be changed – those who met and listened to him – they will be changed.

Rahmatullah Hashemi was the chief translator for Mullah Omar who was the head and founder of the infamous Taliban of Afghanistan. At the age of 21, he became a roving ambassador under the foreign minister – Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil – and traveled to the west as translator and ambassador. In the spring of 2001 he came to the U.S. for a series of talks to try and bridge the growing gulf between the moderate Taliban and the U.S. government.

Rahmatullah’s education is unique and extensive. His formal school education ended in the 4th grade. He speaks four languages, is married with two small children, and his hobby is “gravitational theory as it applies to astrophysics.” Only a top educational institution would consider even talking to such a unique potential student.

Meanwhile in Iran, radical clerics are actually encouraging students to study in the United States and Canada, because they know it will only harden their beliefs. (Hat tip: Penraker.)

Many of Mesbah’s former students hold places in the Revolutionary Guard’s ideological and political section. The cleric encourages students to study in Canada and the United States, which critics say does little to soften their views. Most eventually return to Qom.

from LGF

A culture and country that embraces the enemy is a culture and country whose best days are behind them, and whose days may be numbered.

Another BIG discovery in the Saddam documents today. This one, dated Jan 23rd 2003, is written by the Assistant of the Iraqi Intelligence Director to the Director. In it is details about the fact that the Chinese government had learned of the WMD movement to Syria:

Beginning of the Translation of 4 pages report in document ISGZ-2004-028179

In the Name of God the Most Compassionate The Most Merciful

The Republic of Iraq

The Intelligence Apparatus

The respectful Mr Director of the Apparatus

Subject: The Frenchman Le Floch and the German Dieter Holzer

In the date of 10/1/2003 the two mentioned above arrived to the country in visit for two days only and they did during their stay with the following activities:

1. They met with the deputy of the Industry and minerals ministry and they spoke with him about the possibility of building the non working factories since the year 1991 and provide the country with the spare parts that the ministry needs in the domain of industry.

2. They met with Mr. Ghazi Faysal the chairman of the department First Political Department in the foreign ministry and they spoke with him about the following subjects:

A. The German Holtzer confirmed that Chancellor Shroeder does not like the Leader President but he still oppose the war and it is because of his stand on this he won the latest elections and in case his stand changes this will lead to his loss of the Chancellery and that he hot replacement is ready to win the position and he is the economy minister the German Clement from the ruling Socialist German Party.

B. He mentioned that a meeting in Beijing in the beginning of this month was held between the Prime minister of China and the German Chancellor Schroeder in the occasion of the opening project for the fast train and the latter was asked about the information that was obtained by the Chinese intelligence and it says that Iraq has moved his mass of destruction weapon to Syria and the German Chancellor told him that the German intelligence did not indicate this. And after two days the US state secretary went to Damascus to check on this with the Syrian government that in turn denied this news..

C. He suggested the idea of bringing the Pope John Paul II to visit the country because this visit cause Bush Junior to lose his balance and that he has good relation with the originally German (Ratzinger) in the Vatican and that the latter has influence through waving the card of the financial support that Germany give to the Vatican and it is estimated to be (around 6 billions dollars yearly).

D. He indicated that Chirac became a honorary President of Europe not through elections but through popularity since most of the countries of Europe oppose the war but this man is not courageous and he needs the support of Iraq and for example present what proves that his weapons of mass destruction were destroyed.

C. He express the readiness of French and German companies to execute projects in Iraq as long as the necessary moneys are guaranteed to execute these projects because its revenue decreased lately due the decrease of oil exports.

3.In our meeting with the German Holzer he spoke about the following subjects:

A. He was shown a secret report prepared by the French Army Chief of Staff who presented to Jacques Chirac warning him of the losses that the French troops suffered in Spain and Germany during Napoleon campaigns because the participation of France in the possible war against Iraq will let her suffer huge human losses because it is impossible getting the Iraqi President by aerial bombing and that the entering in street fights will be a disaster for them

B. He intend to buy a residential house in Baghdad under the name of his wife where as his wife is Palestinian and that he visited one of the houses in Arsat and he paid the house own (150) 150 thousand dollars but the latter asked for 300 thousand dollars.

4. Opinion:

A. There phone has been wiretapped for surveillance and they were followed and also the there was phone wiretap of the Syrian Jamal Saba for surveillance because they vist him and to control their relations and we will show the results later.

B. The Paris station informed us that they were coming to the country to prepare for a visit by the ex-German economy minister with a delegation of German companies to the country for commercial purposes and their visit to the country was shortened because this is not the first time we have doubts about their real intentions toward the country.

C. We prpose to continue in following them inside the country and direct the Paris station with the necessity to put them under an operation of check up and verification and observe their connections.

For your review Yours… with regards

The Assistant for the Director of Intelligence

23/1/2003

With friends like these.

So we have the Chinese telling the Germans that Iraq had moved it’s WMD’s to Syria, and then Germans telling the Chinese that it was not true.

Which version do you think the left will believe?

UPDATE

Recall that Colin Powell went on a trip to Syria on May 2nd, 2003:

DAMASCUS, Syria (CNN) — U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Damascus on Friday for talks with President Bashar Assad of Syria, which the United States has called a “rogue state.” ………

…..”From Tirana, the secretary flew to Damascus, which has been under U.S. pressure since the fall of the regime in Baghdad. Officials said Powell hopes to have a “full and candid” conversation with Assad and other Syrian leaders.

President Bush has accused Syria of harboring Saddam’s henchmen and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Powell has threatened sanctions against the country but also has said there are no immediate plans to expand the war in Iraq to Syria. Syria denies the allegations from Washington. “

And then during a interview shortly after he returned he stated that Syria denied any knowledge of where Saddam’s WMDs were:

MR. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Secretary, you remember before all of this started, you went before the United Nations and talked about weapons of mass destruction. You said, “We had evidence that large scores of these weapons were there.” Nobody has found them yet. Did you get any information while you were there about that?

SECRETARY POWELL: Not from the Syrians, no. And they say that they have taken in no weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Their position is that they think it unlikely that Saddam Hussein would have trusted them with such weapons. Nevertheless, we will continue to watch carefully, and any information or indications we have, we will follow up on them. I am still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found.

You have to keep in mind, however, that when we passed UN Resolution 1441 on a vote of 15 to zero, just voting for that resolution signs you up to the proposition that Iraq was not coming clean, with respect to their weapons of mass destruction programs. They were found guilty in that resolution, all 15 members of the Security Council who voted for it, guilty of having thwarted the role of the United Nations for 12 years, with respect to answering questions with — concerning the weapons of mass destruction programs.

When we said things such as, “What happened to all of the anthrax material you had? What happened to the botulinan toxics? Explain the discrepancies that exist.” They refused to do so. Now whether we ever find that amount of material, or are able to resolve the discrepancies, remains to be seen. But I am absolutely sure that they had weapons of mass destruction, and I am sure we will find them. And it was the judgment of the United Nations when that resolution was passed that we all believe the same thing.

UPDATE II
Some more of the document has been translated by Jveritas:

In another part of the document ISGZ-2004-028179 the Iraqi diplomat in Paris has a secret report about the Frenchman Loik Le Floch and his strong connection and influence over top level French official and French policy maker. This Le Floch is the Iraqi main connection and lobbyist to the French government. You can see in this letter the great interest of the French in Iraqi oil.

Here is some partial translation about Le Floch from the secret Iraqi intelligence report dated 25/11/2002:

Beginning of the Translation:

In the Nmae of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate

Secret

To the Foreign Ministry/ The Minister Office

The Frenchman Loik Le Floch

Following up on our letters 351 on 8/9 and 368 on 13/9 and 389 on 23/9 and 427 on 17/10 and 440 on 24/10 below is the following:

1.Upon his return from Iraq in his first visit on 5/7/2002 the counselor of French President Jacques Chirac and officials in the French foreign ministry called him and discussed with him the results of his visit to the country and the possible capabilities to develop the relations in the domain of OIL in Iraq, he confirmed to them the importance of developing the relation with Iraq in all domains including the OIL domain.

2. On the date of 5/9/2002 he met important personalities in the German parties an he confirmed to them the importance of standing with Iraq and he relate to them the same vision shown in the previous paragraph (1) that he related to the French officials ( we previously notified you with this according to letter 251 on 8/9)

3. In the date of 10/9 he met with on of the counselor of the German Chancellor Schroder and he informed him that the latter explained to President during their meeting in Germany from the risks of going behind the American position because their help to her will have dangerous implications on the world and he asked the French President not take any position without consulting with him (You were notified with this according to our letter 368 on 13/9).

4. He learned from his German friends that Chancellor Schroder convinced the French President to take a clear position from any American aggression against Iraq either by using his right for Veto against any new resolution that adopt the American point of view or continuing to refuse the principle of using power (You were notified with this according to our letter 427 on 17/10).

5. After his last visit to Iraq in 27/9 he was met by us and his meeting with Mr. Foreign minister and Mr. Oil minister left a positive effect and he started to defend Iraq and in a big way whether in his meetings with French and German officials or his interview with the TV channels an he confirmed that necessity of standing up against the American domination and he was convinced that his relation with us is best for him in light fo you arranging a meeting with Mr. Oil minister and he try now to distance himself from Saad Al Jader.

6. The German personality that he has strong relation with is the German Dieter Hans Halzer and who visited Iraq last Thursday (our subject letter 440 on 24/10).

7. It is possible to take advantage of the mentioned in the current moment by sending him to meet any personality whether in the Elysee Palace or the French Foreign ministry or the Prime ministry in addition of sending him to Germany when you see that to get her position. Your caring of him during his visit to the country will strengthen our relation with him and his influential and important personality in the French medium. He will be one of the important sources that through it we will penetrate the most important French institutions that fall within the goals mentioned in our annual report.

Please view… Regards

Signature…

24/11/2002

It appears that many of us were correct in our assumption that both Germany and France violated the UN sanctions to get oil

China France Germany Iraq Saddam WMD
from Flopping Aces

Indiana’s John Hostettler is trying for the fifth consecutive Congress to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union from receiving government funds when it succeeds at legal challenges to public expressions of religion.

This year, the Republican representative has more hope than before thanks to the American Legion. The country’s largest veterans organization, with about three million members, has aggressively thrown its influence behind Hostettler’s bill, and the persistent congressman is encouraged at his proposal’s prospects.

Hostettler’s measure, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679, is designed to close what he considers a loophole in federal law that has allowed organizations such as the ACLU to collect attorneys’ fees when they win lawsuits challenging religious symbols on public land or religious groups’ use of government property.

The American Legion released a 40-page document Feb. 28 urging its members to work for passage of Hostettler’s bill. The publication, “In the Footsteps of the Founders,” provides a blueprint for building local support for the legislation in an effort to urge members of Congress to approve it. The document has been sent to all of the nearly 15,000 American Legion posts, and the organization’s national commander, Tom Bock, has urged members in a written release to “educate and activate” their communities.

The American Legion “has really, really gotten behind PERA,” Matthew Faraci, the communications director for Hostettler, told Baptist Press. “They have been going around to other members of Congress and trying to make them aware how important this legislation is. We are really confident that there’s going to be action on this bill.”

PERA would change a federal law that allows attorneys’ fees to be paid by the government when a court finds a person’s civil rights have been violated. The bill would bar the awarding of attorneys’ fees when the deprivation of rights involves the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The ACLU and other organizations have gained attorneys’ fees in numerous cases in which they have won legal challenges to religious expression and symbols. These include:

– The ACLU was awarded nearly $800,000 in attorneys’ fees from the city of San Diego, Calif., in its successful effort to prevent the Boy Scouts of America, which acknowledges God in its oath, from continuing to use Balboa Park, according to the pro-family organization Eagle Forum.

– The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center gained about $540,000 from the state of Alabama in a successful challenge of the Ten Commandments monument displayed in the State Judicial Building by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, according to Eagle Forum.

– The ACLU received about $63,000 in a successful attempt to remove a cross from the Mojave Desert World War I Memorial in California, according to the American Legion.

That case prompted a unanimously approved resolution by the American Legion in 2004 urging Congress to pass legislation to bar attorneys’ fees in successful suits calling for the removal or destruction of such symbols. It also pointed to a special concern of the American Legion — the consequences for crosses, Stars of David and other religious symbols on veterans’ graves.

Bock called the removal of the Mojave cross a “very dangerous precedent. There are 22 national cemeteries with veterans at rest beneath religious symbols. There is nothing in the law to prevent groups like the ACLU from filing establishment-clause lawsuits against those sacred grounds and then receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

PERA “will restore legal balance in this country, and it will protect us from being the victims of this assault on our religious liberties,” Hostettler said in a Feb. 28 speech at the American Legion’s national conference in Washington, according to his written text.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described Hostettler’s bill as “deeply misguided and mean spirited.” He went on to tell BP that, “It is an attempt to deny Americans access to the federal courts to ensure their religious liberty rights.” However this statement is either deceptive or very uninformed. Hostettler’s bill only applies towards the “Establishment Clause” and does not affect religious liberty cases. What the bill does is put the financial burden upon the ACLU and other organization that diliberately threaten small local governments, and school boards with expensive lawsuits in which most do not have the money to defend. Most of these cases are settled outside of court. If the case goes to court and the ACLU win, they ask for huge amounts of money in legal fees. If the ACLU lose, they don’t have to pay a dime to the schools and local governments they challenged. They foot their own attorney’s fees defending themselves.

Many Americans are tired of the ACLU being paid millions a year in legal fees for cases in which they don’t agree with. If the ACLU’s cases have merit, let them stand on their own. These small schools and governments have a hard time affording the legal fees to defend themselves. The ACLU collect plenty in donations to fund their own attacks on America’s Christian heritage. Americans are tired of paying for it.

Support is picking up as local American Legion branches are joining in with the National.

The Oswego County American Legion is joining the national legion to take on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

At issue, the legion said in a press release, is a legal loophole that allows the ACLU to collect tax money for attorney’s fees after it files suit against the use of religious symbols.

Millions of dollars in taxes are collected in court-ordered attorney’s fees, the legion said.

The American Legion’s Oswego County commander, David Potter, said a bill now in Congress will prevent the ACLU from collecting such fees.

The awarding of attorney’s fees was mandated by the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Awards Act.

Thomas L. Bock, national commander of the American legion, said in the press release the act was “needed” but eventually abused.

“When out-of-court settlements are more cost-effective than the judicial process, then the system is clearly broken,” he said.

“Each time the threat of outrageous attorney fee awards by courts drives an out-of-court decision, lady Justice receives another black eye and justice is defiled,” Potter added.

Let your voice be heard. Write Your Representatives and Senators and tell them to support the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), H.R. 2679.
from Stop the ACLU

SIGN the ACLU’s PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU

You’ve probably already heard that Zacarias Moussaoui testified today that he and shoe-bomber Richard Reid had intended to hijack a fifth airplane on September 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House. That part of the plot was ostensibly foiled by Moussaoui’s arrest in August.

Well, maybe. Reid didn’t try to come to the U.S. until October, but maybe he would have flown over sooner had Moussaoui not been arrested. We may never know exactly what al Qaeda had in mind for Moussaoui–in fact, he may not know–but it is entirely possible that he was supposed to be part of the Sept. 11 attacks.

More interesting to me, frankly, was the testimony of a “senior figure in the CIA’s Laden unit” identified only as “John”:

[T]he court heard testimony that two months before the attacks a CIA deputy chief waited in vain for permission to tell the FBI about a “very high interest” al-Qaida operative who became one of the hijackers.
The official, a senior figure in the CIA’s Laden unit, said he sought authorization on July 13, 2001, to send information to the FBI but got no response for 10 days, then asked again.

As it turned out, the information on Khalid al-Mihdhar did not reach the FBI until late August. At the time, CIA officers needed permission from a special unit before passing certain intelligence on to the FBI.

[John's] testimony included an e-mail sent by FBI supervisor Michael Maltbie discussing Moussaoui but playing down his terrorist connections. Maltbie’s e-mail said “there’s no indication that (Moussaoui) had plans for any nefarious activity.”

He sent that e-mail to the CIA even after receiving a lengthy memo from the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui and suspected him of being a terrorist with plans to hijack aircraft.

September 11 presumably cured the obtuseness of the FBI supervisor who didn’t take Moussaoui seriously, but it’s only the Patriot Act that allows full communication between domestic law enforcement agencies and the CIA. Thank goodness the Democrats didn’t succeed in killing the Patriot Act, as Harry Reid once boasted.

from Powerline

I find it amazing that liberals so easily succeed in getting us to challenge beliefs and policies that have served our countries well for centuries. Well, if you tell a lie long enough, people believe it. The liberal joint attack on our values and on our military is not new, and thanx to the lying MSM enough people believe it to seriously threaten these institutions.

But it appears a few has had enough.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed the idea that Guantanamo prison detainees have constitutional rights and called European concerns over the issue hypocritical, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The comments, which Newsweek said were recorded at private appearance by Scalia in Switzerland on March 8, were made in advance of a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for this week on a legal challenge by a Guantanamo prisoner against U.S. military tribunals.

Newsweek quoted a human-rights lawyer and legal experts as saying the conservative justice’s remarks may compromise his credibility in deciding on the case facing the court, but it said Scalia did not refer directly to this week’s case.

“War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,” Scalia said in the talk at the University of Freiberg, according to Newsweek. “Give me a break.”

Asked at Freiburg whether detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have protections under international conventions, Scalia replied, “If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.”
the link is here

Are we all stupid? Combatants have NEVER EVER been given civil trials in front of a jury> So why is it all of a sudden wrong?? Because some stupid liberal decided it was.

But it isn’t.

This blame the victim mentality is the same mentality that is responsible for thousands being killed in our city streets because we refuse to get tough on crime. This is the same mentality that allows child molesters to get out of jail after only serving months in jail. This is the same mentality that wants to prevent us from spying on terrorists in our own country. This is the same mentality that weakens this country and helps terrorists to win.

For any liberals who want to continue to help our enemies?

Go move over there then.

Vandals deface Mass. sign honoring soldier

CHESHIRE, Mass. (AP) — The family of a Green Beret who was one of the nation’s first casualties in the war on terror in Afghanistan was outraged after discovering vandals had defaced a sign honoring the soldier with anti-war graffiti.

Daniel Petithory, 32, Sgt. 1st Class, died in a blast in Afghanistan in 2001.

“I felt like I was going to vomit,” said Michael Petithory, the brother of Army Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Petithory.

“It was just pure rage,” he told the North Adams Transcript.

Daniel Petithory was killed Dec. 5, 2001, along with two other soldiers when a U.S. bomb landed about 100 yards from their position north of Kandahar.

Michael Petithory discovered the vandalism on Thursday as he biked along the Ashuwillticook Trail.

The words “oil,” “Bush” and “Christian Crusade” and other phrases were written in black marker on the brown metal sign.

Family and friends cleaned the sign, which is one of three along a stretch of the trail that honors the Cheshire native. The other two signs were not vandalized.

Daniel Petithory was a recipient of the Silver Star and Purple Heart. He joined the Army shortly after graduating from Hoosac Valley High School in 1987. He is buried near family members in Cheshire Cemetery.

Police in Cheshire and Lanesborough are investigating, but there had been no arrests as of Friday evening. Cheshire, a town of approximately 3,500 residents, is about 140 miles west of Boston.
the link is here

There is no place in hell low enough for these asses.

First of all, to disrespect any grave is immoral and the jerks obviously place little value on a religion. But in my opinion, liberalism and any kind of real religion contradict each other.

Second, these punks insulted someone who defended THEM.

I do not consider myself violent, but if I ever met these punks, I would teach them to respect the dead.

Third, these people are so stupid they do not even realize that the only one allowing these idiotic America haters to continue to say and do what they want (and generally contribute to America’s decline) is the military.

So to sum it up for these learning impared pacifists,

If it wasn’t for a military, there is no Democracy.

idiot