BOYCOT ARIZONA NEWS FEED

Loading...

A call to action

A call to action
If you don't like the picture, BITE ME!

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

MY OWN MANIFESTO

This Manifesto shall be superseded by one from President Thomas S. Monson, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, of which may be a bitter pill, but if the Church is sending 60,000 Missionaries worldwide to preach the Gospel of the Lord, laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070 must be repealed or declared unconstitutional, and certain Members of the Church are in danger of being apostates with the reputation of Warren Steed Jeffs.



The Mission of the Church is being frustrated by the anti-immigration fervor being promulgated by certain Members of the Church. SB 1070 was authored by Church Member and State Sen. Russell Pearce. Pearce has allied himself with known White Supremacists, with whom that they hate Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Polynesians, Catholics, Jews, etc. Facts that support the passage of the bill are very erroneous in that the rancher that was supposedly murdered by one or more undocumented immigrants. However, the rancher may have been murdered by one or more citizens of the United States.


The goal of SB 1070 is for peace officers in Arizona to stop anybody who appears to be an undocumented immigrant. That means that without further training, any Latino of Mestizo descent would be stopped, and if not carrying any identification or proof of citizenship or legal residency would be arrested, and in some cases deported to Mexico or elsewhere, without establishing probable cause for the stop or arrest, and would also deny due process and equal protection of the laws to the same.


Pearce also advocates denying citizenship to babies born in the United States to unborn immigrants. These little children have done nothing wrong, and to deny their citizenship is the equivalent of infant baptism, a solemn mockery!


The Book of Mormon states on its Title Page that it’s intent is to convert Gentiles, Lamanites, and Jews. We Mormons believe that the Lamanites are the ancestors of Native Americans, Polynesians, and those of mixed blood, i. e., Latinos who are of Mestizo descent, or descendants of Whites who in Spanish and Portuguese Colonial times, interbred with Native Americans. Descendants of Lamanites are descendants of the Israelite Tribe of Manasseh. The goal of the Church and its Members, including it’s 60,000 full-time Missionaries, is to recover the Gentiles, Lamanites, and Jews, not condescend, harm, or even kill.


The actions of Pearce, and every so-called “Mormon”, who is in support of SB 1070, and similar pro-hate legislation are not of my Church, and it’s Mission to teach the Lord’s True Gospel. The Goal of the Church is to baptize the people, convert them without condescension, and to prepare the people for the Second Coming of our Lord. The actions of Pearce, and every so-called “Mormon”, have already affected the Church’s Missionary efforts in Arizona and may end up affecting the Church’s Missionary efforts in all other 49 States and territories, and worldwide.


Another supporter of SB 1070 is also a well-known radio and Fox News host who is also a so-called “Mormon”, GLENN BECK. This moron, who has the audacity of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Father Coughlin, has insulted Jews, equated liberalism with the Holocaust, and is defrauding his listeners and viewers into being defrauded by Goldline, a firm that has defrauded buyers and sellers, in which Beck, and hosts like him, have encouraged his listeners and viewers into buying gold from his sponsor, Goldline. Beck, “who has no sense of decency”, should not be worthy of having any Temple Recommend signed by any Bishop and Stake President of the Church.


Leviticus 19:33-34 (KJV) states that:


“And if a stranger sojourn with the in your land, ye shall not vex him.


“But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”


The same Author of Liberty said in Matthew 5:43-44 (KJV) that:


“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.


“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

*************************************************It is fine time that the people, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, should form a United Front, and endeavor to defeat all pro-hate legislation, and to fight for civil and human rights for all. Anybody in favor of legislation, such as SB 1070, and acts to discriminate should not be Mormons, but apostates, and no person who discriminates against another for being different than the other should ever be elected or appointed to any office.


We need to sponsor referenda, where available, against pro-hate legislation, to defeat and recall those who sponsor pro-hate legislation, and find persons aggrieved and injured or about to be injured to sue and have pro-hate legislation declared unconstitutional as against the State/Provincial Constitution, and the National Constitution where enacted.


One more thing, as Chairman of the Frank-Hubner-Scholl Movement of the White Rose, I not only named the Movement after Anne Frank and Sophie Scholl; I also named the Movement after Helmut Hubner, who after he and his two friends passed anti-Nazi leaflets, were caught by the Gestapo. Where his two friends went to concentration camps and survived, Hubner was beheaded by the Nazis. Hubner was a Mormon.


I implore my President, Barrack Hussein Obama, to push for immigration reform, this year, and no later. We have a duty and a sacred honor, and as Benjamin Franklin said, “we must all hang together, or we must all certainly hang separately.”


We must also end the divide in the United States for a false prophet, Osama bin Laden, once predicted that the United States presence in Afghanistan would result in it being dissolved in the same way as the Soviet Union was. Bin Laden is a murderer, but a true prophet of God, Joseph Smith, said in the 1840’s that “the Constitution shall hang by a thread.” We are getting close to that Prophecy, and if there are no righteous, the Constitution would be no better than the toilet paper the Weimar Constitution was written on.


Please give this to all politicians, and pass this to all Groups on Facebook, MySpace, Blogger, Yahoo, and everywhere else.


NEVER AGAIN!


UNITED WE STAND!


VIVA LA REVOLUCION!


SINN FEIN!


I, I AIN’T GONNA GO TO SUN CITY!

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS ARE LYING MOTHER FUCKERS

From freestudents.blogspot.com:

The xenophobic Right, which loves to verbally bash immigrants, has repeatedly pushed the canard that immigrants cause crime. They claim that there is a crime wave hitting American due to immigrants and repeat claims that crime in border states is particularly bad. What they don't do is show crime statistics. These are the kind of people, so ignorant of evidence, that they think an anecdotal story suffices.

Let us go to ground zero is the immigration debate: Arizona. It is there that Republicans pushed through an infamous anti-immigration bill that has many people shocked and concerned. So what has happened in the Arizona border towns? Not much actually, as the Arizona Republic found when it talked the police chiefs in those towns.

Nogales, Arizona shares the border with Nogales, Mexico but the Arizona town says it doesn't know what the anti-immigration crowd is talking about. Assistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez says: "You can look at the crime stats. I think Nogales, Arizona, is one of the safest places to live in all of America."

The Republic says that they looked at the FBI Uniform Crime Report and statistics provided by local police agencies which "show that the crime rates in Nogales,Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade..." They also found: "Statewide rates of violent crime also are down."

Politicians, mainly, if not exclusively Republican, have made speeches about crime along the Arizona border. But Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, from Pima County, says: "This is a media-created event. I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure." In Cochise County the "crime rate has been 'flat for at least 10 years, the sheriff added."

The Republic reports: "While the nation's illegal-immigrant population doubled from 1994 to 2004, according to federal records, the violent-crime rate declined 35 percent." If illegal immigrantion causes crime then shouldn't crime rates rise with more immigration,not fall? In Arizona the violent-crime rate "dropped from 512 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2005 to 447 incidents in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available."

This decrease in crime in "crime-ridden" Arizona—if you believe the hype about immigrants—continues to show up in the most recent statistics as well. The Wall Street Journal reports, "Arizona's major cities all registered declines" in crime and:

In Phoenix, police spokesman Trent Crump said, "Despite all the hype, in every single reportable crime category, we're significantly down." Mr. Crump said Phoenix's most recent data for 2010 indicated still lower crime. For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city, while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009.
Sure there is crime related to drug smuggling and it is growing in many ways. But that is not illegal immigrants by any means. Your typical undocumented worker can't afford cocaine to smuggle, they are lucky to afford the cost of getting themselves across the border. The violence we see is drug war related and as long as drug profits are high, which is a result of the war on drugs, then smuggling will be associated with violence. And the more violent our drug warriors become the more violent the smugglers will be. But this is not related to immigration: legal or illegal.

Sociologist Robert Sampson looked at crime trends in the US and compared them to immigration patterns. More immigrants didn't lead to more crime, which is what should have happened had there been a direc link between the two. If you look at the chart here you will see the time line shows American crime trands from 1990 to 2004 (this is from a 2006 article). You see crime rates dropping as immigration rates increased. Around 1998 crime rates stagnated for the most part, but immigration fell. So as immigration rates were increased crime fell, and when immigration fell crime rates stopped falling.

Sampson wrote:
Yet our study found that immigrants appear in general to be less violent than people born in America, particularly when they live in neighborhoods with high numbers of other immigrants. We are thus witnessing a different pattern from early 20th-century America, when growth in immigration from Europe was linked with increasing crime and formed a building block for what became known as "social disorganization" theory.

In today's world, then, it is no longer tenable to assume that immigration automatically leads to chaos and crime. New York is a magnet for immigration, yet it has for a decade ranked as one of America's safest cities. Border cities like El Paso and San Diego have made similar gains against crime. Perhaps the lesson is that if we want to continue to crack down on crime, closing the nation's doors is not the answer.
Professor Tim Wadsworth, from the University of Colorado read what Sampson wrote and decided to test it. The University press release reports what Wadsworth found:
Drawing from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and U.S. Census data, Wadsworth analyzed 459 cities with populations of at least 50,000. Wadsworth measured immigrant populations in two ways: those who are foreign-born and those who immigrated within the previous five years.

Wadsworth focused on medium and large cities because about 80 percent of violent crime takes place there. Wadsworth said distinguishing legal and illegal immigration is difficult, as the U.S. Census does not track those numbers, but he notes that immigrant citizens and non-citizens often live together in the same communities.

He tracked crime statistics for homicide and robbery because they tend to be reported more consistently than other crimes. Robberies are usually committed by strangers -- which increases the reporting rate -- and "homicides are difficult to hide," he said.
Wadsworth looked to see if crime rose as immigration rose and fell as immigration declined. Instead he found the opposite: "cities that experienced the largest growth in the population of foreign-born and newly arrived immigrant populations experienced the largest decreases in violent crime between 1990 and 2000." Wadsworth's conclusions corresponded with those of Sampson, and instead of showing a rise in crime because of immigration, the records showed that crime dropped.

THE PROTEST AGAINST THE BORDER PIGGIES CONTINUES

From bsnorrell.blogspot.com:

Activists Lockdown and Occupy Border Patrol, Demand End to Militarization



Activists Lockdown & Occupy US Border Patrol Headquarters Demanding End to Border Militarization, Protesters Cited and Released
More at O'odham Solidarity: http://www.oodhamsolidarity.blogspot.com/
VIDEO:http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2010/05/video-lockdown-occupation-border-patrol.html

Press statement
Tucson, AZ – At approximately 1:00 p.m. on Friday, May 21, 2010 more than a dozen people occupied the Tucson Headquarters of the US Border Patrol to draw attention to impacts of border militarization in Indigenous Communities. Six people, including Alex Soto a member of the Tohono O'odham Nation and a volunteer with the group O’odham Solidarity Across Borders, locked themselves together for up to 3 and 1/2 hours. “Indigenous voices have been ignored. In our action today we say NO MORE!” Soto said.

Banners were hung, including one placed over the reception window that read, “Stop Militarization of Indigenous Lands Now." Traditional songs were sung and the group chanted, “Border militarization destroys Indigenous communities!” and “No raids, no deportations! No SB1070, no racist laws!” Approximately 30 Border Patrol agents flooded the lobby of the headquarters and scrambled to react. Roads to the headquarters and adjacent air force base were shut down. Tucson City Police were eventually called and began preparing an extraction of the peaceful resisters.

A diverse crowd of up to 70 people quickly gathered outside the Border Patrol headquarters to support those locked down inside. Ofelia Rivas of O’odham Voices Against The Wall, an elder in support of the action stated, “It was a historical and powerful moment for people of all color to unite with O’odham to stand in solidarity for human rights and to see the next generation take a stand”.

At approximately 4 p.m. the peaceful resisters negotiated the conditions of their release on their terms. Their requests to consult with Tohono O’odham elders to negotiate terms of release were denied by Tucson Police. The protesters decided to unlock and were cited for two misdemeanors each of trespassing and disorderly conduct. The resisters were released just outside the premises to join supporters where they gathered in traditional prayer and rallied against border militarization for another hour. Community members including members of the Pasqua Yaqui, Tohono O'odham, and Dine' Nations reacted emotionally when two Wackenhut Corp. buses left the Border Patrol compound filled with undocumented people. The detainees responded with returning the symbol of resistance - a raised fist.

“This is just one action of many that makes visible the invisible crimes against humanity that occur every day on the colonial border,” stated one of the peaceful resisters. “We commit to honoring the prayers and call for support of the people most impacted by border militarization, the Indigenous Peoples who’s lands we are on and migrants who seek a better life for their families. We cannot not allow government agencies, border patrol, ICE or reformist agendas to further their suffering. We will continue our actions of peaceful resistance for human dignity and respect for all peoples.”

The action also denounced SB1070 and HB2281 as racist laws that are a part of an ongoing system of genocidal policies against Indigenous Peoples and migrant communities.

For previous Press Statement, please see attachment.
Note to editors, high resolution photos attached; Photo credits: O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective

Media Contacts:
Alex Soto (602) 881-6027
Leilani Clark (520) 982-5687
stopboardermilitarization@gmail.com

FREE JAMIE WEST

From gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com:

I've got something of a love/hate relationship with Scott Turow.  And it's all about the rule of law.

Like virtually every other soon-to-be law student, I read One L, his fictionalized account of his first year at Harvard Law School. Perhaps it's because I was older, preparing to switch sides in the university classroom from teacher to student, but unlike many readers and soon-to-be law students, I didn't find the book frightening.  I found Turow's responses so naive and annoying that they overwhelmed the nastiness.  In any event, it left me less than enthusiastic.
On the other hand, I thought Presumed Innocent, despite the weirdly contrived plot gimmick, to be absolutely terrific.  The courtroom scenes were rendered brilliantly, the prose just enough of a touch above the norm for crime fiction.  I was a fan.
Then Turow wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine discussing legal ethics and legal education.  Along the way, he mentioned the ethics charges that had been brought against him as an AUSA.
Indeed, the most dismal -and disappointing - moment I have endured as a lawyer arose last year in a sharp dispute over ethical duties. In June 1987, a Federal appellate court in Georgia rebuked me severely for my role as a United States prosecutor in allowing a defense lawyer who was seeking to cooperate with the Government to secretly tape-record a conversation with one of his clients about a drug-selling scheme that the lawyer admitted he and the client were planning. When I protested, the court responded by suggesting that my conduct regarding the defense lawyer might have constituted obstruction of justice. Various public officials and scholars spoke out in my defense, and, after a full investigation, the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice publicly vindicated me and my superiors in the Justice Department who had directed my actions, stating that the conduct in question fully complied with Federal law. I believed - and continue to believe - that neither clients nor lawyers have the right to plan crimes secure from government law-enforcement efforts.
When I read that back in 1988, I was in my first year as a lawyer in private practice. I was struck then, and am struck now, reading it again, that when your boss declares you behaved ethically in doing his bidding, that's vindication. It's not that I think Turow did in fact breach the ethics of the profession. I don't know nearly enough about the situation to weigh in on it. But I knew then, and know now, that there was something wrong with Turow's analysis. I wrote a lengthy letter to the Times laying out my position. They published three short paragraphs.



I agree with Scott Turow's call for serious exploration, in the law schools and out of them, of ''an understanding of the moral issues that govern law.'' But I am also concerned about what seems to me a misunderstanding, by Mr. Turow and much of the profession, of what those moral issues are.
When Mr. Turow reports his public vindication from charges of unethical conduct and provides as evidence a statement by the public integrity section of the Justice Department that he and his superiors in the Justice Department had not violated any law, he shows a blindness to the issues he addresses. It is the same blindness that former Attorney General Edwin Meese 3d showed in his similar declaration that he was vindicated when the independent prosecutor decided not to seek an indictment against him.
It doesn't matter, here, whether Mr. Turow or Mr. Meese actually did violate any rules, laws or ethical standards. What matters is that neither one can see that it is possible to adhere to every rule and code around and still be immoral.
I'm not sure I was particularly fair to Turow in those paragraphs (or in the much longer letter which I cannot check because I no longer have a copy - or cannot find it if I do), though I think the point itself sound.

Some years later, Turow wrote Ultimate Punishment, which I think one of the very best books on why capital punishment should be abolished.  If the state is going to be in the business of killing people, it should bear the burden of proof regarding the need/virtue/wisdom/something for doing so.  Starting as an agnostic on the question of abolition, Turow studied the death penalty in the real world and concluded that the state could not meet that burden.  Amen.
All of that is by way of explanation for my love/hate relationship.  If it seems a set up for a review of Turow's new book, Innocent, it's not.  I intend to read Innocent, but I have not yet done so.  Perhaps a review will come in time.   But not today.


No, what led me to this today is that the Times just reprinted on-line (is that an oxymoron? a mixed non-metaphor?) an op-ed Turow wrote back in 2000 shortly after the Supremes decided Dickerson v. United States, holding that Miranda warnings were constitutionally mandated.


Turow praised Dickerson's conclusion.  He noted that despite years of whining and posturing, Miranda seems to have had little real-world consequence.  Those arrested still confess an astonishingly large percentage of the time.  (That's true even of innocent arrestees, but it's a wholly different issue.)  And those confessions are admitted in court nearly always.
Nor is my experience idiosyncratic. After a couple of hours of computer research, I could not find a single reported decision in Illinois in the last 12 months in which a confession was suppressed or a conviction reversed because of a Miranda violation.
To a great extent, as the court recognized on Monday in Dickerson v. United States, courts and cops have accommodated themselves to the rule. The more conservative justices who ascended to the Supreme Court after the Warren years have narrowed the decision's grand mandate, refining, for example, what amounts to interrogation for Miranda purposes, or sometimes allowing subsequent statements to be admitted even if a defendant initially claimed his Miranda rights.
As for the police, the court is right when it says that law enforcement practices have adjusted to Miranda's strictures. As a prosecutor, I never noted that federal agents much resented Miranda, even though some, like those in the Internal Revenue Service, were required to give warning when simply questioning someone.
In eight years, I never had a statement excluded from evidence because of the Miranda rule. The agents accepted the standard and often applied it skillfully. I remember a veteran F.B.I. agent dispensing the Miranda warnings to a suspect before we took him before a grand jury, a practice required by the Justice Department. As one of my colleagues commented, the warning sounded so avuncular, you just about expected the agent to put his arm around the prospective defendant's shoulders. 
Turow's point was clear.  The bad guys don't go free because of Miranda.  Indeed, even Miranda did not.  After the Court threw out his confession, he was tried again and convicted again because he had confessed another time - in a setting to which Miranda  did not apply.  Or consider the alleged would-be bomber of Times Square who apparently confessed for days, at length, warnings (which were eventually given, after a period of interrogation Miranda permits) be damned.
But Turow's point wasn't that
Miranda should remain the law because it's worthless.  Rather, he said, it's vital.  Miranda, he says, "is an expression of some fundamental concepts about the law we all should hold dear."  He mentions equality (everyone gets the warnings, rich and poor, educated or not, powerful or powerless) and then gets to the meat of the matter.


But cops should recognize that no matter how noisy their protests, or how much they chafe, they are always going to be subject to civilian authority. Catching bad guys is important, but it is not the only thing this society values; we also care about certain minimal standards of decency in the government's treatment of citizens and limits on the authority of the state.




The requirement to recite Miranda is an important reminder to the police that the war on lawlessness is always subject to the guidance of the law. This week's decision, by a court that is not perceived as particularly hostile to law enforcement, is a needed reaffirmation of that message.
Which is, of course, the real point.  More relevant now than ever, perhaps, as the war on drugs morphs into the war on sex and into the war on terror - all of which are variants on the war-on-whatever-we-can-be-made-to-fear.
And which brings me to Georgia and the prosecution of Jamie Weis.  He's been sitting in jail in Georgia, awaiting trial, presumed innocent, for more than four years.  The State wants to kill him one of these days.  For some time, he was represented by Robert Citronberg and Thomas West, Atlanta capital defense lawyers.  Then the state ran out of money to pay them.  What to do?
In November 2007, the prosecutor had an idea: Take Citronberg and West off the case and appoint the state public defender to represent Weis.  According to
Marcia Coyle, writing in the National Law Journal, Judge Johnnie Caldwell thought that a good plan.


"This court is going to do something it has never done, which I believe it has the inherent authority to do under the Constitution of this State, as well as under the rules of the Uniformed Rules of the Superior Court, and that is in this instance I am going to remove defense counsel from this case," said Caldwell, who resigned last month amid an investigation into allegations he sexually harassed a female divorce lawyer.
Weis is now before the Supreme Court.  He claims that he's been denied his right to counsel and his right to a speedy trial.  The speedy trial issues are what they are.  The right to counsel claim is something else, and a matter of grave importance.

Weis wants the justices to make clear that "lawyers are not fungible," said lead counsel Stephen Bright of the
Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta.


Indigent defendants, Bright said, have the same Sixth Amendment right to continuity of counsel once the attorney-client relationship is established as do those defendants with the means to hire lawyers. That right, he and his colleagues contend, was violated in the Weis case, when two appointed attorneys were removed because the state ran out of money to pay them. "I think we have the complete breakdown in this case," Bright said. "The legislature just didn't put enough money into the system and it ran out of gas."

Indigent defendants may not have a right to counsel of their choice, Bright argues, but once they have counsel, the state cannot remove them at its convenience.



In the U.S. Supreme Court, Bright argues this is not a counsel-of-choice issue but an issue of continuity of counsel. Only Georgia, Louisiana and two federal circuits -- the 2nd and 6th -- refuse to recognize that, once the attorney-client bond of trust and confidence has been established, counsel cannot be removed absent some extreme circumstances. "There's a whole string of [lower court] cases saying, unless the lawyer is just disabled or engages in contemptuous behavior, you can't sever the relationship," Bright said. "This wasn't about Weis' seeking preference of counsel but opposing counsel moving to remove counsel. I think the Court will be offended by that."
Criminal law scholar Joshua Dressler of Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law and ethics scholar Monroe Freedman of Hofstra University School of Law said Bright's distinction is an important and valid one. Freedman is more emphatic, saying, "It is so clear this was a violation of fundamental rights that it should be the easiest of cases and should never have occurred in the first place."
We're talking here, as Turow was in the Times Magazine and the op-ed and Ultimate Punishment  (see how I cleverly wind back to where we began) about the rule of law and a sense of fundamental fairness.
All the more reason to suspect that the Court won't hear the case.  Or that, if it does, Weis will lose.
And if he does, we all do.
Which is, once again, what Turow was saying back in 2000 on the op-ed page of the Times.

MAYBE WE SHOULD TELL BP TO FUCK OFF AND DIE!

TO RAND PAUL AND ALL OF HIS SUPPORTERS:
FUCK YOU!!!!!!
Tell me it's "un-American"? Tell that to every Louisiana fishermen and their families.

From www.eschatonblog.com:

This is all going to work out so well.
BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit -- and 72 hours to start using it -- or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.


From reports on the ground it's sounding like BP is just claiming as their own territory anywhere the oil goes. It's like their invading army.


 

THIS VIRGINIA STORY IS WAY OUT OF PROPORTION

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

 

Original Article



This is why online vigilante cults should be shut down, the police can handle the job, and the vigilantes tend to screw everything up.




05/21/2010



By Will Thomas



Det. Wells has made 29 arrests in last three years



STAFFORD - Sexual predators are targeting children across the country and even if the criminal is thousands of miles away in another state or country, they can still chat with your kids online.




Detective Darryl Wells with the Stafford County Sheriff's Office hunts down these predators.



"Through undercover operations we try to seek out these mostly white, adult men who target children," Wells told FOX 5.



The detective's investigations have resulted in 29 arrests in more than three years. Wells has more than 30 years of law enforcement experience and said this is his most rewarding work.

- Wow, the media and everyone else says this is such a major problem, so if that is true, why only 29 arrests in three years? Seems like it's not much of a problem to me. Also, see this study, which said this was all blown out of proportion.




FROM THE WORDS OF A WHITE NAZI

In turn from patriotboy.blogspot.com:

There was a lot of confusion at Stormfront.org when their favorite candidate, Rand Paul, backtracked on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but a proudly Aryan commenter named WhiteRights set everyone straight:

Why can't patriots get into political office, pretending that they like Martin Luther King and all the liberal sacred cows and then vote in our interests? The important thing is: How will Rand Paul vote?

We're in a transitional period right now guys. We can't just break out the SS uniforms and start goose-stepping our way into power right now.

 

JIGGLING THE BORDER PIGGIES. I LOVE IT!

From bsnorrell.blogspot.com:

Occupation of Border Patrol Headquarters in Tucson


OCCUPATION OF BORDER PATROL HEADQUATERS DAVIS-MONTHAN AIRFORCE BASE, TUCSON, AZ

More at Censored News homepage:
Photo KVOA

OCCUPATION OF BORDER PATROL HEADQUATERS DAVIS-MONTHAN AIRFORCE BASE, TUCSON
FIRST NATION AND MIGRANTS OPPOSE SB1070 DEMAND DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND END TO BORDER MILITARIZATION
For Immediate Release Media Contacts:
Friday, May 21, 2010 Leilani Clark (520)982-5687

“The militarized border imposed by the U.S. has lead only to cultural and environmental destruction of the indigenous peoples whose land is on or near the border. This militarization brings death and terror for indigenous peoples from other parts of the continent migrating to this land.”


Press statement
TUCSON – More than a dozen people occupied Border Patrol headquarters at Davis-Monthan Airforce Base today in an act of peaceful resistance. The group includes members of Indigenous Nations of Arizona, migrants, people of color and white allies. Six people used chains and other devices to lock themselves in the building. These Arizona residents disrupted the Border Patrol operations to demand that Border Patrol (BP), Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), their parent entity, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Obama administration end militarization of the border, end the criminalization of immigrant communities, and end their campaign of terror which tears families apart through increasing numbers of raids and deportations.

The protesters also call on the State of Arizona to repeal the racist Senate Bill 1070 that criminalizes immigrant communities on the state level, makes it illegal to transport or harbor an undocumented person regardless of family relationship, requires police agencies to engage in racial profiling, and ultimately is an attempt to ethnically cleanse Arizona of those with brown skin. This act of civil disobedience was only the latest in an increasing wave of direct action targeting the federal government’s terrorist immigration policies.

Border militarization destroys Indigenous communities.

The development of the border wall has lead to desecration of our ancestors graves, it has divided our communities and prevents us from accessing sacred places.

Troops and paramilitary law enforcement, detention camps, check points, and citizenship verification are not a solution to migration. We have existed here long before these imposed borders, my elders inform us that we always honored freedom of movement. Why are our communities and the daily deaths at the border ignored? The impacts of border militarization are constantly made invisible in the media, the popular culture of this country and even the mainstream immigrants rights movement which has often pushed for “reform” that means further militarization of the border, which means increased suffering for our communities.

Indigenous communities such as the O’odham, the Pascua Yaqui, Lipan Apache, Kickapoo, and Cocopah along the US/Mexico border have been terrorized with laws and practices like SB1070 for decades. Indigenous people along the border have been forced by border patrol to carry and provide proof of tribal membership when moving across their traditional lands that have been bisected by this imposed border; a border that has been extremely damaging to the cultural and spiritual practices of these communities. Many people are not able to journey to sacred sites because the communities where people live are on the opposite side of the border from these sites. Since the creation of the current U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated.

On this day people who are indigenous to Arizona join with migrants who are indigenous to other parts of the Western Hemisphere in demanding a return to traditional indigenous value of freedom of movement for all people. Prior to the colonization by European nations (spaniards, english, french) and the establishment of the european settler state known as the United States and the artificial borders it and other european inspired nation states have imposed; indigenous people migrated, traveled and traded with each other without regard to artificial black lines drawn on maps. U.S. immigration policies dehumanize and criminalize people simply because which side of these artificial lines they were born on. White settlers whose ancestors have only been here at most for a few hundred years have imposed these policies of terror and death on “immigrants” whose ancestors have lived in this hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, for time immemorial.

In addition, the migration that the U.S. government is attempting to stop is driven more than anything else by the economic policies of the U.S. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA have severely reduced the ability of Mexicans and others from the global south to sustain themselves by permitting corporations to extract huge amounts of wealth and resources from these countries into the U.S. This has led to millions of people risking the terror and death that so many face to cross into the U.S. looking for ways to better support their families. Thousand of women, men, children and elders have died crossing just in the last decade. If the U.S. really wants to reduce migration it should end its policies of exploitation and wealth extraction targeted at the global south and instead pursue policies of economic, environmental and social justice for all human beings on the planet, thus reducing the drive to immigrate.

The protesters are demanding:

-An end to border militarization
-The immediate repeal of SB1070 and 287g
-An end to all racial profiling and the criminalization of our communities
-No ethnic cleansing or cultural genocide
-No border patrol encroachment/sweeps on sovereign native land
-No Deportations
-No Raids
-No ID-verification
-No Checkpoints

-Yes to immediate and unconditional regularization (“legalization”) of all people
-Yes to human rights
-Yes to dignity
-Yes to respect
Yes to respecting Indigenous Peoples inherent right of migration

 

RON AND RAND PAUL ARE UN-AMERICAN

These two Polish Jews are sheer hypocrites big time. Their statements on libertarism are great, but then they want them to apply only to White people.

Rand Paul might as well bite the bullet. He DESERVES to embar-ASS himself on the Rachel Maddow Show when he advocated  for segregated lunch counters. Unless you have been in a 46-year coma, the United States Congress adopted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was signed by President Lyndon Johnson that same year. That law finally made it illegal in all 50 states and territories to have separate accommodations for all races, and in all areas of life. There are no more "Whites Only" and "C----ed Only" signs anywhere. 

However, with Rand Paul's nomination and passage of Arizona's SB 1070, the racist tide of the Republican Party has reared its head. They "want their country back"-WARD! Bill Maher was right when he said "I want my country to go FORWARD!"  Rand Paul's statement that President Obama was "un-American" in Obama's comments against British Petroleum, well I have a question to these two Polish Jews:

WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE FISHERMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO WILL LOSE THEIR LIVELIHOOD, YOU MOTHER FUCKING ASSWIPE NUTJOBS?!!!!!

So much for Sarah the Stupid Cunt Palin, and "Drill, Baby, Drill!" The Democrats should not lose, but win in November, since it was the Republicans that backed the oil industry thanks to their GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS!

From tiodt.blogspot.com:


Rand Paul, the new Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat from Kentucky is a hero of the Tea Party.

Some hero. For starters, he said that he believes businesses should have the right to refuse seating to minority customers. Welcome to the Kentucky of 1955.

And now he's out there saying that President Obama and his administration are anti-business and "un-American" for criticizing oil giant British Petroleum over their handling of the oil spill.

I guess "American values" now includes having no clue how to stop the gusher, and it's perfectly OK (pro-business) if you kill off miles of coastline for at least a generation. Hey, it's 'business,' right?

One almost has to feel for minority leader Mitch McConnell. He and Senate political architect John Cornyn (R-TX) pushed his state's other Republican Senator, the gaffe-prone Jim Bunning, into retirement so he could put his hand-picked candidate, Trey Grayson up against the Democrats in the general. But then Paul beat Grayson Tuesday, and by a large margin. And then the past reached out and grabbed him. Don't blame Democrats for that either. Paul's past statements are public record; if Grayson was too dumb to look them up, well maybe he should have. Paul said it, didn't he? And it was Paul, and Paul alone, who contended that not only is it wrong to criticize an oil company for an oil spill, but in fact that to do so is 'un-American.' Presumably that's his favorite adjective, one we can expect to hear pop out of Paul's mouth frequently if he ever gets to the U.S. Senate. Joe McCarthy, anyone?

This has all backfired so exquisitely on McConnell, that Bunning, who was known to resent McConnell for pushing him out of the Senate, can hardly be blamed if he is having a secret but hearty laugh about this somewhere.

Kentucky Republicans have made their choice. Now they have to live with him, at least until November.

Also from www.eschatonblog.com:

Rand Paul was supposed to on Meet the Press this Sunday, but he cancelled.

Perhaps they could invite on the person who got the most votes in a Kentucky Senate primary that day?

Bet not.

********************************************************
Why wasn't Rand Paul on Meet the Press? Because Rand Paul is 
A BIG FAT PUSSY! 
When you open your big dick mouth on the Rachel Maddow Show, and then don't have the balls to be on Meet the Press, it's open season (figuratively speaking).  


WHY IS DORA REALLY BRUISED?

Parents, share this with your kids. From dreamacttexas.blogspot.com:

What will Arizona to do Dora the Explorer?  Will this keep Dora from traveling around the world.  Just what country does she really belong to?  If she is released, will she help the DREAMers in their struggle?

--

Los Angeles Times - May 21, 2010

Dora the Explorer's immigration status comes under question in Arizona law's aftermath

TIME FOR THESE BORN AGAINS TO SHUT THE HELL UP!

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

These people call themselves "Christians?" I wonder what Bible they have been reading, because the Bible I have read, does not teach the hate and anger they show by the blog post they have posted. The person who wrote this, claims to be a therapist. Did they even once check out the facts for themselves, or like most people, take them at face value? And if this person is a therapist, I feel sorry for whomever they "treat!"

05/20/2010

By Aaron Welch

Jessica LunsfordCaylee Anthony…Haleigh Cummings…Jessica Vargas…Trenton Duckett…and the list goes on. These are just a few of the names of children who have been killed or are missing here in the state of Florida, many of them in the Central Florida area. In the shadow of Disney World there are predators who would seduce and harm our children in ways we cannot imagine. As a test, I went to the sex offender and predator database for Florida and typed in the addresses of my home and of my work. Immediately hundreds of registered sex offenders popped onto the screen. It was startling and terrifying all at the same time. The Department of Justice estimates that, on average, there is one child molester per square mile in the United States. They also estimate that the average child molester victimizes between 50-150 children before he is arrested. Anna Salter, in her book “Predators”, cites research that says 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys will have sexual contact with an adult. She also notes that 3 years old is the most common age that sexual abuse occurs.

As a therapist, these figures startle and intrigue me; the fact that there are so many predators out there…mostly men, who are so emotionally deranged or wounded themselves that they are willing to commit unspeakable acts on young children. As a counselor, this is almost overwhelming to me in its magnitude.

As a parent……a father….a daddy………..it angers and disgusts me to my very core. As my awareness rises in this arena my protective instincts hit overdrive. As I see case after case on the news of missing children and children who have been victimized in some way and of the children that didn’t make it, whose remains have been discovered somewhere, carelessly discarded by someone who only viewed them as an object of that person’s warped and self-centered idea of pleasure, I am outraged and irate. I truly wish that I could assist the police on every one of these cases. I think of what Jessica Lunsford endured and mourn over what never should have happened to her. I reflect on Caylee Anthony and pray that there is justice for that little girl. The case concerning Haleigh Cummings haunts me every time I hear anything mentioned about it. Why can’t they find her??? And then I think of my little boy and my precious little girl and I wish I could keep them with me every minute of every day so they are protected and will never have to worry that they could part of this list.

And so, because I am limited in how I can offer assistance to the community in fighting this horrible epidemic….because I am not in a position to strap on a gun and hunt down the predators who stalk and pursue our children…I write.

This will begin a series of articles on how we, as parents, can better-protect our children from predators. I will be sharing research I have found in my training as a sex offender treatment specialist and other research that is out there from various authors and many others who have gone further than I in the fight to save our children. My prayer is that the articles I write will be a resource for parents that will give them greater courage and knowledge to protect their kids. The police cannot do it alone. After viewing the database, I know that there are too many predators out there for the limited number of law enforcement officers, try as they might. We, as the community, as parents, must join the fight. We must not sit back and just hope that our children will not be one of those chosen as targets. We must become informed about the nature of predators and learn as many safeguards as possible that will make our children a more difficult target than most predators want to focus on. We cannot be with our children 24-7, as much as we wish we could. However, we can gather the tools we need to become “parent warriors” who are alert, informed, and who arm their children with the emotional and safety-oriented weapons they will need as they venture into a world that is not as safe as we want it to be.

So fellow parents, though I write with the knowledge I have gathered as a therapist, the heart of these articles will be from my role as a daddy, one that is very protective of his babies, would fight to the death for all of them, and who wants to help you to fight for your own family. Together, we can make a difference.
- "Together, we can make a difference."  Not with this kind of hypocritical attitude.  I have many studies linked on this blog, which you can read, and I urge you to VERIFY the facts, who are they coming from, do they have a motive, etc!  Get the real facts, not just disinformation spread by the self-serving media and politicians.

Aaron Welch is a licensed mental health counselor, nationally certified counselor and certified sex offender treatment specialist. He strives to fight for the hearts of his clients and empower them to build a legacy that impacts the world. He is part of a team of experts at “The Lifeworks Group, Inc”. For more information about Aaron or Lifeworks, please visit www.lifeworksgroup.org or www.legacycounselingservices.org

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LICENSE, DON'T BOTHER SUING

From juzthefax.blogspot.com:

Good Try, But No Cigar!

Creativity among attorneys is a critical component of the profession. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to represent their clients zealously and within the bounds of the law. One recent attempt at creativity, albeit an unsuccessful one, occurred in Capital Construction Management of NY LLC v. East 81st St. LLC, NYS Supreme Court, New York County (Decided: April 30, 2010).

In Capital Construction, a construction manager lacking a requisite New York City home improvement contractor's license, performed work or caused work to be performed for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of a condominium project. When the project owner had trouble paying the balance due for the work (i.e., approximately $700,000.00), the contractor and the project owner entered into a loan repayment agreement providing for additional interest.

Three checks issued to the contractor bounced, and the contractor sued to recover on the uncollected checks, but not for the work performed or on the loan repayment agreement. Instead, it moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint based on the fact that the checks were instruments for the payment of money only. It's important to note that the existence of a valid home improvement license must be plead as an allegation since, in New York, the failure to possess a valid home improvement license required by the State or locality at the time of contract and performance of the work is an absolute bar to recovery. By moving for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on the checks rather than for the work or on the loan agreement, the contractor attempted to "end run" the requirement of a home improvement license, a claim on which it was unlikely to recover based on the facts of the matter.

The Court didn't buy the argument and held that allowing the contractor to circumvent licensing and related requirements in this instance would violate public policy. The Court stated: "[A] home improvement contractor must comply with two separate tests to advance a claim: (1) a valid license at the time of pleading, and (2) a valid license at the time of the contract and work. If the contractor cannot meet both tests its claim must be dismissed" [citation omitted]. Here, the contractor admitted that the checks were issued for work performed, and the Court simply would not permit itself to be misdirected by focusing on the uncollected checks rather than the lack of a requisite license. The contractor's Motion was denied.

I agree with the Court's decision here. However, I think this is a good example of an attorney being creative by pushing the envelope. While the argument failed to win the day, in many instances creative lawyering can broaden legal horizons and remedy injustice.

BARRIOZONA.COM

From arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:

Barriozona

A great website worth visiting: barriozona.com. There are a lot of interesting videos and news on major issues around the racist Arizona law. Check it out.

TOM HOME IS AN ASSHOLE

From arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:

The Jackass Behind AZ Ethnic Studies Law

via TPM

"(Tom) Horne, the state's superintendent of public instruction since 2002, has long sought to kill the Tucson school district's ethnic studies classes, including La Raza studies -- and he wrote the bill to target that single program. "It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it," he has said of ethnic studies classes that, he claims, teach Hispanics to resent whites..."(READ MORE)

THE GOP SHOULD BE ALL BE DEAD IN NOVEMBER

THEY LOST THE LATINO VOTE!

From arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:

GOP Alienates Hispanic Voters

–via Washington Post

"Since the Arizona controversy, this gap can only have grown. In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile...

Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party..."(READ MORE)

THIS REMINDS ME OF ADM. YAMAMOTO'S STATEMENT ABOUT A SLEEPING GIANT

From: arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:

Mexican President Calderon Speaks to Congress




YouTube has gone mad as has the right wing extremists (racists). Who knew the President of Mexico could set them off into such a crazed tizzy. For the sheer entertainment value, it's worth simply looking at the comments on various news sites and political blogs to see these hate-filled people go off their rockers.

(Link)

MANY CITIES TOLD ARIZONA TO FUCK OFF

From arizonaboycott.blogspot.com:

Seattle Joins Arizona Boycott

–via Crooks and Liars

Yesterday, the Seattle City Council unanimously voted to boycott Arizona by ending official city travel there and resolving, when practical, to cut off future contracts with Arizona-based businesses. That makes Seattle the 11th city to endorse a boycott of the state in opposition to its controversial immigration law. Five of the boycotting cities are in California: Los Angeles tops the list as the biggest, and its boycott could deliver the most painful blow to Arizona's economy, as the city has $58 million in existing contracts with Arizona companies, according to the L.A. Times...

Here's a list of the cities that have announced travel and/or city contracts boycotts so far:

- Seattle, Washington
- El Paso, Texas
- Austin, Texas
- Boston, Massachusetts
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Boulder, Colorado
- San Diego, California
- West Hollywood, California
- San Francisco, California
- Los Angeles, California
- Oakland, California



[More cities have since included Baldwin Park and South El Monte, California.}

(READ MORE)

OHIO MAY SAY GOODBYE TO A BAD LAW

From sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com:

Original Article

05/20/2010

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that the Ohio Supreme Court still hasn’t come down with its decision in State v. Bodyke, the case challenging the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act, despite having held oral argument on the case back in November. Oral argument in another case last week, State v. Richey, brought some of those issues back up again, and perhaps gave a glimpse of the various justices’ thinking.

Richey pled no contest to sexual imposition, a third degree misdemeanor, back in 2006. Two years later, Richey found himself reclassified as a Tier I sex offender under the AWA, and asked that his plea be vacated.

Most of the attacks on AWA has centered on the due process and ex post facto problems in changing the rules after the game’s been played: people who’d not been subject to any registration requirements, or had completed them, now found themselves subject to new requirements. There’s another argument, though, based on the provision in the US Constitution which prohibits a state from enacting legislation which “impairs the obligations of a contract ”: A plea bargain is a contract between the parties, and additional terms can’t be imposed after the contract is entered into. Richey went a little further and argued that he could not have made a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” guilty plea if the legislature could subsequently amend the law to impose new and more dire consequences upon that plea.

There may be some basis for that argument; I know of one case where a pre-AWA plea was entered into with the express stipulation that the defendant would not be classified as a sex offender. Unfortunately, Richey’s case doesn’t present nearly as solid a basis for that claim: he was classified as a sex offender under the pre-AWA law. Justice O’Connor bailed out Richey’s lawyer in oral argument by suggesting that his best argument was not that AWA lengthened Richey’s reporting requirements, but that it dramatically increased the penalty for failing to registration: under the old law, such failure was the same degree as the underlying crime, which here was a third-degree misdemeanor. Under the AWA, failing to register is at least a fourth-degree felony.

O’Connor’s comment is interesting for another reason. Justice O’Donnell argued that the trial judge was under no obligation to advise Richey of anything regarding registration as a sex offender, since registration is regarded as “remedial,” not punitive. In fact, that argument has been the lynchpin for upholding past sex offender laws, in both the Ohio and US Supreme Courts: you don’t get into the due process and ex post facto arguments if you’re talking about a civil, not criminal, matter.

Of course, the argument that prohibiting somebody from living where they want, requiring them to show up at the sheriff’s office every now and then and putting them in prison if they don’t, and putting their pictures up on the Internet and declaring them pariahs isn’t “punitive” has become increasingly tenuous. Everybody bought the first time the Ohio Supreme Court looked at sex offender laws in State v. Cook in 1998, but by the time the Court examined the immediate precursor to AWA a decade later in State v. Ferguson, three justices — Lanzinger, Lundberg Stratton, and Pfeifer — had jumped off the “it’s only remedial” boat. Put O’Connor in that camp, and you’ve got the four votes to limit AWA to prospective application.

There’s another card in play here: the US Supreme Court’s decision two months in Padilla v. Kentucky (discussed here), where the Court held that a lawyer may have rendered ineffective assistance by telling his client that there would be no immigration consequences to a guilty plea, when in fact it resulted in deportation proceedings against the client. It’s not a perfect fit — the voluntary nature of the plea is at issue in Richey, while Padilla concerns ineffective assistance of counsel — but there’s room for arguing some overlap, as Justice Lundberg Stratton brought up. Deportation is unquestionably a civil proceeding, and although Ohio has a law which specifically requires a non-citizen to be advised there might be immigration consequences following a plea, many states do not, and in the absence of such a law those consequences are deemed “collateral,” and do not have to be part of the plea colloquy. Yet the civil nature of the proceedings and their collateral status did not deter the Padilla court from concluding that the defendant had to be properly advised of them.

What’s more, the Padilla opinion noted that the immigration consequences could be far more severe than those of the underlying conviction, an argument which applies with equal force to Richey’s situation, as noted by Justice Lanzinger: the requirement registering as a sex offender for the next fifteen years, and facing imprisonment for 6 to 18 months if he doesn’t, is much more significant than the 60 days he served in jail for the sexual imposition.

As I said, Richey’s case isn’t the best set of facts for this argument, and ordinarily I wouldn’t want to predict the outcome. But I think there’s a decent chance of the whole case being mooted. As Justice O’Connor pointed out in the first minute of oral argument, if Bodyke holds that AWA can’t be applied retroactively, that takes care of Richey’s problem. Given some of the comments in Richey, that might just happen.