Archive for the ‘Immigration and Illegals’ Category
by L. J. Martin
An old Problem… And It’s Time It STOPPED!
Missouri, 1936: The fraudulent voting practices of the Pendergast machine in the 1936 election were shown, by investigations after Pendergast’s fall, to have been gargantuan. In his biography of Truman, Robert Ferrell has reported that a single house at 912 Tracy Street managed to produce 141 voters, and a vacant lot at 700 Main Street yielded 112 voters. The Second District, with a population of 18,478, brought in 19,202 votes for Pendergast’s ticket, to 12 (who could they have been?) for the opposition. The total Kansas City vote would have been possible legitimately only if the city had had 200,000 more adults than its actual population. Indeed, everything was up-to-date in Kansas City, they had gone about as far as they could go. Quote from: Two Americans: Truman, Eisenhower, and a Dangerous World by William Lee Miller from Knopf.
What is more precious to a democracy, to a republic, than the vote. Why did our forefathers risk their very lives, why have we sacrificed millions in foreign wars, both dollars and lives, were it not for every man being able to express his opinion, his wants, his desires with his vote. It’s the very heart and soul of who we are and what we stand for.
The vote is sacrosanct to our way of life, and as such, should be valued just below the life of each and every American.
sac·ro·sanct [sak-roh-sangkt] extremely sacred or inviolable:
1) a sacrosanct chamber in the temple.
2) not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her home office sacrosanct.
3) above or beyond criticism, change, or interference: a manuscript deemed sacrosanct.
Not to be trespassed upon, above interference.
So why do we tolerate voter fraud? Why do we tolerate voter interference? Why do we question that each and every voter must establish who they are and that they’re a citizen of this country?
It’s time the vote was valued as it should be and that voter fraud was looked upon as the trespass it is, as the affront it is to every American who’s given his or her life to protect our democracy, our republic. It’s time that we knew who was voting. This is not 1780. This is a time when every adult citizen of the United States of America has some form of identification, be it a driver’s license, a social security card, or a state I.D. And using one falsely to vote should be a felony. And if they don’t have some form of I.D., then they should have to prove to the satisfaction of whoever is preforming voter registration that they are citizens of this country, via a birth certificate. In this time of 20 million or more illegal aliens in this country, it’s time to verify that only those entitled to vote are voting. Illegal voting by a non-citizen should result in immediate deportation.
It’s time voter fraud was made a felony and the crime prosecuted. Voter fraud is pissing on the grave of every young man or woman who’ve given their life to protect it, or in the face of every young man or woman, or old man or woman, who’s fought to protect it. It’s a crime against all who love this country and our way of life.
L. J. Martin is the author of the conservative blog http://fromthepeapatch.com and of 30 book length works. He’s a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and many other writing organizations. Learn more at www.ljmartin.com, www.wolfpackranch.com, and on facebook at From The Pea Patch.
If you’re a conservative, in the eyes of liberals, you want to kill our youth, kill worker’s rights, kill those merely trying to vote! Watch the video…
Supreme Court justices seem sympathetic to parts of AZ immigration law
Questions asked this morning at the the hearing for Arizona’s S.B. 1070 seemed to indicate support for at least portions of the bill among Supreme Court justices. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli didn’t seem to be doing much better with the justices this morning than he did when he last stood in front of the court to argue for Obamacare.
And why should he?
Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That’s pretty clear, and pretty much all the Fed has to do or say about immigration. When a state is a border state, who better to insure that folks crossing that border are legal citizens, or legal visitors? Who’s more concerned about who’s crossing the border…a resident of the state, who’s being shot at or stolen from, or some bureaucrat in D.C.?
It’s up to the state to protect itself from threats both inside and outside it’s borders, and asking someone to prove they are in the country legally is part of that effort. Not to speak of the fact that it’s ludicrous that the FED should question the authority of a state who’s only making sure it’s residents/visitors are abiding by the law of the land.
Jan Brewer Brings it Home
The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, came out strongly opposing AZ’s new immigration laws.
Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver’s criticism of the new law:
“What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and Security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn’t be ejected.
Furthermore, what if Suns’ ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?”
- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
Had an interesting conversation with a liberal lady yesterday, who proudly (but with some reticence) informed me that the Obama administration has had more deportations of illegal aliens than any former administration. On the surface you’d think that good. Illegal aliens=deportations. If that wasn’t said of an administration which had joined in a lawsuit with Mexico against a state of the union, Arizona, to keep Arizona from asking those stopped for minor traffic violations to produce some evidence of citizenship, it might be easy to believe. However if you speak to any honest ICE agent, you’ll find that when jobs are scarce, or merely when an illegal wants to return to Mexico, he turns himself into ICE. While awaiting transportation he gets three hots and a cot, then a free ride to the border. Things are not always as they seem. And you can rest assured of one thing, Obama will claim it as one of his big accomplishments before the election.
For Arabic push one, then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye, America.
As our courts across the land entertain allowing Shiria law into the fabric of America, this is what we can look forward to…and much, much worse. Right now pick up the phone and call the Michigan Department of Human Services and you will hear, “For Arabic Push 3.” The downfall of California began with multi-lingual classrooms and bi-lingual ballots. It’s time that America declared “we speak English in America.”
To verify the above, if you don’t want to call, see:
“A Black Day for Austria”
by Soeren Kern
December 26, 2011 at 5:00 am
An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam.
The December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media.
Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Kafkaesque legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party.
A glossy socialist weekly magazine, NEWS — all in capital letters — planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the leftwing publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor’s office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one multicultural judge and no jury, began November 23, 2010.
On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded.
Neubauer also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more — the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being “public.” In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.
More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the show trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, 2011, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case.
On January 18, after realizing that the original charge would not hold up, the judge — not the prosecutor — informed Sabaditsch-Wolff that in addition to the initial charge of hate speech, she was now being charged with “denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group.” Sabaditsch-Wolff’s lawyer immediately demanded that the trial be postponed so that the defense could prepare a new strategy.
When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of “incitement” because the court found that here statements were not made in a “provocative” manner.
But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion,” according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.
The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff’s actual words were “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.”)
The judge rationalized that Mohammed’s sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.
The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($625) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial. Although at first glance the fine may appear trivial — the fine was reduced to 120 “day rates” of €4 each because Sabaditsch-Wolff is a housewife with no income — the actual fine would have been far higher if she had had income.
Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) in Vienna, but that appeal was rejected on December 20. The court says she will go to prison if the fine is not paid within the next six months. She says she will take the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court for Human Rights.
After the trial, Sabaditsch-Wolff said her conviction represented “a black day for Austria.” The Vienna Federation of Academics (Wiener Akademikerbund) said the ruling represented “politically and sentimentally motivated justice” and marked “the end of freedom of expression in Austria.”
Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country’s anti-free speech laws. In January 2009, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.