Archive for April, 2005

The Boxer Rebellion

Posted: 26 Apr 2005 in Politics

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite.
There is no other way to state it.
She is a liar, and I fear a pathological one at that.
She is a fraud in that she claims to represent her actions are in the filibuster madness is a historical precedent in the Senate.
She is a hypocrite in her dealings with judicial nominees.

Read on.

“Boxer would be barely qualified to manage a brassiere store if she had to earn a living.”
-Rush Limbaugh

Image hosted by


I’ll give you some examples of these lies.

During the confirmation hearings for Dr. Rice for Secretary of State;
Boxer accused Dr. Rice of being a dishonest salesman for President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. Boxer said during the Senate hearing:

“Your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth…. I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth. Now, perhaps the most well known statement you’ve made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of quote, quoting you, a mushroom cloud. That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts.”

Boxer attacked Dr. Rice for the entire 10 minutes she was allotted for questioning the nominee, without once giving Dr. Rice a chance to respond, and tried to end the attack without giving Dr. Rice a chance to say ANYTHING with: “As a matter of fact, you’ve said more misstatements: that the territory of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says it’s now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled. Thank you.”

Dr. Rice then addressed Senator Lugar, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with: “Senator, may I respond?”

Sen. Lugar said “Yes. Let me just say that I appreciate the importance of Senator Boxer’s statement, that’s why we allowed the statement to continue for several more minutes.” Boxer had exceeded her allotted time. Lugar, addressing Dr. Rice went on to say: “But, clearly, you ought to have the right to respond. And then, at that point, we’re going to have a recess. But will you please give your response?”

Rice responded:

“Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity. The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We knew something about him. We knew that we had gone to war with him twice in the past, in 1991 and in 1998. We knew that he continued to shoot at American aircraft in the no-fly zone as we tried to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. Security Council had passed. We knew that he continued to threaten his neighbors. We knew that he was an implacable enemy of the United States, who did cavort with terrorists. We knew that he was the world’s most dangerous man in the world’s most dangerous region. And we knew that in terms of weapons of mass destruction, he had sought them before, tried to build them before, that he had an undetected biological weapons program that we didn’t learn of until 1995, that he was closer to a nuclear weapon in 1991 than anybody thought. And we knew, most importantly, that he had used weapons of mass destruction.

“That was a context that, frankly, made us awfully suspicious when he refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction programs, despite repeated Security Council resolutions and despite the fact that he was given one last chance to comply with Resolution 1441. Now, there were lots of data points about his weapons of mass destruction programs. Some were right and some were not. But what was right was that there was an unbreakable link between Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Boxer was given even more time for her attack, charging Dr. Rice with

“Well, you should you read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that particular vote.”

Actually, the first authorization for the use of force in Iraq was made, not under President Bush, but under President Clinton when Barbara Boxer’s pal, Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State. In 1998 the top reason for authorizing President CLINTON to use force in Iraq was: “that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security.” That resolution became Public Law 105-235.”

The first resolution introduced to urge the president to take military action in Iraq was introduced by then Democrat Majority leader, Tom Daschle, on September 26, 2002 and the first reason given for taking military action was Public Law 105-235 passed in the Clinton administration. The resolution that finally did pass, Joint Resolution H.R. 114, referred to Public Law 105-235 and have 22 more reasons for authorizing military action against Iraq; that’s 23 reasons that the Congress gave Clinton.

The liar here is not Condi Rice. The liar is Barbara Boxer and it is proven in the Congressional Record by her own arguments on the floor of the Senate.
Boxer Lies About War Dead
In the Condi Rice hearings, Barbara Boxer (one of just two votes against Condi, along with John Kerry) said 25% of US military fatalities in Iraq came from California. That would be 342 of California’s finest, based on the then current count of 1,370 combat deaths.

The actual number of California soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq was 157, according to Iraqi Coalition Fatality Count. That’s 11.5%, not 25%.

Boxer is exploiting the war dead for her own political ends. How disgusting. How typical.

The lies of the left continue to go unchecked in the media. In fact, the media does their very best not to portray the liberal left in this country as they should be. The MSM continues to cover up any and all transgressions that the left has as well as exploit any and all discrepancies, however minute, or false, they may be, of the Conservative right.

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and above all a feminazi of the highest order.

Boxer on the filibuster:

For Years, Senator Barbara Boxer Demanded The Senate Debate All Judicial Nominations And Hold An “Up-Or-Down” Floor Vote. Under President Clinton, Boxer Went So Far As To Condemn The Potential Filibuster Of A Nomination.

Senator Boxer On Judicial Nominees:
Senator Barbara Boxer: Let These Names Come Up, Let Us Have Debate, Let Us Vote.

“Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges
today.” We all hear, as we are growing up, that, “Justice delayed is justice
denied, and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a
year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am
pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the
Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have
debate, let us vote.” (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, January 28,

Boxer Told Her Fellow Senators That Nominees Deserve An Up Or Down Vote.

“I make an appeal: If we vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of these two nominees, that is denying them an up-or-down vote. That would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know–ever. Again, it would undermine what Senator Lott said when he said these people deserve an up-or-down vote.” (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)

Senator Boxer On Filibustering Presidential Nominees:

While Arguing That The Nomination Of Dr. Henry Foster For Surgeon General Deserved An Up-Or Down Senate Vote, Boxer Said That Senators Should Oppose Filibustering Nominations And Just Vote Their Conscience.

“He deserves his day. And filibustering this nomination is keeping him from his day. . . . Let us be fair. Let us stop the personal attack. Let us stop Presidential politics. Let us vote for cloture. Then let each and every Senator vote his or her conscience.” (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, June 21, 1995)

Only Three Years Ago, Boxer Condemned Republicans’ Treatment Of Women And Minority Nominees, Calling It “Shameful”:

At A Press Conference In 2000, Boxer Called The Treatment Of Women And Minorities For The Federal Judiciary A “Nightmare.”

“I want to thank Senator Mikulski, I want to thank the American Association of University Women for organizing this effort to call attention to the shameful way that women nominees to the federal judiciary have been treated by this Republican Senate. Senator Mikulski has pointed out the long time that women and minorities have had to wait to get their day, if you will, in the Senate court, so they can take their seats on the judiciary. . . .

So we’re here today to end that nightmare, to give the Republican Senate a
wake-up call, to let the people of America know how these fine women are being
treated, and we are here to say we are going to focus the light on this matter.”
(Senator Barbara Mikulski and others, Press Conference, Washington, DC, September 14, 2000)

With A Republican President Nominating Judges, Boxer Has Changed Her Tune.

Instead Of Bringing Each Nomination To A Vote, Boxer Supports Partisan Democrat Filibusters Against Highly qualified Nominees. Boxer Even Opposes The Nomination Of Carolyn Kuhl, A Judge From Her Home State Of California.

Carolyn Kuhl

Judge Kuhl
Received A “Well-Qualified” Rating, The Highest Given By The American Bar
(American Bar Association Website,, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Judge Carolyn Kuhl:

Boxer Attacked Kuhl For Being “Outside The Mainstream.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she senses momentum has been building against Kuhl’s nomination to the San Francisco-based court, which hears federal appeals for nine states in the West.
“She is so far outside the mainstream,” said Boxer, who has provided her
colleagues with a detailed critique of Kuhl’s record in California and in the
Reagan administration. (Paul Chavez, Rejection Urged For Bush Appellate Court
Nominee, The Associated Press, May 8, 2003)

Boxer Promised To Oppose Kuhl And Asked President Bush To Withdraw Her Nomination.

Boxer said in a statement Thursday that the White House should withdraw the nomination, promising “much opposition” if Kuhl’s nomination is brought to a vote. “We can and should move beyond the Kuhl nomination and to consideration of a new nominee who is confirmable,” Boxer said. (David Whitney, Committee Clears Controversial Court Nominee, Scripps Howard News Service, May 8, 2003)

Boxer Launched An Attack On Senator Hatch For Holding A Hearing On Kuhl.

Boxer and a host of liberal advocacy groups paint Kuhl as a right-wing
ideologue and a foe of abortion rights. In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, Boxer blasted his decision to go ahead with the hearing. “I am
extremely disappointed that you would disregard my prerogatives as one of the
home-state senators, and overturn your own policy, by moving forward on this
nominee. Your blue slip policy is apparently guided more by who is in the White
House rather than by powers given to us as U.S. Senators by one of the greatest
documents in the world, the U.S. constitution,” Boxer wrote. “‘This decision to
move forward without both home-state senators’ approval will have ramifications
for years to come.” (Jonathan Groner and Jason Hoppin, Senate Democrats Grill
9th Circuit Nominee, The Recorder, April 2, 2003)

Boxer Used Abortion As A Litmus Test For Kuhl’s Confirmation.

Judge Kuhl’s nomination has been stalled for nearly two years because Sen. Barbara
Boxer, California Democrat, refused to return her blue slip to indicate that
she’d been consulted on the appointment. “Judge Kuhl is way out of the
mainstream on choice and privacy, with writings that call for the outright
repeal of Roe,” Mrs. Boxer said in a press release, referring to the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision on abortion. “I will oppose these nominations.” (Charles Hunt,
Panel OKs Court Nominee Despite Negative “Blue Slip,” The Washington Times,
April 2, 2003)

Judge Priscilla

Owen Judge
Priscilla Owen Also Received A “Well-Qualified” Rating, The Highest Rating Given
By The American Bar Association.
(American Bar Association Website,, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Judge Priscilla Owen:

Ironically, Boxer Complained That Owen Legislates From The Bench.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said of Owen, “In such important areas as reproductive rights and civil rights and consumer protection, this nominee has legislated from the bench — and she has inserted her personal beliefs into the judicial process.” Boxer also complained about reports that Republicans planned to run ads against those
fighting Owen and Estrada as opposing women and Hispanics to the bench — and
said Democrats have led the fight for women’s rights. (Lee Davidson, Hatch
Sees Red Over Demos Grilling, The [Salt Lake City, Utah] Deseret News, May 2,

Boxer Attacked Owen For Her Stances, Calling Her So Far Right From Center That She Is Almost Off.

“Let me say that is extraordinary because as someone who worked so hard to support qualified minorities and women, I have praised by many in my State for doing just that.
But I have to tell you, if you place on the bench a minority or a woman who has
animosity toward the goals of minorities and women, you are dealing a great
setback to both minorities and women. I will make that point when I have to. But
as for today, I point out I voted for well over 90 percent of the President’s
appointees up to this point in time, but I cannot support this nomination. This
is why. President Bush pledged to govern from the center. Those were his words.
Yet this nominee is so far from the center that she is almost off, to the right.
She is barely on that line at all. That differs from the mainstream values of my
constituents and I believe of the majority of Americans.” (Senator Barbara
Boxer, Congressional Record, May 1, 2003)

Miguel Estrada

Miguel Estrada Also Received A “Well-Qualified” Rating, The Highest Rating Given By The American Bar Association. (American Bar Association Website,, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Miguel Estrada:

Boxer Recently Said She Would Not Filibuster Right-Wing Judges; She Simply Would Not Vote For Them.

“Frankly, from my perspective, if people are off the charts on the right
wing, I am not going to vote for them. I will not filibuster them. Once they
give us the information, I am ready to vote. I will retain my right for a
Supreme Court Justice, however, on that point on the filibuster. But, in
general, if people answer questions, I will vote no. But I want the answers. I
don’t want a judicial selection process that excludes the Senate. It is the
worst thing that can happen in this country.” (Senator Barbara Boxer,
Congressional Record, February 26, 2003)

Now Boxer Opposes Removing The Filibuster Because It Would Weaken “The Senate’s Ability To Stop Radical Appointments.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said “removing the filibuster would hurt the Senate’s ability to stop radical appointments. The president should reread the Constitution and understand that the power to appoint judges is a shared power between the Senate and the president,” Boxer said. Democrats say they are blocking the nomination because “Estrada has not been forthcoming about his views.” (Jason Embry, Bush Urges Ban On Judicial Filibusters, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, March 12, 2003)

The hypocrisy of the left and especially Senator Boxer is absolutely evident and prevalent in their dealings in the Senate.
It is time for this Senator to be voted out of office.
It is time for this Senator to be filibustered every time she tries to open her mouth.

The second she opens her mouth, the Republicans present should shout in unison “HYPOCRITE”!

Eventually she might get a clue, although I highly doubt it. I doubt any liberal can get a clue if it was handed to them on a silver platter.

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite of the highest order.

It is time she is hounded in the press for her actions and misinformation campaign at every turn.

The Mexican Army is on alert!
They are on alert because of the Minuteman Project.
The Mexican Army is escorting Mexicans away from the section of border that the Minutemen are patrolling.

Border Patrol sources say the Mexican army recently moved about 1,000 troops to the Agua Prieta region, just south of where the Minutemen are. These troops, the sources say, are diverting all of the illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen.

Yes, you read that correctly. They are diverting illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen.

What that statement didn’t say, is that they are likely diverting terrorists away from that area as well.

As the war in Iraq winds down, it is my opinion that the border states should activate their state National Guard to patrol the border. Static positions in areas of known traffic and mobile patrols along the entire border are called for.

The money that we would save by preventing illegal aliens, drug-traffickers and possible terrorists, would offset the cost.

“Illegal alien workers may increase profits for employers, but they are costly to the American taxpayer. Most illegal aliens have low educational attainment, few skills, and they work for low wages, often in the underground economy where they pay no taxes on their earnings. Since about three million illegal aliens gained legal status in the amnesty of 1986, the flow of illegal immigration has increased, and today that population is estimated at 9-11 million illegal alien residents in the country. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that the illegal alien population was increasing by about half a million aliens per year in 2000.”
” The estimated fiscal cost of those illegal aliens to the federal, state and local governments was about $33 billion. This impact was partially offset by an estimated $12.6 billion in taxes paid to the federal, state and local governments, resulting in a net cost to the American taxpayer of about $20 billion every year. This estimate did not include indirect costs that result from unemployment payments to Americans who lost their jobs to illegal aliens willing to work for lower wages. Nor did it include lost tax collections from those American workers who became unemployed. The study estimated those indirect costs from illegal immigration at an additional $4.3 billion annually.”
Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform

The costs mentioned above do not include the cost of education for those illegal alien children in K-12 schools, which is estimated to be at $7 billion annually.

“In 2003, according to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 57,600 cars were stolen in Phoenix. It is now the car-jacking capital of the world. Most were SUV’s and pickup trucks. At a conservative average of $15,000.00 per vehicle, owner losses exceeded $864 million. Insurance companies in the state suffered incredible claims from policyholders.”

“Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. College and high school kids cannot find a summer job in yard care, landscape, fast food or service jobs. Why? Illegal aliens work them at a third the wage and often, under the table.”
Source: Frosty Wooldridge

The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004)

Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration. The total cost of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.

Mass illegal immigration is costing Texas more than $4.65 billion a year.
Using a 1994 study published by the Urban Institute as a baseline, The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Texans looks at Census Bureau and other data to estimate the explosive growth in the size and cost of illegal immigration in the nation’s second most populous state. In 2004, the annual fiscal burden of illegal immigration amounted to about $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident.

Convinced yet?
Pressure needs to be put on the politicians and the companies that advocate illegal immigrants and their ilk.
I urge you to write to your local and state politicians and urge them to enforce the current laws of the U.S. and increase law enforcement presence on the borders to include state National Guard if necessary, to stem the tide.

If the writing campaign does not work, then vote them out of office, regardless of their party affiliation.

World Net Daily
Find Law
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Frosty Wooldridge
Center for Immigration Studies
Illegal Aliens.US
Report Illegals

Radical Judges

Posted: 12 Apr 2005 in Politics

It is high time that the judicial nominations that President Bush has set forth, get an up, or down vote.

The activism that is prevalent in the courts today, warrants close scrutiny.

The ninth circuit court is a prime example of activist judges that are out of control.
Of the 79 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through published opinions, 68 arose from the federal appellate courts, two from the federal district courts, and nine from state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 54 of the 68 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 79%), zero of the two judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 0%), and six of the nine judgments issued originally by state courts (or 67%).

Notably, 9th Circuit rulings constituted about 32 percent of both the cases (25 of 79) and the reversals (19 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by written slip opinions this term.

Source:Center for Individual Freedom

Another problem with the courts is that they are trying to be the legislative branch as well as the judicial branch of government.
The system set up by the founders of this great nation are being usurped by activism in the courts. It is high time that the Congress steps in and reigns these out of control judges in.

The courts feel that they are the controlling branch of the U.S. government. As things sit, they are.

When a court can willfully disobey a subpoena by the Congress and get away with it, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed with swift action.
The Congress should have held Judge Greer in contempt of Congress and impeached him on the spot. This is the only way to reign these judges in. After a couple have been impeached, the courts will undoubtedly think twice before trying to legislate from the bench.

Is there hope?
Representative Tom DeLay suggested such a review of judges last week in response to the Terri Schiavo case, words that Democrats interpret as a threat to impeach judges.
The Constitution gives Congress the task of judicial oversight, it is high time they use that oversite and start peeling back the onion that the Democrats have laid at out door steps through their activist judges.

“Should we look at situations where judges have decided to go off on their own tangent and disobey the statutes of the United States of America? I think that’s a legitimate area for oversight,” Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told ABC’s “This Week.”

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, told “Fox News Sunday” there are “legitimate concerns” in conservative circles that the judiciary has exceeded its power in cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex “marriage” and other issues.

“This Week” host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Santorum whether Congress having authority over the courts “is a new interpretation of the separation of powers doctrine.”

Sen. Santorum said, “We do have authority to set the jurisdiction of the court, and that’s very clear. Article 3, Section 1 in the Constitution says that Congress has the authority to set the jurisdiction of the court.”

I think a redistricting may be in order as well.
The 9th Circuit Court should be abolished and the states that are affected should be split up amongst the other courts.

The Democratic Party has long used these judges to get their agenda through to the American people, despite their true will. The voters are inconsequential in the eyes of the Democrats. As long as they have a court system that will pass their legislative agenda, they don’t need control of the Congress.

As long as the Republican Party continues to kowtow to the left in “fairness” then this problem will continue unabated.

MinuteMen At Work

Posted: 11 Apr 2005 in Politics

This struck a chord with me!! Enjoy

In Defense Of The Minuteman Project
By Geoff Metcalf (04/11/05)
Much of the media coverage and virtually all of the ‘government’ comment on the Minuteman Project has been negative. Despite measurable success, the Main Stream Media and bureaucrats of all stripes continue to denigrate what is proving to be a good thing. A good thing however that personifies those who don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict a preconceived opinion or prejudice.Detractors say the MMP is successful only for the 24-mile stretch of border. Those not crossing where they had been are just moving east to more porous routes.The controversy surrounding the Minuteman Project is a poorly crafted red herring.The simple, empirical reality is the Minuteman Project has been hugely successful. Illegal border crossings along the stretch of Arizona/Mexico border have virtually been stopped.Notwithstanding the fears of vigilante violence and gap toothed redneck pick up truck marauders, the Minuteman Project is proving to be a well organized, effectively managed deterrent to a chronic travesty of neglect.It is interesting that local ranchers and victims of local and federal government malfeasance overwhelmingly support and appreciate the results of the Minuteman Project. It is equally interesting that ‘officials’ (who have been derelict and incompetent) not only resent these citizen border watchers, but have targeted THEM with petty harassment. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano wrote them a letter saying they are on her ‘blacklist’ and state cops are targeting out-of-state plates with minor infraction tickets. Hopefully local ranchers will reward the Governor my voting her out of office.The Oakland Tribune got the whole Minuteman thing exactly WRONG.
They wrote, “The Arizona hunters gathering in April for the so-called ‘Minuteman Project’ to search for undocumented immigrants along the border with Mexico aren’t likely to have any success in stemming their migration to the United States.” They are not “hunters” but a ‘neighborhood watch’ group with volunteers from numerous states.Reportedly there has been a steady stream of law enforcement ‘presence’…”a showing of border patrol helicopters, border patrol SUVs, sheriff vehicles, border patrol on scooters. In short, there was a steady stream of law enforcement on this normally deserted stretch of border land.” Local ranchers claim they have never seen so many border patrol. However the show of force is not for illegals…it is for the MMP. The Tribune said, “It’s simply a sham with racial implications.” Bullfeathers! “They are hunters of hate.” What a crock! The MMP organizers who have been doing a superb job of avoiding confrontation and providing a valuable service to the badge carrying Border Patrol agents rejected any potential ‘hunters of hate’.The ‘suits’ may be in persistent hissy-fit mode, but the Border Patrol agents walking the sand really appreciate the additional intelligence resourcesDetractors say, if you measure success in terms of “they ain’t crossin’ here no more”, the Minuteman Project is successful for only 24 miles of border. Naysayers claim this is a distraction for officials focused on watching the watchers.A rancher’s wife who lives on 800 acres of border property (the family has been there since the1880s) requested that Minutemen be stationed nearby. She used to hear gunshots every night. Since the Minutemen arrived, she claims the gunshots have stopped. Prior to the MMP her husband would report information the border patrol wouldn’t believe. When her husband reported counting over 200 illegals in a group, he was told that wasn’t possible. Who are you going to believe your eyes or an official chairborne bureaucrat?The locals love the volunteers. The officials hate them.Whereas the Oakland Tribune calls the MMP “Arizona hunters”…each team has been encouraged to fly their state flag. As a result, a volunteer reports, “a New York flag was flying from the team to our west and a Florida flag flying from the team to our east. Our team flew an American and a Californian flag combo.” Border patrol supervisors drive around spinning the ‘official’ line: MMP bad/Government agents good. However, when the supervisors return to air-conditioned offices, the rank and file border patrol say they are delighted the volunteers are there.One volunteer noted, “I met some great people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Kansas, lots of Texans and Californians. Most were just run of the mill, salt of the earth typical hard working American citizens.”Everyone acknowledges the border is not adequately protected. In this war on terror, the border is an accident waiting to happen. If our government officials cannot or will not protect the border, they should embrace (and work WITH) citizen volunteers instead of crunching their cookies in some lame bureaucratic territorial whizzing match.

The simple truth is in an old joke: “Doctor, it hurts when I go like ‘that,’” said the patient. “Don’t go like ‘that’ said the doctor.

Shoe Bomber Sentencing

Posted: 10 Apr 2005 in Politics

I am posting the sentencing of Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. His sentence seems to have been missed by the main stream media, no surprise there, but this is worth the post.
This judge is on the ball here!

Ruling by Judge William Young

U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in sentencing “shoe bomber” Richard Reid to prison. It is noteworthy, and deserves to be remembered far longer than he predicts. I commend it to you and to anyone you might wish to forward it to.

January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.

On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That’s 80 years.

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.

The Court accepts the government’s recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statues. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court , where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You’re no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santigo had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you’re no big deal. You’re no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom’s sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That’s the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.