Plans to betray Sheehan already in the works by left

Cindy Sheehan a ‘Gold Star Mom’ is anything but worthy of a gold star. What did she do or is she doing to deserve any degree of honor, give birth? Raise a child to manhood? To give a mother her due she certainly raised a responsible man who voluntarily gave his life to a cause greater than himself. He died for a cause which keeps the war on terror and its destruction “over there� and not in American streets; a cause which has freed fifty million Arabic people, established two emerging Arabic democracies, and has removed a homicidal dictator from absolute power over his people. He died for a cause which his mother seems determined to invalidate as she absorbs the media attention that should be reserved for her son.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Sheehan is the media’s determination to keep this story alive. Notice the focus is not on Mrs. Sheehan’s loss but on her inability to gain a second audience with the President. If this were Aruba, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, or Lacy Peterson we’d be bludgeoned by what her son Casey’s last letter had said, what he was like as a child, we’d be privy to his first steps and his first bike ride, and perhaps what his favorite MRE was. But this isn’t about her son is it? There is a concerted effort by the media to enforce the perception that the President is dodging this woman because he is guilty and stubbornly refuses to admit that she is right. Already there are reports on how Sheehan may well be the turning point of public opinion on the war. What the press, the left, and the Shee-heads are trying to accomplish isn’t remotely new. It’s the same strategy the DNC employed in a failed effort to get John “I’m a hero� Kerry elected without a platform.

Cindy Sheehan was nothing more than a grieving mother until some left wing groups saw an opportunity to exploit this woman’s mental duress to gain the media spotlight. Mrs. Sheehan’s vigil is not about her son, nor is it about getting answers; her cause is entirely about defaming the President to give the left an opportunity to regain seats in the Senate and the House and possibly a shot at the White House in 2008. Constant negative media pounding of the President has reduced his poll numbers just as they did during the year prior to the 2004 Presidential election. America is fortunate to have a leader who can and will stay the course and has little concern over poll numbers.

Mrs. Sheehan, despite giving birth to a noble son does not deserve any honor or attention whatever for what she is doing to her son’s memory, to her son’s decision to serve his country, or to the nation he voluntarily chose to defend. What she is doing, unwittingly or not, is seeking to disgrace his country, to dishonor his comrades, to dishonor his Commander and Chief , and strengthen his killers resolve to fight so more American mothers sons can grieve. Aside from a rooting pocket of radicals, her refocused energy after her son’s death is poised to cost Mrs. Sheehan her family and her husband. I do hope that her liberal handlers treat her well because one day the cameras will stop coming around and Ms. Sheehan will no longer have a voice her handlers want to hear and this mother will find herself very alone and, if there’s any justice, overwhelmed with the guilt of her betrayal.

Accidental Shooting?

Maurizio Scelli, the outgoing commissioner of the Italian Red Cross, said the deal to free the two Italian women, Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, was kept secret from U.S. officials."The mediators asked us to treat and save the lives of four presumed terrorists sought by the Americans, wounded in combat. We hid them and brought them to the doctors with the Red Cross, who operated on them," Scelli was quoted as saying in La Stampa newspaper."We also treated four of their children, sick with leukaemia."If confirmed, the deal would be an embarrassment for Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi -- who denied last September that Italy had bowed to ransom demands from the kidnappers to win the release of the two women.

Berlusconi's office did not immediately comment when contacted on Thursday by Reuters.Scelli, who was present at the Sept. 28 handover of the two aid workers, said he was deeply involved in the negotiations.He told La Stampa that the decision to hide details about the operation from U.S. officials was approved by Gianni Letta, Berlusconi's right-hand man."Nobody should know about it. Above all, the Americans should not know," he said."Keeping the Americans in the dark about our efforts to free the hostages was a non-negotiable condition to guarantee the safety of the hostages and ourselves."Scelli said that he had consulted at the time with Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who was shot dead in March this year by U.S. troops at a Baghdad checkpoint during a subsequent rescue operation for another Italian hostage.Italy and the United States issued differing reports on Calipari's killing, with the U.S. military pinning much of the blame on the Italians, partly for failing to communicate that a rescue operation was underway.

Italy: A sponsoring State of terrorism

On Thursday a top secret military mission was revealed by the outgoing commissioner of the Italian Red Cross, that it gave medical treatment to "four terrorists" to secure the release of two Italian aid workers kidnapped in Iraq. The head of the parliamentary committee which oversees Italy's security services has announced that it will investigate the events which led to the release of Simona Torretta and Simona Pari, interviewing all involved.
The news broke out when Red Cross commissioner Maurizio Scelli told the Italian newspaper La Stampa, in an interview published on Thursday, that US officials were not told about the deal and the decision to keep it from them was approved by cabinet office undersecretary Gianni Letta, a close aide of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.

The prime minister's office responded to the claim, issuing a statement stressing that the Red Cross operates independently of the government and firmly distancing itself from Scelli, saying: "The government and its apparatus have never conditioned or directed the actions of the commissioner."

Scelli himself also began to play down the government's involvement, telling Italy's La Repubblica newspaper on Friday: "We carried out this operation in total autonomy and neutrality. " But he reiterated: "I informed Letta and told him the solution we were offered. Letta told me to go ahead with great caution. The fact that we kept the Americans in the dark was my request, and to this day, I honestly don't know if the government then informed them or not."

He also expressed his bitterness at being abandoned by the government. "Obviously the heroes are always those who die. Those who stay alive, however, insult you without even a word of thanks. I put my life at risk in those days as well," he told La Repubblica.

Relations between the two allies in the 'war on terror' soured at the beginning of March, when Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari was shot dead by US troops who opened fire on the car he was traveling in with newly-released hostage Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist kidnapped a month earlier. Sgrena was also injured in the incident.

Aliens fighting back

A rock allegedly thrown by an illegal immigrant forced a Border Patrol helicopter to make an emergency landing after a rotor was damaged. The A-Star helicopter was two miles west of the U.S. Port of Entry in Andrade, Calif., when a group of immigrants began throwing rocks at the aircraft. One baseball-sized rock struck a rotor and gashed it, forcing the pilot to land the helicopter nearby, said Border Patrol spokesman Michael Gramley.

Neither the Customs and Border Protection pilot nor the Border Patrol observer were injured.
Gramley said he did not know how high the helicopter was hovering when it was struck, but it was being repaired and was expected to be back in service soon. The incident was a first for the Border Patrol's Yuma sector, which covers the section of Arizona between the Pima County line and California. A group of 17 illegal immigrants was apprehended.

9 billion a year: Down the toilet

Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes has introduced a bill that would create a new Border Patrol in California, arguing that we must get rid of illegal immigrants because they “flagrantly take advantage� of taxpayers. The bill, ACA 20, was evaluated and brought to a vote on July 5 in the State Assembly Judicial Committee where it was rejected. Now Haynes, together with a group of volunteers, is launching a signature collection campaign to put the measure on the 2006 ballot.

The signature campaign, which began on July 25, will be conducted by a company hired by the Border Patrol Committee of California. According to committee spokesperson Cristina Rivera, in order to make it onto ballot, a minimum of 598,106 signatures must be collected in the next 150 days.

In a phone interview with El Mensajero, Rivera said they hope to collect 900,000 signatures. “Californians, many of them in San Diego, are tired of illegal immigration and want something to be done because the federal government is not solving the problem.�
The California Border Patrol, according to Rivera, would be composed of approximately 2,000 agents and would cost between 200 and 400 million dollars.

“Californians are prepared to pay for this measure,� she said, “because illegals are costing us nine billion dollars a year that we spend on their medical care, education and keeping them in jail when they commit a crime.�

When asked if she thought the bill could jeopardize the rights of immigrant workers, Rivera responded, “No, because those who come here illegally and take advantage of our system don’t have rights.�

George Andrews, executive director of the California Border Police Committee, said in an interview that although they expect some opposition, the proposal to create a California Border Patrol is very popular and “relies on the support of recognized politicians, journalists and many groups of people throughout California.�

New Mexico's State of Emergency

This week the mainstream news media breathlessly announced a New Mexico state of emergency had been declared by Governor Bill Richardson -- who is planning a presidential run as another... ahem...moderate. Gov. Richardson, observing the chaos created by unbridled illegal immigration in his state, used the situation to criticize the President. But once one analyzes his strategy during this "state of emergency" one can only believe Gov. Richardson is full of baloney.

Unfortunately, even some conservatives are being duped by this former Clintonista's phony state of emergency. Bill O'Reilly heaped undeserved praise upon Richardson as did Sean Hannity. In addition, some in the blogosphere are all abuzz over a Democrat appearing to move to the right of the Republicans on the issue of illegal immigration.

Let's look at Richardson's actions to thwart the onslaught of the border invasion in Arizona:

In order to back local law enforcement, Gov. Richardson sent 56 -- YES 56 -- National Guard troops to the Mexican border. Even that number is deceiving. In order to cover one post with one man (or woman) for 24 hours a day, seven days a week requires 4.5 soldiers. So the BIG 56 soldier beef-up translates into about 12 soldiers covering about 180 miles of border at any one time, if you believe that distance is the problem area as stated by Gov. Richardson. I've seen governors deploy more National Guard troops for snowstorms than Gov. Richardson deployed in his phony "state of emergency."

In the past, Gov. Richardson signed legislation allowing illegal aliens: 1) access to a college tuition lottery that was supposed to help poor citizens pay for college; 2) access to New Mexico driver licenses; 3) access to free healthcare in hospitals. He's also a proponent of amnesty and guest-worker programs that actually reward law breakers. He continues to defend his actions in providing these illegal-immigration incentives.

The man is a crafty politician and, like his pal Hillary Clinton, he talks out of both sides of his mouth. If the reader will recall, in a previous story I compared Madam Hillary's tough talk about illegal immigration with her voting against tougher border security measures. Richardson's whole strategy is about getting positive press from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and bloggers, while at the same time continuing the DNC's anti-Bush rhetoric. He is using Bill Clinton's strategy of triangulation, a strategy created by the unscrupulous political consultant Dick Morris. Simply, triangulation is taking your opponent's issues and making them your own, except they become more of an illusion than a substantial policy.

I'm taking a "wait-and-see" posture on Gov, Richardson's "state of emergency" before heaping praise upon him. We all know -- or should know -- Democrats always talk a good war.

If the federal govt. won't do it, locals will

The Open Borders Bloc successfully mobilized this summer to put down an unexpected outbreak of the rule of law. The rebellion was brief but threatening, as local law enforcement clearly overstepped their bounds and began enforcing laws willy-nilly--leading many in the ruling elite to wonder where it all might end. Luckily, a judge was able to step in and stop the law before it could be enforced again.

In a case well publicized by the national media, Chief Garret Chamberlain, a police officer in the town of New Ipswich, N.H., encountered Mexican citizen Jorge Mora Ramirez broken down on the side of the road. Ramirez, though unable to speak much English, admitted that he was in the country illegally, was in possession of forged Massachusetts identification bearing a fictitious Social Security number, and was illegally employed in a construction project in a nearby town.

In a move that the media is still grasping to understand, Chamberlain then called the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Division of the Department of Homeland Security (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS), with the idea that they might want to, say, apprehend and deport the unknown foreign national in possession of forged government documents and investigate the matter as a violation of so-called “law.�

Immigration and Customs Enforcement quickly informed Chamberlain, however, that they were not much interested in enforcing immigration or customs laws, and he should release Ramirez before tragedy occurred and some hapless piece of drywall was not affixed at a below-market rate. Investigating the admitted client of an international human smuggling and document forgery network is not really the sort of thing that the Department of Homeland Security can afford to waste resources on, it seems.

This was not the first time such an incident had occurred. The previous July, Chamberlain had stopped a van loaded with nine criminal aliens from Ecuador. Upon calling Immigration and Customs “Enforcement,� Chamberlain was told that the nine men, who had entered the country illegally and were employed by a roofing company illegally, hadn’t done anything “criminal� and should therefore be let go.

So Chamberlain gave up on the corrupt federal immigration system and charged Ramirez with being in New Ipswich illegally--under New Hampshire’s trespass law, which states, ''A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."

Chamberlain explained, ''My position was: If Mr. Ramirez was in the country illegally, he was obviously in the town of New Ipswich illegally.�

The logic is incontrovertible.

Unless you are a proponent of unlimited, unscreened, unfettered foreign entry into America, and all such were simply shocked that Chamberlain had failed to play the game properly. In America, there are two sets of laws: those that are passed by Congress to placate the election-year will of the people, and those that the ruling elite actually wants enforced. And leaders in both parties have no intention of enforcing immigration law. These laws exist only to quiet the whining masses. Enforcing such laws is exactly the sort of thing a law enforcement officer should know better than to do. I mean, what’s next? Actual democracy?

Worse yet, this law “enforcement� fad threatened to catch on, as other police departments--frustrated by the federal government’s willful inaction and flagrant failure to enforce immigration law--expressed interest in using the trespass law to protect their towns from the financial and criminal burdens imposed by illegal aliens. In the nearby town of Hudson, N.H., Police Chief Richard Gendron bravely backed up Chamberlain by charging several criminal aliens found in his town with trespassing.

Immigration and Customs “Enforcement� was outraged. Paula Grenier, an ICE spokeswoman, commented, “For a police chief to grandstand about illegal immigration, and [give] the perception that the federal government is doing nothing, is wrong.� Of course it is. ICE told the chief to let the illegal aliens go, and that is doing something, isn’t it?

The Mexican government was so concerned that its biggest moneymaker (illegal labor pimping) might be harmed that they paid for legal counsel and sent their counsel-general to view the hearings.

The mainstream media and numerous other liberal advocacy groups were aghast and reacted predictably. Last week, the judge hearing the cases issued his decision.

Immigration law, he ruled, is solely the federal government’s to neglect, and claims that the act of illegal entry into the US might be violations of any local laws would be “unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations, an area where Congress must be deemed to have regulated with such civil sanctions and criminal penalties as it feels are sufficient.�
In other words, if an unelected bureaucrat at ICE decides that it is OK for an unidentified foreign national to be in the United States illegally, it is OK for him to be in New Ipswich illegally. The law be damned.

This is a curious decision when one considers that in almost every other area of law known, the statutes of federal, state and local governments often overlap. Yet no one claims that local gun-control or minimum-wage ordinances violate the will of Congress on these issues, or that federal civil rights and terrorism laws are unconstitutional infringements on state laws against murder and assault. It is a well-established legal precedent in this nation that a single act may cause one to be in violation of multiple laws--and thus subject to prosecution by more than one layer of government. Just ask Elliot Spitzer.

Also, contrast the quick reaction to local enforcement of immigration law with the phenomenon of “sanctuary cities�--cities that have prohibited their police from assisting the federal government in finding illegal aliens. Clearly, such prohibitions constitute “unconstitutional attempts to regulate in the area of enforcement of immigration violations,� yet they continue unimpeded and without pressure from the media and ICE, even years after court rulings against them.
Apparently, one may help the federal government subvert immigration law all one wants, but don’t dare try to help it actually enforce things.

So what are the abandoned local and state governments (who bear the brunt of illegal immigration costs) to do, if they may not charge illegal stowaways with trespass?

Charge them with something else.

Local governments can require contractors and laborers to register and show real identification (which coincidentally now requires proof of legal residency). Violation of such a law would be a wholly local matter. Local governments regulate restaurant zoning, and issue building permits. They can disperse loiterers and deny builders their inspection approvals. Local governments have a lot of power to regulate local activity.

Whatever local governments do, they must not surrender. Because when you fight back, sometimes you win even when you lose. Consider the parting words of Ramirez’s attorney regarding the future plans of his illegal alien clients: "I think they plan on staying out of Hudson and New Ipswich, N.H."

The actions of one cop in one town got the attention of the U.S. government, the Mexican government, the national media and the open-borders zealots. The town forced the issue on behalf of the clear majority of the American people and in the process made itself safer and finally respected among the criminal alien population, most of whom will now avoid the place altogether. There are tens of thousands of towns and cities in America, were even 1% to follow the lead of New Ipswich and Hudson, it would change everything --and restore the rule of law.

The Myth of Creationism

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation myths among the peoples of the world. Many Christians object to having their beliefs called myths, but a myth is simply a story which is (or has been) considered true and sacred by a group of people. Other cultures believe their creation myths for exactly the same sorts of reasons that Christians believe theirs. Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do. Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say.

Young Earth Creationists claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood. Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accommodating their religion with science.

Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life. Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic. In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism.

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one. Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

U.S. courts don't care about Americans!!!

A federal court judge on Wednesday extended for the fifth time an order barring a former investigator for the U.N. oil-for-food probe from turning over documents to U.S. congressional committees. The delay, until July 13, was granted by U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington. All parties have asked for repeated delays while they try to work out an agreement.

The restraining order, first issued on May 9, blocks Robert Parton, a former FBI agent, from handing over boxes of documents to two congressional committees that subpoenaed them after he resigned from the U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee. Parton left the probe, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, believing the inquiry ignored evidence critical of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose son worked for a company that received a lucrative contract in Iraq under the $67 billion program.

Parton took thousands of files with him, which the Volcker inquiry says violated a confidentiality agreement, could put witnesses at risk and jeopardize its investigation. The documents were given in response to a subpoena to the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, headed by Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde. Another House committee and one in the Senate then filed their own subpoenas. In its suit against Parton, the United Nations does not ask for the documents in the possession of Hyde's panel, but tries to prevent them from being distributed to other committees. Annan appointed the Volcker probe last year to investigate fraud in the oil-for-food program, which began in 1996. Under the deal, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government could sell oil to buy goods to ease the impact of U.N. sanctions on ordinary Iraqis. The sanctions were imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Parton said he kept the documents to back up his allegations that the investigation was flawed. The Volcker panel says the documents belong to its inquiry and it needs to have jurisdiction over their distribution and to protect witnesses.

NASA guilty of cover-up

Boffins who discovered that there was a 10th planet in our solar system, had been sitting on the news for years until a hacker turned over their servers. The new planet, known as 2003UB313, has been identified as the most distant object ever detected orbiting the sun, California Institute of Technology astronomer Michael Brown said. But according to the South African Sunday Telegraph, the briefing was hastily arranged after Brown received word that his secure website containing the crucial data had been found by a curious web-surfer. The unnamed hacker was threatening to release the information, if the scientists did not want to.

It transpired that Brown and his friends had been sitting on the information since 2003 when they snapped it with a 122cm telescope at the Palomar Observatory. However they couldn’t confirm much about it until it was analyzed again last January. So in the time honored tradition of Boffins everywhere they decided to keep the data from the common people until they knew a bit more. Brown said that data is still being processed and it will take at least six months before astronomers can determine the planet’s exact size. The planet seems to be about 1.5 times the size of Pluto, which is usually dubbed a planetoid because it is so small.

The new planet has been identified as the most distant object ever detected orbiting the sun, California Institute of Technology astronomer Michael Brown said. Brown and colleagues Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz have submitted a name for the planet to the International Astronomical Union and are confident it will be designated a planet. Brown did not reveal the proposed name, but leaks have been stating the proposed name is ‘Zena’.

The planet is located about 9.7 billion miles from the sun and is about 1 1/2 times the size of Pluto, the researchers said. The new planet orbits the sun once every 560 years and is now at its farthest point from Earth, he said. In about 280 years, the planet will be as close as Neptune, he said. Like Pluto, the object's surface is believed to be predominantly methane, but its size -- about 1,700 miles in diameter -- qualifies it as a planet, Brown said. Earth is about 7,900 miles in diameter. The new planet is believed to be part of the Kuiper Belt, a large ring of icy objects that orbit beyond Neptune and are believed to be remnants of the material that formed the solar system.

The Caltech team, funded in part by NASA, had been waiting to announce the find until they had completed their studies, but changed their minds after a hacker threatened to go public with their data, Brown said. Their finding comes a day after a Spanish team of astronomers announced the discovery of another relatively large object orbiting in the solar system's outer reaches. That object, Brown said, was about three-quarters the size of Pluto. The new planet went undiscovered for so long because its orbit is tilted at a 45-degree angle to the orbital plane of the other planets, and travels in an elliptical orbit, Brown said.

The new planet is so far away that an observer standing on its surface could cover the view of the sun with the head of a pin, Brown said. It was sufficiently bright, however, for amateur astronomers to track it in the early morning sky, he said.