In regarding the cases of two U.S. Border Patrol agents, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who are about to begin serving prison terms of 11 and 12 years in connection with the shooting and wounding last year of a drug-smuggling suspect as he fled across the U.S. border into Mexico. One of the agents was an eight-year veterans of the Naval Reserve and a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.
For the Justice Department, which rightly ranks border security as a national priority, the case is now posing some embarrassing questions. For example, as one of the convicted agents asked, if border patrol agents aren't allowed by policy to pursue fleeing criminal suspects without first getting a supervisor's approval, how are they supposed to apprehend fleeing terrorist suspects or drug smugglers?
The conviction and sentencing of the two agents last fall on a charge of discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence--which carries an automatic 10-year sentence--illustrates the need for a congressional review of Border Patrol policies. Members of the House have written the U.S. Attorney General and President Bush about a pardon, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has been asked to hold hearings.
Meanwhile, Agents Compean and Ramos have every right to exhaust all possible legal appeals of their convictions, including delving into reports that three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case. The agents may also seek a presidential pardon.
Although I do not serve on the Judiciary panel, I will urge my colleagues there to proceed with a review of agency policies. If there's one thing Congress needs to do, it is to make sure our law enforcement officials have the tools necessary to secure our borders. Please don't hesitate to contact me about this or any other issue in the future.
I
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Unite behind Victory Caucus
Unite behind Victory Caucus for changes.
A public-interest law firm has filed suit in federal court alleging that a "Holiday Displays" policy for New York City public schools is discriminatory against the Christian religion.
In its suit, the Thomas More Law Center said the district's policy "unlawfully discriminates against Christians" because it "prohibits the display of [Christian] Nativity scenes" in public schools during Christmas, while it "expressly permits and encourages" the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during certain religious holidays and observances. Officials at the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based law center said the suit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for eastern New York on behalf of Andrea Skoros, who has two children in the city's public school system. Skoros and her children are Roman Catholics. Last year, a public school attended by Skoros' son displayed the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but no Nativity scene. School officials dismissed requests for display of the Nativity scene, said Brian Burch, a spokesman for the law center.
The suit names the City of New York, Department of Education Chancellor Joel I. Klein, and "another school official" who was not identified by the law center. The center said NYC education officials claim the goal of the policy is "to promote understanding and respect for the diverse beliefs and customs relating to our community's observance of the winter holiday."
Published accounts said the school district's written policy allows only "secular holiday symbols." "Such symbols include, but are not limited to, Christmas trees, Menorahs, and the Star and the Crescent," the policy states, according to CNSNews.com. "Holiday displays shall not appear to promote or celebrate any single religion or holiday. Therefore, any symbol or decoration which may be used must be displayed simultaneously with other symbols or decorations reflecting different beliefs or customs." "The policy relegates Christians to second-class citizens," said Thompson. "Forcing schools to only allow secular symbols for Christmas while allowing religious symbols for other religions' holiday observances shows a callous indifference and hostility toward Christians during one of their holiest seasons."
The center's legal action follows criticism of the policy leveled against NYC schools last year by the Catholic League, the nation's largest Catholic civil-rights group.
In December 2001, Catholic League President William Donohue criticized a memo issued by Dr. Fran Levy, principal of the Thomas Jefferson Magnet School of Humanities in Flushing, N.Y., directing teachers to bring religious symbols to school that represent Kwanzaa and the Islamic and Jewish religions.
The memo did not include Christian symbols, with the exception of a Christmas tree, which Donohue said was a secular symbol. "It is outrageous that New York City public-school officials allow some religious symbols in the schools every December while banning others," Donohue said in a statement yesterday. "Catholics are sick and tired of being discriminated against by bureaucrats who tell us we should be satisfied with a Christmas tree in the schools.
The Catholic League maintains that the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent are religious symbols rather than secular displays, and therefore the school district should permit displays of the Christian Nativity scene, which depicts the birth of Jesus. "It is ironic that a religion enjoying the largest following in this nation is consigned by the city of New York to a least-favored status," he said. "It's a shame that we have reached a point in our nation's history that 'respect for diverse beliefs and customs' has come to mean discrimination against Christians – at Christmastime, no less."
The irony is that December 25th is a federal holiday, Christmas Day...the official birth Of Jesus Christ. The United States Supreme Court refuses to hear this case.
We need to get behind and organize behind victorycaucus.com so we can take back our country from the heathens that legislate from the bench. Lets rally behind victorycaucus.com and get rid of the permanent fixtures in congress and the policy makers who have an allegiance to anyone with the money.
Lets get term limits for everybody, revise the constitution, and rid ourselves of old men with obvious traits of onset dementia (eg. New London case, Andrea Skoros v. NYC public schools system). I hate to be the bearer of bad news but a justice at 87, maybe the stench from the bench is not just a metaphor.
A public-interest law firm has filed suit in federal court alleging that a "Holiday Displays" policy for New York City public schools is discriminatory against the Christian religion.
In its suit, the Thomas More Law Center said the district's policy "unlawfully discriminates against Christians" because it "prohibits the display of [Christian] Nativity scenes" in public schools during Christmas, while it "expressly permits and encourages" the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during certain religious holidays and observances. Officials at the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based law center said the suit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for eastern New York on behalf of Andrea Skoros, who has two children in the city's public school system. Skoros and her children are Roman Catholics. Last year, a public school attended by Skoros' son displayed the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but no Nativity scene. School officials dismissed requests for display of the Nativity scene, said Brian Burch, a spokesman for the law center.
The suit names the City of New York, Department of Education Chancellor Joel I. Klein, and "another school official" who was not identified by the law center. The center said NYC education officials claim the goal of the policy is "to promote understanding and respect for the diverse beliefs and customs relating to our community's observance of the winter holiday."
Published accounts said the school district's written policy allows only "secular holiday symbols." "Such symbols include, but are not limited to, Christmas trees, Menorahs, and the Star and the Crescent," the policy states, according to CNSNews.com. "Holiday displays shall not appear to promote or celebrate any single religion or holiday. Therefore, any symbol or decoration which may be used must be displayed simultaneously with other symbols or decorations reflecting different beliefs or customs." "The policy relegates Christians to second-class citizens," said Thompson. "Forcing schools to only allow secular symbols for Christmas while allowing religious symbols for other religions' holiday observances shows a callous indifference and hostility toward Christians during one of their holiest seasons."
The center's legal action follows criticism of the policy leveled against NYC schools last year by the Catholic League, the nation's largest Catholic civil-rights group.
In December 2001, Catholic League President William Donohue criticized a memo issued by Dr. Fran Levy, principal of the Thomas Jefferson Magnet School of Humanities in Flushing, N.Y., directing teachers to bring religious symbols to school that represent Kwanzaa and the Islamic and Jewish religions.
The memo did not include Christian symbols, with the exception of a Christmas tree, which Donohue said was a secular symbol. "It is outrageous that New York City public-school officials allow some religious symbols in the schools every December while banning others," Donohue said in a statement yesterday. "Catholics are sick and tired of being discriminated against by bureaucrats who tell us we should be satisfied with a Christmas tree in the schools.
The Catholic League maintains that the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent are religious symbols rather than secular displays, and therefore the school district should permit displays of the Christian Nativity scene, which depicts the birth of Jesus. "It is ironic that a religion enjoying the largest following in this nation is consigned by the city of New York to a least-favored status," he said. "It's a shame that we have reached a point in our nation's history that 'respect for diverse beliefs and customs' has come to mean discrimination against Christians – at Christmastime, no less."
The irony is that December 25th is a federal holiday, Christmas Day...the official birth Of Jesus Christ. The United States Supreme Court refuses to hear this case.
We need to get behind and organize behind victorycaucus.com so we can take back our country from the heathens that legislate from the bench. Lets rally behind victorycaucus.com and get rid of the permanent fixtures in congress and the policy makers who have an allegiance to anyone with the money.
Lets get term limits for everybody, revise the constitution, and rid ourselves of old men with obvious traits of onset dementia (eg. New London case, Andrea Skoros v. NYC public schools system). I hate to be the bearer of bad news but a justice at 87, maybe the stench from the bench is not just a metaphor.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Cross Stays Like-a-Before
The California Supreme Court, yesterday, affirmed the precedent-setting decision of a California appellate court, which upheld the right of the people of San Diego to transfer the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial and cross to the federal government. (bara..bing)
The Court denied the ACLU’s attempt to prevent the publication of the lower court decision favorable to the cross and veterans memorial. The ACLU was seeking to have the decision suppressed so that it would not be used against them in future lawsuits.
(bara..boom)
The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, attacked by the other side because it was a Christian advocacy group, figured prominently in the victory. The Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal, and it represented them in opposing (dead, dude) Paulson’s petition to the California Supreme Court. The Law Center also filed a lengthy objection to the ACLU’s request for depublication. (PPPPPPOOOOwwwwww, Holy Cross Batman)
“This is a major victory for religious freedom, the democratic process, and for the people of San Diego who voted overwhelmingly to preserve the historic Mt. Soledad veterans memorial and cross for future generations.” and “It was also important for the people to defeat the ACLU’s sinister plan to have the decision of the California appellate court depublished. The ACLU wanted the decision depublished so it could continue with its anti-Christian agenda free from opposing precedent. This appellate court decision will forever be a stumbling block for the ACLU—and we are pleased about that.” A break for taxpayer based extortion at the hands of the forth branch of goverment.
This past November, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in California upheld the constitutionality of the petition drive that transfers the Mount Soledad memorial property, including the cross, to the federal government for use as a national veterans memorial. In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A 76% of the vote. However, a state superior court judge issued an order halting Proposition A, claiming that this transfer was unconstitutional.(Bang...Zoom)
In a lengthy opinion, the California court of appeals reversed the superior court judge and held that the transfer of the memorial was in fact constitutional. The Thomas More Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal. San Diegans is the organization that was responsible for the passage of Proposition A. As a result, it was granted party status in the case.
In his petition, Paulson (who is doing the dirt nap), by and through ACLU attorney asked the California Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision because he claimed the decision conflicts with precedent on an issue that is of great public importance. The Thomas More Law Center disagreed. You know the problem is solved, since he's dead he can't be offended... Paulson’s claims were without merit because the California appellate court applied well-established law to reach its unanimous conclusion that Proposition A was constitutional. The Law Center also pointed out that the California Constitution is not hostile to religion, contrary to Paulson’s assertions. California Supreme Court rejected Paulson’s effort to disturb the well-reasoned, unanimous decision of the appellate court. This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations.”
. We will not allow the our freedoms to be held hostage by one atheist and his attorney.”
The Court denied the ACLU’s attempt to prevent the publication of the lower court decision favorable to the cross and veterans memorial. The ACLU was seeking to have the decision suppressed so that it would not be used against them in future lawsuits.
(bara..boom)
The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, attacked by the other side because it was a Christian advocacy group, figured prominently in the victory. The Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal, and it represented them in opposing (dead, dude) Paulson’s petition to the California Supreme Court. The Law Center also filed a lengthy objection to the ACLU’s request for depublication. (PPPPPPOOOOwwwwww, Holy Cross Batman)
“This is a major victory for religious freedom, the democratic process, and for the people of San Diego who voted overwhelmingly to preserve the historic Mt. Soledad veterans memorial and cross for future generations.” and “It was also important for the people to defeat the ACLU’s sinister plan to have the decision of the California appellate court depublished. The ACLU wanted the decision depublished so it could continue with its anti-Christian agenda free from opposing precedent. This appellate court decision will forever be a stumbling block for the ACLU—and we are pleased about that.” A break for taxpayer based extortion at the hands of the forth branch of goverment.
This past November, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in California upheld the constitutionality of the petition drive that transfers the Mount Soledad memorial property, including the cross, to the federal government for use as a national veterans memorial. In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A 76% of the vote. However, a state superior court judge issued an order halting Proposition A, claiming that this transfer was unconstitutional.(Bang...Zoom)
In a lengthy opinion, the California court of appeals reversed the superior court judge and held that the transfer of the memorial was in fact constitutional. The Thomas More Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in the successful appeal. San Diegans is the organization that was responsible for the passage of Proposition A. As a result, it was granted party status in the case.
In his petition, Paulson (who is doing the dirt nap), by and through ACLU attorney asked the California Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision because he claimed the decision conflicts with precedent on an issue that is of great public importance. The Thomas More Law Center disagreed. You know the problem is solved, since he's dead he can't be offended... Paulson’s claims were without merit because the California appellate court applied well-established law to reach its unanimous conclusion that Proposition A was constitutional. The Law Center also pointed out that the California Constitution is not hostile to religion, contrary to Paulson’s assertions. California Supreme Court rejected Paulson’s effort to disturb the well-reasoned, unanimous decision of the appellate court. This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations.”
. We will not allow the our freedoms to be held hostage by one atheist and his attorney.”
The Primary Number
The War on Terror is like a mathematics problem, the common denominator is Muslims and the primary number is Islam which indivisible and cannot be divided.
From the desk of Mortalkombatent 2007
From the desk of Mortalkombatent 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)