Showing posts with label Illegal Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal Immigration. Show all posts
29 June 2010
Secure Our Borders!
The federal government has put up signs in the Arizona desert to warn people of danger, and instructing them to stay away, because it is an active drug and human smuggling area. Imagine if we did that in high-crime areas in U.S. cities. "You will enter the Phillips Neighborhood in two miles. Be aware that it is an active drug and violence area, and that you are strongly advised to stay away." That sort of thing would cause an uproar.
There would be complaints of racism, either because the signs were outside minority neighborhoods, or because the police were only placing signs instead of dealing with the crime in those neighborhoods. That would be a public relations disaster. It would be tantamount to the local government ceding portions of its city to the criminal element within it. Further, it would likely embolden that criminal element to spread its area of influence and control.
Now, while I would hope to see the same outrage from the federal government ceding hundreds of miles (if not more) of territory along the Mexican border, I don't realistically expect that to happen. The media has vilified Arizona, and even though polls show that the American people support Arizona's right to control who comes-and-goes in their state, many will not hear about this through the MSM.
Setting up signs warning Americans not to enter certain areas of their own country's territory surely appears to be equivalent to Obama ceding sovereign U.S. territory to the Mexican drug cartels and other criminal elements. He and his administration need to be called on this. The federal government needs to step-up and enforce our borders, or the federal government needs to step aside and allow the states to do what his administration appears to be too impotent to do.
Support Arizona!
USMC 9971 OUT
23 May 2010
Read The Bill
I know that this is a recurring problem with our so-called leaders in Washington, but maybe the puppet will be able to reach them in a way that we the people have not been able to.
USMC 9971 OUT
21 May 2010
Feds Might Not Process Illegal Aliens From Arizona
The Obama Administration has decided to stick another finger in Arizona's eye.
Well, if the administration follows through on that, then I'd like to make a suggestion for a new piece of legislation that should be passed by the State of Arizona: Anyone convicted of a crime that was committed in Arizona while the offender was in the state and the nation illegally will be sentenced to 5 years in prison if the crime that was committed was a gross misdemeanor, and 15 years to life if the crime that was committed was a felony. Arizona doesn't need to turn them over to the feds; they can just hold them in work farms where the fruits of the inmates' labor can be used to offset the cost of the facility and the cost of enforcing the law that the feds won't.
Support Arizona!
USMC 9971 OUT
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.Got that? The Obama Administration, members of which couldn't even be bothered to read the short Arizona legislation before attacking it, may now play the "we don't like your law, so we won't process the criminals that you send to us" card.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports. [...]
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law. [...]
Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Well, if the administration follows through on that, then I'd like to make a suggestion for a new piece of legislation that should be passed by the State of Arizona: Anyone convicted of a crime that was committed in Arizona while the offender was in the state and the nation illegally will be sentenced to 5 years in prison if the crime that was committed was a gross misdemeanor, and 15 years to life if the crime that was committed was a felony. Arizona doesn't need to turn them over to the feds; they can just hold them in work farms where the fruits of the inmates' labor can be used to offset the cost of the facility and the cost of enforcing the law that the feds won't.
Support Arizona!
USMC 9971 OUT
17 October 2009
I Think I Found My Halloween Costume
Being politically incorrect is fun, but when that political incorrectness is making national news, well that makes it all the more entertaining.USMC 9971 OUT
13 June 2007
Drop The Personal Attacks And Argue The Merits, Linda
Nearly three weeks ago, on 25 May 2007, an opinion piece by Linda Chavez entitled, "Latino fear and loathing," was published. It appears that her main argument in it was that anyone who opposes any legislation regarding immigration, illegal or otherwise, is a xenophobe or a bigot.
She starts her piece with the statement, "Some people just don't like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border," and then goes on to say that the individuals who hold this sentiment are a very small minority who will not be swayed from their bigoted views. Lumped into this "small group of Americans," according to Chavez, are Lou Dobbs, un-named Republican members of Congress, un-named conservative talk radio hosts, other un-named cable news anchors, un-named public policy "experts", and un-named members of fringe groups. Ms. Chavez describes very politically incorrect views in her opening two paragraphs, and then accuses very prominent individuals of adhering to those views without any proof. The tactic is an attempt to smear well-known opponents to the immigration bill as nothing more than a powerful group of bigots.
The next two paragraphs, which are the ones which I excerpted above, attempt to make the argument that all immigration debates in this country have been about fear of foreigners, and that the current debate is no different. She then completely dismisses the rule of law, national security, and amnesty arguments made against the immigration bill as nothing more than a ploy to hide the underlying xenophobia of the opposition. The remaining four paragraphs continue the ad hominem attacks on those opposed to the very poorly crafted immigration bill, with a few praises heaped upon those who are here illegally.
In her follow-up piece on 01 June 2007, Ms. Chavez continues the ad hominem attacks. The new article cites many derogatory comments made by un-named individuals on Townhall.com, and seems to try to draw the conclusion that this proves that her initial accusations of bigotry on the part of those opposed to the immigration bill were correct. That conclusion is a logical fallacy, however, much as if one argued that since all poodles are dogs, then all dogs must be poodles. I will cede her point that there are some bigoted individuals who are against the immigration bill that was pulled from the Senate floor by Harry Reid, provided that she is willing to stipulate that bigots are a small minority of those opposed to the bill, and that there are people on her side of the debate who are just as negatively biased towards the majority of those opposed to the bill.
Unfortunately, both pieces are nothing more than an attempt by Ms. Chavez to discredit the arguments against the latest "immigration reform" by smearing those opposed to it. This does nothing to advance the merits of the plan that she appears to support, but rather it makes her position seem so weak that she must change the focus of the debate by launching unwarranted personal attacks against those who are making arguments against the bill; arguments that seem to have made an impact with a large portion of the American people.
No matter how Ms. Chavez tries to spin it, it isn't cautious obfuscation to speak against the recently withdrawn immigration bill by discussing the rule of law, national security, and amnesty. Instead, those are valid arguments based on the facts. The bill revolved around millions of individuals who are in our country illegally, a status that those individuals hold due to their violation of the rule of law. Some of those individuals are not from Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador; they are instead from nations of concern such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran, and that raises concerns towards our national security. Section 601(h) of the bill in question would provide legal status within 24 hours to those who apply, regardless of whether or not a background check had been completed on them. Besides the national security concerns that stem from such a quick bestowing of legal status on someone who has been in violation of the rule of law, it also is very close to the definition of amnesty (an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole).
If Ms. Chavez wants to have a debate on merits of her position, or on the text of any proposed legislation, I am all for that. She had one sentence in her follow-up piece that stated, "I want more secure borders and an end to illegal immigration — but the only way that will ever happen is to adopt a market-based legal immigration system that allows sufficient numbers of workers to come here to fill jobs Americans shun." That is a good start to an argument for her position, and she should expand upon that, further explaining and defending her beliefs in this matter.
Personal attacks against conservatives and others who oppose part (or all) of a proposed bill will do nothing more than create bitter division. Moreover, such attacks ignore the larger argument and come dangerously close to making the attacker into a person who is just as prejudiced as those who are being denounced; in essence, the attacker is becoming the beast in order to defeat the beast.
Millions of people being here in this country illegally is a problem that must be dealt with in order to provide for the security and prosperous future of our nation. Some of those millions are not from south of the border and actually do present a security risk. It would be interesting to hear Ms. Chavez' argument for providing, within 24 hours, legal status to individuals such as the three members of the Fort Dix Six who were in the U.S. illegally. The part of the recent immigration bill that would have allowed such an occurrence is one of the major sticking points for those opposed to the bill.
Will Ms. Chavez speak to that point in the future, or will she just complain that those of us who are concerned with such loopholes are only trying to disguise our all-too-evident distaste for Latinos with one of those annoying logical argument things?
USMC 9971 OUT
Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about. Fear of "the other" — of those who look or sound different, who come from poor countries with unfamiliar customs — has been at the heart of every immigration debate this country has ever had, from the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the floor of the U.S. Senate this week.Ms. Chavez' opinion article is not really an argument to the facts of the debate at hand, but rather an attack upon the character of the opposition.
What is said today of the Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans and others was once said of Germans, Swedes, the Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews and others. The only difference is that in the past, the xenophobes could speak freely, unconstrained by a veneer of political correctness. Today, they speak more cautiously, so they talk about the rule of law, national security, amnesty, whatever else they think might make their arguments less racially charged.
She starts her piece with the statement, "Some people just don't like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border," and then goes on to say that the individuals who hold this sentiment are a very small minority who will not be swayed from their bigoted views. Lumped into this "small group of Americans," according to Chavez, are Lou Dobbs, un-named Republican members of Congress, un-named conservative talk radio hosts, other un-named cable news anchors, un-named public policy "experts", and un-named members of fringe groups. Ms. Chavez describes very politically incorrect views in her opening two paragraphs, and then accuses very prominent individuals of adhering to those views without any proof. The tactic is an attempt to smear well-known opponents to the immigration bill as nothing more than a powerful group of bigots.
The next two paragraphs, which are the ones which I excerpted above, attempt to make the argument that all immigration debates in this country have been about fear of foreigners, and that the current debate is no different. She then completely dismisses the rule of law, national security, and amnesty arguments made against the immigration bill as nothing more than a ploy to hide the underlying xenophobia of the opposition. The remaining four paragraphs continue the ad hominem attacks on those opposed to the very poorly crafted immigration bill, with a few praises heaped upon those who are here illegally.
In her follow-up piece on 01 June 2007, Ms. Chavez continues the ad hominem attacks. The new article cites many derogatory comments made by un-named individuals on Townhall.com, and seems to try to draw the conclusion that this proves that her initial accusations of bigotry on the part of those opposed to the immigration bill were correct. That conclusion is a logical fallacy, however, much as if one argued that since all poodles are dogs, then all dogs must be poodles. I will cede her point that there are some bigoted individuals who are against the immigration bill that was pulled from the Senate floor by Harry Reid, provided that she is willing to stipulate that bigots are a small minority of those opposed to the bill, and that there are people on her side of the debate who are just as negatively biased towards the majority of those opposed to the bill.
Unfortunately, both pieces are nothing more than an attempt by Ms. Chavez to discredit the arguments against the latest "immigration reform" by smearing those opposed to it. This does nothing to advance the merits of the plan that she appears to support, but rather it makes her position seem so weak that she must change the focus of the debate by launching unwarranted personal attacks against those who are making arguments against the bill; arguments that seem to have made an impact with a large portion of the American people.
No matter how Ms. Chavez tries to spin it, it isn't cautious obfuscation to speak against the recently withdrawn immigration bill by discussing the rule of law, national security, and amnesty. Instead, those are valid arguments based on the facts. The bill revolved around millions of individuals who are in our country illegally, a status that those individuals hold due to their violation of the rule of law. Some of those individuals are not from Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador; they are instead from nations of concern such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran, and that raises concerns towards our national security. Section 601(h) of the bill in question would provide legal status within 24 hours to those who apply, regardless of whether or not a background check had been completed on them. Besides the national security concerns that stem from such a quick bestowing of legal status on someone who has been in violation of the rule of law, it also is very close to the definition of amnesty (an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole).
If Ms. Chavez wants to have a debate on merits of her position, or on the text of any proposed legislation, I am all for that. She had one sentence in her follow-up piece that stated, "I want more secure borders and an end to illegal immigration — but the only way that will ever happen is to adopt a market-based legal immigration system that allows sufficient numbers of workers to come here to fill jobs Americans shun." That is a good start to an argument for her position, and she should expand upon that, further explaining and defending her beliefs in this matter.
Personal attacks against conservatives and others who oppose part (or all) of a proposed bill will do nothing more than create bitter division. Moreover, such attacks ignore the larger argument and come dangerously close to making the attacker into a person who is just as prejudiced as those who are being denounced; in essence, the attacker is becoming the beast in order to defeat the beast.
Millions of people being here in this country illegally is a problem that must be dealt with in order to provide for the security and prosperous future of our nation. Some of those millions are not from south of the border and actually do present a security risk. It would be interesting to hear Ms. Chavez' argument for providing, within 24 hours, legal status to individuals such as the three members of the Fort Dix Six who were in the U.S. illegally. The part of the recent immigration bill that would have allowed such an occurrence is one of the major sticking points for those opposed to the bill.
Will Ms. Chavez speak to that point in the future, or will she just complain that those of us who are concerned with such loopholes are only trying to disguise our all-too-evident distaste for Latinos with one of those annoying logical argument things?
USMC 9971 OUT
05 October 2006
¡Cállate, Gringos!
In case you missed it, and there is a good chance that you would have if you get your news from the mainstream media, there was an attack on freedom of speech at Columbia University last night.
People who support illegal aliens and the criminal enterprise that brings and/or keeps them here, disrupted a series of speeches addressing the other side of the people-who-are-not-U.S.-citizens-crossing-the-border-illegally argument. As of Noon CDT, you could not find a single story about this incident on the main webpage or U.S. news webpage of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or Yahoo! News.
I ended up doing a search of news stories on Yahoo!, and here is what was returned.
Three. Only three news stories found (the last two links are for the same publication). There may be more news stories later, but there were only three at a little after Noon CDT on 05 October 2006.
If this had been an event organized by Students for Choice at Columbia University, with the keynote speaker being Nancy Keenan of NARAL, and conservative and Christian protesters had not only disrupted the speeches throughout, but also jumped on stage within minutes of the keynote speaker stepping before the microphone with a big sign that said, "It's a baby, not a choice!" followed by more protesters rushing the stage and a brawl, do you think that it would have made the national headlines?
I think that the mainstream media would have found that to be news. I think that the ACLU and various other legal and civil rights organizations would be railing against the horrible violation of our freedom of speech. I think that Senators Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Obama, Reid, and others would be calling for legal action and suggesting that the Congress come up with some legislation to protect public speakers from such protests and protesters.
But this was just a few conservatives who invited a few speakers to Columbia University. No problem here at all. In the words of one of the protesters:
See? The protesters were just exercising their right to free speech. It was the invited speakers who were the illegitimate parties in this whole fiasco.
Law enforcement should find the protesters, charge them, arrest them, and try them. Columbia University should suspend or expel them. Period. End of story. Because if they don't, then this sets precedent for future speeches on both sides of any issue, and the result will be the inmates running the asylum.
USMC 9971 OUT
Students stormed the stage at Columbia University's Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico.
People who support illegal aliens and the criminal enterprise that brings and/or keeps them here, disrupted a series of speeches addressing the other side of the people-who-are-not-U.S.-citizens-crossing-the-border-illegally argument. As of Noon CDT, you could not find a single story about this incident on the main webpage or U.S. news webpage of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or Yahoo! News.
I ended up doing a search of news stories on Yahoo!, and here is what was returned.
NEWS STORIES Results 1 - 4 of about 4 for "Columbia University" gilchrist.
At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder
The New York Sun - Oct 04 9:20 PM
Students stormed the stage at Columbia University's Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico. Mr. Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, another member of his group, were in the process of giving a speech at the invitation of the Columbia College Republicans. They were
Save to My Web
Minuteman college talk gets violent
New York Daily News - Oct 05 1:27 AM
The border wars came to Columbia University last night when student protesters clashed on stage with a staunch anti-immigrant advocate.
Save to My Web
Protestors Rush Minutemen
Columbia Daily Spectator - 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Protestors took the stage minutes after Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, came to the microphone in Roone Arledge Auditorium Wednesday night, sparking a chaotic brawl involving more than 20 students, other attendees, and guests.
Save to My Web
News Articles
Columbia Daily Spectator - Oct 05 1:38 AM
Dr. Mortimer J. Adler, CC '83, received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Columbia where he also taught for six years, authored over 30 books, and chaired Encyclopaedia Britannica's Board of Editors-all before graduating from college. He has the swim test to thank.
Save to My Web
Three. Only three news stories found (the last two links are for the same publication). There may be more news stories later, but there were only three at a little after Noon CDT on 05 October 2006.
If this had been an event organized by Students for Choice at Columbia University, with the keynote speaker being Nancy Keenan of NARAL, and conservative and Christian protesters had not only disrupted the speeches throughout, but also jumped on stage within minutes of the keynote speaker stepping before the microphone with a big sign that said, "It's a baby, not a choice!" followed by more protesters rushing the stage and a brawl, do you think that it would have made the national headlines?
I think that the mainstream media would have found that to be news. I think that the ACLU and various other legal and civil rights organizations would be railing against the horrible violation of our freedom of speech. I think that Senators Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Obama, Reid, and others would be calling for legal action and suggesting that the Congress come up with some legislation to protect public speakers from such protests and protesters.
But this was just a few conservatives who invited a few speakers to Columbia University. No problem here at all. In the words of one of the protesters:
"We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage," said a protestor who was on stage and asked to remain anonymous. "I don't feel like we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. ... The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."
See? The protesters were just exercising their right to free speech. It was the invited speakers who were the illegitimate parties in this whole fiasco.
Law enforcement should find the protesters, charge them, arrest them, and try them. Columbia University should suspend or expel them. Period. End of story. Because if they don't, then this sets precedent for future speeches on both sides of any issue, and the result will be the inmates running the asylum.
USMC 9971 OUT
05 September 2006
Miller Brewing Responds
I posted on Miller Brewing's support for illegal aliens and their advocates on Friday. Included in that post was a link to Miller's online contact form; a form that I had already used to contact Miller to express my disapproval and inform them of my decision to no longer purchase their products. Well, on Monday, Miller responded.
Quite the stunning attempt to win back my business, isn't it? Miller Time is over for me.
Miller claims that they do not support illegal immigration or any other unlawful act. Let's revisit the Chicago Tribune article on this.
A march in support of illegal immigrants, one that is a politically charged event that will promote ending deportations and offering legal status for 11 to 12 million illegal aliens, is receiving $30,000 from Miller, and the march advertisements will bear Miller's logo and their "Live Responsibly" slogan in Spanish. I don't know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like support for the advocates of illegal aliens to me; and a defacto support of illegal immigration.
Miller was founded by a German immigrant, but I'm rather certain that Frederick Miller came here legally, so that has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration. Also, the fact that Miller is an international company has no bearing on immigration, legal or otherwise.
I'm not certain if the Miller Lite Immigration Forum in Texas focuses on helping both legal and illegal immigrants to become legally naturalized citizens, but it could easily be viewed as support for illegal immigrants if it includes helping illegal aliens to become citizens. Their support of the recent immigration convention in Chicago certainly appears to be just that.
So, Miller thanks me for contacting them; says that they don't support illegal immigration (which can be refuted with the Chicago Tribune article); references the facts that their company was started by an immigrant and that it is international, both of which have no bearing on illegal immigration; references a program and a convention that they support, the latter of which can easily be argued to be in support of illegal immigration; and then they close with a condescending "We appreciate your interest."
I hope that they appreciate my interest, because it is the last thing that they will receive from me.
You can join the Miller Boycott here.
USMC 9971 OUT
Thanks for contacting us.
Miller Brewing Company does not support illegal immigration or any other unlawful act. We do support a public policy discussion that will lead to a clear path to legal naturalization for people who meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship. We also oppose any legislation that would unfairly and unjustly seek to constrain immigration.
Miller was founded 151 years ago by a German immigrant, Frederick Miller. And today, we are part of an international company with employees from around the world. We support the free movement of people, labor, goods and services in the global economy with appropriate protections for the rights of individuals and families, the security of nations, and the diversity that contributes to a rich and productive society.
Miller is active in helping immigrants learn how to become legally naturalized citizens of the U.S., through programs like the Miller Lite Immigration Forum in Texas and support for a recent immigration convention in Chicago. We have a long history of proudly supporting many national and local Latino organizations throughout the U.S.
We appreciate your interest.
Quite the stunning attempt to win back my business, isn't it? Miller Time is over for me.
Miller claims that they do not support illegal immigration or any other unlawful act. Let's revisit the Chicago Tribune article on this.
Marchers had to duck into fast-food restaurants for water when they first took to Chicago's streets in support of illegal immigrants five months ago. [...]
This time, as demonstrators march from Chinatown to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) Batavia office this weekend, they will have Miller Brewing Co., as a sponsor. The brewer has paid more than $30,000 for a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads publicizing the event. [...]
Now, march advertisements feature not just the organizing committee's trademark blue globe but Miller's logo and a Spanish translation of its "Live Responsibly" slogan, a company effort to build goodwill among Latinos.
But this march is no Cinco de Mayo parade. The politically charged event will promote a controversial plan to end deportations and offer legal status for all 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants.
A march in support of illegal immigrants, one that is a politically charged event that will promote ending deportations and offering legal status for 11 to 12 million illegal aliens, is receiving $30,000 from Miller, and the march advertisements will bear Miller's logo and their "Live Responsibly" slogan in Spanish. I don't know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like support for the advocates of illegal aliens to me; and a defacto support of illegal immigration.
Miller was founded by a German immigrant, but I'm rather certain that Frederick Miller came here legally, so that has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration. Also, the fact that Miller is an international company has no bearing on immigration, legal or otherwise.
I'm not certain if the Miller Lite Immigration Forum in Texas focuses on helping both legal and illegal immigrants to become legally naturalized citizens, but it could easily be viewed as support for illegal immigrants if it includes helping illegal aliens to become citizens. Their support of the recent immigration convention in Chicago certainly appears to be just that.
So, Miller thanks me for contacting them; says that they don't support illegal immigration (which can be refuted with the Chicago Tribune article); references the facts that their company was started by an immigrant and that it is international, both of which have no bearing on illegal immigration; references a program and a convention that they support, the latter of which can easily be argued to be in support of illegal immigration; and then they close with a condescending "We appreciate your interest."
I hope that they appreciate my interest, because it is the last thing that they will receive from me.
You can join the Miller Boycott here.
USMC 9971 OUT
01 September 2006
Mexican Flag Raised Over U.S. Post Office
On 26 August 2006, supporters of illegal aliens raised the Mexican flag over the Mayfield, California post office. I have read reports that the U.S. flag was taken down by the illegal alien supporters and stomped on, and I have also read that Old Glory was taken down by post office employees at closing. Either way, the Mexican flag should never be flying over a U.S. post office.
I didn't hear about this in the mainstream media; only online. Now, if I took down a Mexican flag and replaced it with the U.S. flag, regardless of whether or not the Mexican flag was flying over an official building of the Mexican government, you can bet your seat-cushion that the event would garner headlines around the country. Why is this event not national news?
I haven't found anything about this on KABC's website, even though I did see an ABC 7 news van in some of the pictures. Here are some other sources for your perusal, though.
USMC 9971 OUT
I didn't hear about this in the mainstream media; only online. Now, if I took down a Mexican flag and replaced it with the U.S. flag, regardless of whether or not the Mexican flag was flying over an official building of the Mexican government, you can bet your seat-cushion that the event would garner headlines around the country. Why is this event not national news?
I haven't found anything about this on KABC's website, even though I did see an ABC 7 news van in some of the pictures. Here are some other sources for your perusal, though.
Maywood: Kickin' it old school reconquista style
Freedom Folks
Mexican Flag Flies At U.S. Post Office
The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen
Mexican flag raised over Maywood, CA (SOS protest)
The Lonewacko Blog
Hoisting the Mexican flag at a US post office
Michelle Malkin
Protest crash: Maywood, sanctuary city for illegal immigrants
Political Mavens
MAYWOOD City of lawlessness...
SaveOurState
Report from Invader-Infested Maywood, California
The Terry Anderson Show
Mexican flag flies at U.S. post office
WorldNetDaily
Maywood 8-26-06 part 8
YouTube - From gent2222
USMC 9971 OUT
¡Qué Tontería!
Miller Brewing is sponsoring a march for illegal aliens in Chicago, Illinois.
I am still a little surprised that such a large company would support illegals and their advocates, but at least I found out now, instead of after purchasing refreshments for this weekend's family and neighborhood events. I've purchased Miller products instead of Anheuser-Busch for over a decade-and-a-half, but this move on Miller's part has cost them my business.
If Miller's sponsorship of those who violate our nation's laws makes you angry, you can use their handy-dandy contact form to let them know just that. I have already done so.
Also, Michelle Malkin has a list of Miller's beer brands in her post on this topic, just in case you want to avoid purchasing any of Miller's beers.
USMC 9971 OUT
Marchers had to duck into fast-food restaurants for water when they first took to Chicago's streets in support of illegal immigrants five months ago. At the next two marches, family-owned grocery stores offered free bottled water from trucks emblazoned with their names.
This time, as demonstrators march from Chinatown to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) Batavia office this weekend, they will have Miller Brewing Co., as a sponsor. The brewer has paid more than $30,000 for a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads publicizing the event.
I am still a little surprised that such a large company would support illegals and their advocates, but at least I found out now, instead of after purchasing refreshments for this weekend's family and neighborhood events. I've purchased Miller products instead of Anheuser-Busch for over a decade-and-a-half, but this move on Miller's part has cost them my business.
If Miller's sponsorship of those who violate our nation's laws makes you angry, you can use their handy-dandy contact form to let them know just that. I have already done so.
Also, Michelle Malkin has a list of Miller's beer brands in her post on this topic, just in case you want to avoid purchasing any of Miller's beers.
USMC 9971 OUT
