Freedom Of The Press
|
Publié :6/1/2007 15h53
Dernière mise à jour :27/4/2024 17h12 6991 vues
|
Freedom Of The Press is another clause in the first ammendment that has been expanded beyond what the founding fathers first intended. There was constant censorship in Great Britain, and the founding fathers wanted ... no, needed the press to be free in their new Nation. With this clause they set up the press to be a fourth branch of government "The Fourth Estate". They wanted the people to know what was going on in the Government of the fledgling nation so that it would not become a dictatorial power.
The Founding Fathers never invisioned the electronic media ... as brilliant as they were ... how could they? Not in a million years did they imagine a time when the competition for news stories would lead the press to act against the interests of the United States. The press was to be a partner to the Government ... keeping it in line, but never working against the interests of the people. So we get the New York Times blurting out National Secrets in order to sell papers. Now our enemies know some of our methods of identifying and tracking down terrorists through bank wire-transfers and cell phone intercepts.
In the strictest of interpretations, freedom of the press protects the press from governmental censorship.
This has been expanded to ban the use of prior restraint (an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement). The ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public safety or security is endangered and some forms of pornography. The theory behind this was articulated by the Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota in 1931 is that free speech and free press protections have priority and that lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effects of defamation and untruths. Most other countries permit the act of prior restraint.
I would like to point out at this time that nowhere in all of this is there any right for reporters to protect their sources. There are shield laws in some States, but the very fact that reporters have gone to jail for not naming their sources shows that this right does not exist. When a government source leaks classified National Security Information to the Press, we need to lock up that reporter till they give up the name of the traitor.
While we are on the subject, I think the Federal Government should bring suit against the New York Times for publishing the article about the wire intercepts, even after being told it was a matter of National Security. One of the exclusions to the prior restraint clause is the endangerment of public security and public safety. If making it harder for the US Government to capture and kill terrorists is not a danger to public safety, I don't know what is.
|
|
|
9
commentaires
|
|
Freedom of Speech
|
Publié :6/1/2007 14h05
Dernière mise à jour :6/1/2007 15h57 6871 vues
|
Freedom of Speech is the most often cited and most often abused freedom in the bill of rights. Our forefathers came from a time when you could be put in jail indefinitely for bad mouthing the King and did not want that to happen in their new Nation. But let's look into how this simple concept has been corrupted.
Many Nations have the right to free speech, but only in America is this right taken to the extreme. Where in some Nations certain groups are muzzled because of Hate Speech Laws, their websites are hosted in the United States because of our liberal free speech laws. So the Neo-Nazi Party, the KKK, Anti-Holocaust Groups and their ilk get to spew their racist garbage and are protected.
You may notice that no mention is made of Freedom of Expression in this amendment, but somehow this has been legislated into the 1st Amendment, making it O-kay to burn our flag or paint pictures that are disgusting, or sacrilegious or morally offensive to the vast majority of Americans ... all in the name of Free Speech.
Now their are certain limits to freedom of speech, the first one that comes to mind is that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Actually your freedom of speech ends when what you are saying incites others to break the law, or may cause injury to others. You cannot advocate shooting the police (like some rappers do in their songs), unless it is in the abstract and not a direct incitement to break the law.
For decades the Supreme Court has been a staunch defender of the Free Speech Clause, under both liberal and conservative justices. What is it about speech that makes it so sacrosanct? Could it be that is the one thing in which all Americans can participate? We here in Blogland do it daily, and the internet is the Mecca of Free Speech.
Other limits on Free Speech are found in our copyright laws ... you cannot take someone else's intellectual property and use it as your own and claim any first amendment protection ... at least they got that right. You can not disseminate any "hard-core" pornography, and you can not falsely defame any public official or public figure with information that you know is wrong (this is where the slander and libel laws come in). And freedom of expression does not allow you to expose yourself in public (decency laws prevail in this case).
Other than that, Americans can say or express themselves in any way that they want ... No matter how tasteless this can be to the majority of the people.
One word of warning though ... Unless you work for a Government Agency, your employer can restrict what you say on the job (Government will make no law abridging the freedom of speech). If you don't work for the Government, you better watch what you say. If you are in the Military, you are not covered under the Constitution in most cases, you are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
|
|
|
1
commentaire
|
|
The First Amendment (cont)
|
Publié :5/1/2007 16h34
Dernière mise à jour :6/1/2007 16h05 6981 vues
|
Sorry it's been so long but work has been hectic and though I love to Blog ... I love to eat too, so work comes first. Anyway let's continue with the first amendment.
Free Exercise of Religion
Sounds simple right? The Government can't stop people from going to Church ... well yes and no. In Court ruling after court ruling, the exercise of religion has been broken up into two separate entities, belief and practice.
The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is "To secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority." It bars "governmental regulation of religious beliefs as to impede the observance of one or all religions or ... to discriminate invidiously between religions ... even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect." Okay ... now it seems to be getting complicated, and you know what that means ... bring in the lawyers and judges.
Court Rulings affecting the Free Exercise Clause:
First and foremost, my favorite group of people ... the bigamists and polygamists. The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormons) brought several cases before the Supreme Court involving the anti-bigamy and polygamy laws that prevented them from practicing their religion. The Court has ruled that while the Mormons could believe in multiple wives, they were not able to act on that belief. The banning of the practice of bigamy and polygamy was deemed to be of "compelling interest" to the Government, and could therefore be enforced without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
This may be a bad thing for the Mormons, but it is a good thing for the country. If we were to exclude the Mormon Church from the Polygamy Laws, it would set a very dangerous precedent. As ridiculous as this might sound, it would open the doors to religions doing human sacrifices. I know it sounds ridiculous ... but once the precedent is there ... common sense takes a back seat to established case law.
Another of my favorite groups, the Jehovah's Witnesses also went before the Supreme Court. The Witnesses were proselytizing in a heavily Catholic neighborhood and playing a phonograph record that was grossly insulting to the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The Witnesses were charged and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled that the interest sought to be upheld by the State did not justify the suppression of religious views that simply annoyed listeners.
So my friends, it seems we can not simply punch out people that start preaching to us on the street ... even if they piss us off. They have a Constitutional Right to do it. Our only redress is to walk away.
Now, some States have Sunday Blue Laws which require retailers to be closed on Sunday. A Jewish merchant went to the Supreme Court with the argument that he already closed his business on the Sabbath (Saturday) because his religion compelled him to, and being closed on Sunday also would be an undue financial burden on him and his business. The Supreme Court ruled that being closed on Sunday didn't hinder the practice of his religion, so he had to close on Sundays too.
While I can see that this ruling is completely in line with the First Amendment ... I can also see the unfairness of these Blue Laws to Jews and others that celebrate Saturday as the Lords' Day. Just because a decision is technically correct, doesn't make it right. Many States that still have these Blue Laws have modified them to say that businesses must be closed one day out of the weekend. But these Blue Laws are a relic of the past that should be repealed.
Other cases dealing with this clause dealt with if the Amish could pull their kids from school after the 8th grade (yes), If the Amish had to pay into the Social Security System even though they don't collect (yes), if an Orthodox Jew in the Army could wear his Yarmulke (no), and so many others that you know a lot of lawyers got rich just off of this clause.
But to re-cap, the exercise of religion is broken down into beliefs which are always allowed and the practice of religion which can be infringed upon by the secular government when the interests of the State "compellingly" outweigh the rights of the individual to practice.
Wow, another clause ... another long post. At this rate I'll never be done. I will make sure to post again tomorrow ... I will try to finish the amendment in one last post ... but no promises.
|
|
|
5
commentaires
|
|
The First Amendment
|
Publié :1/1/2007 16h21
Dernière mise à jour :6/1/2007 15h54 7008 vues
|
Sometimes as I am researching my Blog Posts, I come up on something I had never realized. To me the Bill Of Rights was always a sacrosanct set of laws that had one meaning and only one ... it meant what was said. But the Constitution being an almost living document, growing and maturing as this country moves through the ages, opens everything to interpretation, including the first ten amendments that we call the "Bill of Rights". Since these rights are the basis of what we as Americans envision ourselves to be, I would like to take this time at the beginning of the year to review them.
Those that are already familiar with the Bill of Rights may garner a deeper understanding, while those totally unfamiliar with them (I have quite a few overseas readers), will get a quick tutorial on them. Those that don't care can come back and visit around the middle of the month, when I will again be bashing stupidity in Congress and the Media ... but you might miss out on some good information.
First off, the Constitution gives us the ability to change it. At the time, this was a unique thing in the world. When a country wanted to change their laws, they would usually just scrap them and write new ones. The founding fathers wanted a set basis for all laws both current and future, so they developed a Constitution that could be amended as times changed. In order to amend the Constitution of the United States, a bill must pass by 2/3 majority in both houses. Once that is done, 3/4 of the States must ratify it for it to become law.
When the Constitution was first up for ratification, some of the States complained that there were certain protections that they wanted to see. The States had just thrown off the oppressive rule of King George of England and they didn't want to see his repressive laws repeated here. The States were promised a "Bill of Rights" would follow for their ratification.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Archaic words ... yes, but to the point. This amendment lays down some basic rights and things that the Federal Government should not do. The 14th Amendment extends these caveats to the State Governments.
Establishment of Religion
On the surface, this clause is pretty straight forward ... The Government shall not promote or establish a religion. Most of the original settlers of this country fled their homelands because of religious persecution. Their home countries had a State Religion, and they either followed it or bad things happened to them. Well, in our litigious society, Christmas displays have become a target for the ACLU and others, especially scenes of the creche (also called nativity scenes) on public land. The first case articulated by the Supreme Court was Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. This case brought about the Lemon test (I kid you not). Basically, if religious symbols are placed among secular symbols (like Santa), the whole thing is considered a secular display. This is called ... the "plastic reindeer rule". (Where do they come up with this stuff? The greatest legal minds of that time worked on this and "plastic reindeer rule" was the best they could come up with?) We get into trouble when we have a religious symbol standing alone on public property, such as the large Cross in California. Of course, the Supreme Court has a bas-relief sculpture of the tablets of the ten commandments, but then again, these are part of a group of sculptures that includes the Magna Carta, so I guess it is secular ... though there are no plastic reindeer.
Wow, this is fairly wordy, I will break for today to give you time to digest ... and maybe do your own research. I will finish the first amendment tomorrow ... I hope.
|
|
|
5
commentaires
|
|
A New Year's Prayer
|
Publié :30/12/2006 17h45
Dernière mise à jour :5/1/2007 16h51 6759 vues
|
A New Year's Prayer
Dear Lord, please give me
A few friends who understand me and remain my friends;
A work to do which has real value,
without which the world would be the poorer;
A mind unafraid to travel, even though the trail be not blazed;
An understanding heart;
A sense of humor;
Time for quiet, silent meditation;
A feeling of the presence of God;
The patience to wait for the coming of these things,
With the wisdom to recognize them when they come.
Amen.
- Unknown writer
To all my friends in Blogland, may the New Year bring you joy and happiness ... and may you bring this joy to others.
See you next year.
|
|
|
4
commentaires
|
|
A Tale Of Two Presidents
|
Publié :30/12/2006 17h29
Dernière mise à jour :5/1/2007 16h59 6947 vues
|
Today, the nation mourns the loss of Gerald R. Ford, 38th President of the United States, and the only one never elected either as President or Vice President. He was the first, and only President to take office under provisions of the 25th amendment.
When President Ford took the oath of office on August 9th 1974, he inherited a country mired in double digit inflation, divided over the Viet Nam War, in the midst of a gas shortage and deeply distrustful of its' government. This was not the way any President wants to start his term of office. He then set to work healing the nation.
He immediately set to work curbing inflation. He probably went a little overboard hiking interest rates and had to stimulate the economy to avoid recession. Still fearing inflation he vetoed a number of non-military appropriations bills (39 in his first 14 months) and the economy did alright ... not great, but a lot better than what he inherited.
On foreign policy, he faced the daunting task of maintaining US power and prestige after the collapse of Cambodia and South Viet Nam. President Ford got Egypt and Israel to accept a truce agreement (though it took the US providing aid to both countries to make it happen), and continued detente with the Soviet Union with Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev agreeing to set new limits on nuclear weapons.
The thing that President Ford was most criticized for was his Presidential Pardon of former President Richard M. Nixon. I must admit that I wanted President Nixon prosecuted for his crime of lying during the Watergate Cover-up. I felt betrayed by the President because he was dishonest with the American Public. Thinking back, I realize how much more we expected of politicians back then than we do now.
This pardon, much maligned at the time, turned out to be the crowning achievement of the Ford presidency. The country needed to put Watergate behind us, and with President Nixon hiding out in San Clemente, we were able to move on. This would not have been possible had we gone on to years of trials and appeals.
Now for the second President. Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq for 2+ decades took power in 1979. There followed a rule of iron fist so formidable, it would have made Grand Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia envious. Dissidents were arrested, tortured and killed ... though the lucky ones were merely maimed and released back into the population as a warning to the people. When the Kurds in the north started acting up, he slaughtered tens of thousands of them, even using chemical weapons on them, and poisoning their fields. When the Shi'ia in the south rebelled, he razed the towns to the ground and drained the marshland (where the people grew a lot of their food and fished). He sacrificed hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi men and boys in his invasions of Iran and Kuwait. Saddam would sacrifice his country to keep his power. His viciousness was second only to Adolf Hitler and on a par with Idi Amin and Pol Pott.
Last night, Saddam was hanged for his crime of putting to death 148 Shi'ite villagers after an attempted assassination.
There were many other charges looming, this was just the first one that was tried. There was speculation that he would go through all of the trials, to allow those that he had wronged their day in court. But at the end it was decided that one death sentence was enough.
Like the Nixon pardon, the Saddam execution will allow Iraq and the world to put this little bit of history behind them, so that Iraq and the Iraqi people can move on and accomplish greater things.
|
|
|
5
commentaires
|
|
A Chicken In Every Pot ... Not
|
Publié :29/12/2006 16h30
Dernière mise à jour :5/1/2007 17h01 6898 vues
|
Just when you thought that politicians would promise you anything to get elected ... you get proved right.
When I read this AP release, I thought it was a joke ... but it was serious.
Declaring color television a necessity, an Indian political party promised free color TV sets to the poor and swept to a landslide victory back in May in the Southern Indian State of Tamil Nadu. The Party, Dravida Munnetra Kashagam (DMK) has handed out 60,000 sets so far and plans to hand out another 30,000 sets in the coming months.
Too bad I couldn't find the picture so that I could have posted it. The picture showed and Indian family of 5, sitting on a bare floor, watching their new 14" color TV (the TV has a purple sticker on the side saying, "Government of Tamil Nadu Color TV 2006" on it). The TV is sitting on a light blue plastic lawn chair (the only piece of furniture in the room).
I guess for next election season, they will be giving out free couches 
|
|
|
7
commentaires
|
|
2006 Jack-Ass Of The Year Award
|
Publié :28/12/2006 17h30
Dernière mise à jour :30/12/2006 16h16 7000 vues
|
As the year 2006 winds down, it's time to name our jack-ass of the year award. The competition was fierce this year and though John Kerry gave it his all, in the end there was only one clear choice ... Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
In case you've been living in a vacuum since March, Mike Nifong is the putz that charged 3 Duke LaCross players with , sexual offense and kidnapping after a stripper who had been hired for a team party alleged that she had been .
From the beginning, this case didn't feel right. The second stripper that was there stated that she didn't think a had taken place, and when one of the accused had an alibi for the time the was supposed to have taken place (A cab driver vouched that he was in his cab ... and photo and electronic evidence at an ATM placed him miles away from the house), the DA came up with a new time-line. The photo line-up was tainted, as the girl was only shown photos of players on the team ... and one of the men she identified, she told detectives that she would have been 100% sure if that picture would have shown the player in his beard ... that player had never worn a beard. Several years prior, this same girl had also alleged that she had been by 3 men ... those charges were later dropped. When a judge ordered that DNA was to be collected from all 46 of the White members of the team (the one Black player was excused since the girl said her attackers were White), the team lawyer explained to the players that this ruling could be appealed as too sweeping in its' scope ... but all 46 immediately marched down to the police station to give their samples (not the actions of guilty men).
The second dancer, who originally told police that the story of a was "a crock", and that the alleged victim was never out of her sight for more than 5 minutes (the alleged victim told police the lasted 45 minutes) later changed her story after DA Nifong threatened to revoke her bond for a prior conviction.
Much later DA Nifong finally released the DNA test results that none of the Duke players DNA was found in the accuser ... however the DNA of several other men was found. This would be exculpatory evidence and should have been given to the defense when it first came to light, but was kept secret for 6 months.
Now, the accuser has changed her story for the fourth time and says that she is unsure if she was penetrated during the sexual assault. DA Nifong has dropped the charges but still continues to press for the sexual offense and kidnapping charges.
Now why did he even file charges to begin with? Well it seems that the DA was in a tight political race in Durham and needed the Black vote to put him over the top, so what better way than to arrest 3 privileged White athletes to show the Black community he was on their side ... this is politics at its' worst.
Now for the thing that put him over the top for this yearly award ... DA Mike Nifong just spoke to the accuser last week for the first time!
Now let's re-cap the harm this guy has done:
One head coach fired
One LaCross season canceled
Several scholarships revoked (not all the guys on the team were rich)
The pictures of two of the accused plastered on Newsweek
Three reputations ruined
Alumni donations to Duke severely curtailed ...
And most importantly ...
Future accusations harmed.
|
|
|
8
commentaires
|
|
Seven Deadly Sins
|
Publié :27/12/2006 16h20
Dernière mise à jour :30/12/2006 11h37 7011 vues
|
There are seven deadly sins also called mortal sins. I was pondering them today and googled them because I forgot Wrath/Anger and came upon a little test to see which sin I was most guilty of.
These are the seven deadly sins:
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
After I took the 15 question test, it told me that pride was my biggest flaw. Take a few moments and try to figure out which of the deadly sins will be your downfall.
Then enter inside to look up your punishment in Hell for your sin ...
|
|
|
10
commentaires
|
|
Christmas Trivia Time
|
Publié :23/12/2006 14h39
Dernière mise à jour :27/12/2006 17h57 7172 vues
|
I have been searching the world wide web for trivia about Christmas and have compiled this Quiz for your enjoyment.
1)Which of the following is not one of Santa's reindeer?
a)Dasher
b)Dancer
c)Bonner
d)Blitzen
2)Which of the following names does NOT belong to one of the Three Kings?
a)Caspar
b)Balthazar
c)Teleost
d)Melchior
3)If you were given some frumenty at a Medieval Christmas Party, what would you probably do with it?
a)Eat it
b)Burn it
c)Put it in your sweetheart's hair
d)Use it to polish your boots
4)In the Ukraine, what does it mean if you find a spider web in the house on Christmas morning?
a)Good Luck
b)Misfortune will strike in the coming year
c)The winter will be unusually cold
d)Your house needs cleaning
5)After Scrooge has reformed his life at the end of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, he invites Bob Cratchit to join him for some "smoking bishop". What did he mean?
a)A fast variation of chess popular in Victorian London
b)A premium pipe tobacco
c)A hot spiced drink
d)A Christmas pudding, soaked in Brandy and set alight
6)In Tchaikovsky's ballet, "The Nutcracker", who is the nutcracker's main enemy?
a)A girl called Clara
b)The King of Mice
c)Dr. Almond
d)Drosselmeyer the magician
7)What is the Irish custom of "feeding the wren" or "hunting the wren" on December 26th?
a)Taking one's in-laws out to dinner
b)Carrying a wren door to door, to collect money for charity
c)Leaving a basket of cakes at the door for passers-by
d)Putting out suet and seeds for the wild birds
8 ) In Sweden, a common Christmas decoration is the Julbukk, a small figurine of a goat. Of what material is it usually made?
a)Candy
b)Straw
c)Uranium
d)Wood
9) In Lithuania, if Kaledu Senelis, or Grandfather Christmas, appears to the children on Christmas Eve to hand out presents, the recipient must:
a)Find the gift while blind-folded
b)Guess what the gift is, or pay a forfeit
c)Kneel to receive the gift
d)Perform a song or poem before receiving the gift
10)In Greek legend, malicious creatures called Kallikantzaroi sometimes play troublesome pranks at Christmas time. What should you do to get rid of them?
a)Placate them with gifts of rice pudding
b)Burn either salt or an old shoe
c)Sing hymns in a loud voice
d)Throw your sandals at them
After answering the quiz, enter this post to see how you did
|
|
|
9
commentaires
|
|
Pardon Me?
|
Publié :22/12/2006 16h26
Dernière mise à jour :28/12/2006 7h22 6288 vues
|
In a White House tradition dating back to the founding of our country, President Bush has pardoned 16 people and commuted the sentence of another.
In the Federalist #74, first published on March 25th 1778, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered of embarrassed.”
The U.S. Constitution grants the power to pardon to the President. In keeping with the feelings of the day, expressed in Hamilton’s words, “the power to pardon is virtually unqualified”
In recent Presidential History, some Presidents have been more unfettered than others. This was President Bush’s 113th pardon in his nearly six years in office. President Clinton issued 457 pardons in 8 years, President George H. W. Bush issued 77 in four years, and President Reagan issued 406 in 8 years. The all time record goes to President Truman who handed out 2031 pardons and commutations in a couple months short of 8 years.
The President needs to up his total of pardons by 2. A couple of months ago, I did a post on a grave miscarriage of justice You Won't Believe This One where two Border Patrol Agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in jail for shooting an illegal alien in the butt. This illegal was in the process of smuggling drugs. This happened in the El Paso Sector of our Southern Border. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R CA) has been spearheading an effort to win a pardon for the Border Patrol Agents. He has submitted a letter to the President signed by more than 50 house members requesting a Christmas Pardon. In addition, there is an on-line petition that had been signed by 132,445 people as of this morning. If you want to sign the petition just google grassfire and you will find it.
If the President can find it in his heart to pardon a tax-evader, a bribe taker and other minor felons as well as commute the sentence of a cocaine dealer … why can’t he find forgiveness for two men who made a mistake while trying to protect our southern border?
|
|
|
5
commentaires
|
|
Military To Increase ... It's About Time
|
Publié :20/12/2006 17h26
Dernière mise à jour :27/12/2006 16h32 6498 vues
|
Today, President Bush announced that the size of the US Military will increase. I say ... what took you so long?
We cut back on the military too far in the 90's. I understand we were trying to achieve a peace dividend after the end of the cold war ... but I think we cut back by a couple of divisions too far.
Many will say that the only reason for the increase is so that the US can pour another 30,000 troops into Baghdad in a last ditch attempt to quell the partisan fighting that is making the city unlivable. While I think the likelihood of that happening (though I'm unsure of the number of troops) is very possible, we would need the increase in the military anyway. Right now, the majority of our combat troops are on a cycle of 1 year deployed followed by a year at home, then back for another year. This can get old real quick ... besides being a strain on military families.
This increase in the military will also relieve some of the stress on our Reserve and National Guard Troops that have been doing an admirable job ... balancing deployments to the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq with fighting natural disasters and helping out the Border Patrol on our Southern Border.
I will say this ... rather than deploy more troops to Baghdad, let's send them to Afghanistan to kill Osama (even if he is in Pakistan). Nothing would make me happier than seeing pictures of his dead body on the nightly news.
How would you like to see the additional troops used?
A) In Baghdad ... to try to quell the Sunni-Shiite fuss.
 In the US ... providing much needed relief to both our active-duty and reserve forces.
C) In Afghanistan/Pakistan ... hunting for Bin Laden's head.
|
|
|
11
commentaires
|
|
The Impossible DREAM?
|
Publié :18/12/2006 16h32
Dernière mise à jour :22/12/2006 16h38 6406 vues
|
Legislation that would let thousands of undocumented high school students attend college or join the military now has a good chance of passing in a Democrat controlled Congress.
A bill known as DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) will be re-introduced by Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL ) early next year.
In a nutshell, this bill would allow immigrants that came to the United States illegally prior to the age of 16 to obtain a conditional visa to attend college or join the military. The applicant would have to have been in the country 5 years prior to passage of the bill, have graduated high school or obtained a GED, and have no criminal record.
This bill was passed in the Senate, but shot down in the House last year by Conservative Representatives that said it amounted to amnesty.
Being a fair-minded individual (or so I like to call myself), I can see that a child that is brought into the United States by his parents (though living here illegally) is not guilty of anything and should not be punished for what his parents did. This conditional visa would expire in 6 years and if the applicant hadn't served two years in the military or completed 2 years of higher education ... he or she would go back to illegal immigrant status.
The Migration Policy Institute in Washington DC estimates that the DREAM Act would make 279,000 people immediately eligible for college or military service. In addition, 715,000 illegal aliens ages 5 through 17 would become eligible in the future.
This would really help out the military, which needs to expand. I've found, on the average, someone who immigrated to the US is much more gung-ho and willing to serve than those that were lucky enough to have the birth-right of citizenship.
If this act passes this year, I am pretty certain that the President would sign it. It is only fair ... some of these kids don't even speak their native tongue. Some of these kids don't even know that they are here illegally ... till they try to go to college or join the military. This is not amnesty ... you have to have done something wrong in order to get amnesty.
Once again though this has to be part of a comprehensive immigration reform that is also strong on enforcement (especially of employers).
|
|
|
9
commentaires
|
|
Pour créer un lien vers ce blog (rm_pchamp012004), utilisez [blog rm_pchamp012004] dans vos messages.
|
|
|
| Dim |
Lun |
Mar |
Mer |
Jeu |
Ven |
Sam |
| |
11
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
51
|
62
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
