SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (56485)3/24/2006 9:25:19 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Helen Thomas--latest wet T-shirt picture

photopile.com



To: steve harris who wrote (56485)3/25/2006 10:42:58 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Coachella votes to become an immigrant sanctuary
Move an attempt to prevent local police from arresting the undocumented

Michelle Yee, The Desert Sun

SANCTUARY Cities that declare themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants vow not to uphold federal immigration laws that require undocumented immigrants to be deported.

OTHER CALIFORNIA SANCTUARIES: Los Angeles and San Francisco

HR 4377

The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 - or HR 4437 - authorizes and reimburses local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, proposes building a $2 million fence along the border and criminalizes those who help the undocumented.

Xochitl Peña The Desert Sun March 24, 2006

thedesertsun.com

---------------------------------------------------------------

COACHELLA - Declaring its support for undocumented immigrants coming to this agricultural, Latino community, the Coachella City Council voted Wednesday to become a "sanctuary."
One of just a few California cities to declare themselves sanctuaries, Wednesday's 2-1 decision is an attempt to prevent local police in the 97 percent Latino city of 30,000 from becoming an extension of the border patrol, should Congress pass House Resolution 4437.

The Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act, which is slated to go before the U.S. Senate next, authorizes local authorities to enforce federal immigration law, proposes building a $2 million fence along the border and criminalizes those who help the undocumented. It would also authorize police agencies to arrest undocumented immigrants.

The city has deep roots in agriculture; César Chávez once marched through the area to fight for farm laborers' rights. Today, the date, vegetable and table grape operations still rely on immigrant workers from Mexico and their descendents to harvest crops.

Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle has said if the congressional bill passes, his deputies, who are responsible for policing Coachella, will enforce the law, even if it's unpopular.

Doyle could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday night.

Riverside County is home to about 233,000 undocumented immigrants. It is unclear how many live in the Coachella Valley.

Community voices

Joe Mota, the regional director for the Southern California United Farm Workers of America, was one of hundreds of east valley residents who attended the standing room-only meeting Wednesday to urge the City Council to declare the city a "sanctuary."
Hand-in-hand with that, the City Council also approved 2-1 a resolution to oppose the congressional bill.

Opponents of the bill say it makes criminals of those who help illegal immigrants, even inadvertently.
"If anyone helps an illegal immigrant they can go to jail," said Esperanza Gonzalez, 29, a lifelong Coachella resident.

She attended the Wednesday City Council meeting to support opposition of the bill and also was at a protest march on Sunday that drew about 800 residents.

"I am Hispanic and I love helping out my community," she said of why she opposes the bill.

The resolution that declares Coachella a "sanctuary" doesn't preclude the sheriff's deputies from enforcing federal law that could contradict though, Mota said.

"If (HR 4437) passes, what's going to have to happen is we're going to have to pressure the city to create its own city police. It's time that the city has its own police," Mota said.

The city is making a concerted effort to provide a safe and healthy haven for its residents regardless of immigration status, he added.

Supporters of the bill say undocumented immigrants overwhelm schools, sap health-care resources and cause problems for law enforcement. The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws.

Robert Kahmann, a Cathedral City resident, thinks Coachella opposing the bill is essentially deciding to ignore federal law.

He's also concerned that the decision to become a "sanctuary" for undocumented immigrants could also become a haven for criminals.

"The criminals know that if they go to place that's a safe haven the police cannot ask for their identity and status. If you were a criminal, where would you go?" he said.

Mayor Jesse Villarreal said the resolution does not mean criminals will be protected in the city. Rather, it means the city is working to protect immigrants' rights.

Joining the chorus

Other cities across California - including Los Angeles, Pomona and Maywood - passed resolutions earlier this year opposing the bill.
The resolution the Coachella City Council approved Wednesday opposing the bill was fashioned after the resolution passed in Maywood, a majority Latino community outside Los Angeles.

"It sends a firm statement that this is inhumane. It goes against every American belief we could possibly have. It's hard to fathom that this is the best our government can come up with to deal with illegal immigration," said Councilman Gilbert Ramirez of why he approved the Wednesday resolution.

It was Ramirez and Eduardo Garcia who voted in favor of the resolutions. Mayor Villarreal abstained because he was unclear on what the resolutions meant while Councilman Richard Macknicki cast the dissenting vote. Mayor Pro Tem Juan De Lara was absent.

Villarreal said he was able to receive clarification Thursday afternoon on exactly what the resolutions mean.

"All they are asking is to not let the local police become an extension of the border patrol," said Villarreal.



To: steve harris who wrote (56485)3/25/2006 10:56:31 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Peacenik Commies have Bad Manners
...........................................................

British Army's top general attacks Kember for failing to thank SAS rescue team

The London Times March 25, 2006
By Nick Meo, Michael Evans and Daniel McGrory

NORMAN KEMBER, the freed peace activist, will arrive back in Britain today amid growing controversy over his failure publicly to thank the military forces who rescued him.

Neither Professor Kember nor the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) organisation for whom he worked have acknowledged the work of the soldiers who rescued him and two Canadian hostages on Thursday, or of the teams of military and intelligence officials who spent months trying to track them down.





General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army, expressed the unhappiness of the military last night when he told Channel 4 News that he was “saddened that there doesn’t seem to have been a note of gratitude for the soldiers who risked their lives to save those lives”.

Before flying out of Baghdad on an RAF aircraft yesterday, Professor Kember and his two fellow hostages released a brief statement that said nothing about the rescue force. It read simply: “We are deeply grateful for all those who prayed for our release. We don’t have words to describe our feelings, our joy and gratitude. Our heads are swirling; when we are ready, we will speak to the media.”

It was the third set of comments Professor Kember had relayed to the media that failed to mention his rescuers. A lengthy statement released by CPT after the hostages’ rescue on Thursday not only failed to thank their rescuers, but called on coalition forces to withdraw from Iraq.

The only oblique acknowledgement came from Professor Kember’s wife, Pat. In a statement released through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last night, she thanked “all those who have helped secure his release”. But she, too, made no mention of the British-led unit that freed her husband in western Baghdad. She praised “government agencies and my family liaison officers”, but did not directly refer to the soldiers who stormed the kidnappers’ hideout in darkness.

CPT has always made it clear that its members did not want force to be used to rescue them if they were kidnapped or held hostage.

But, in the event, the coalition devoted huge resources to securing their release. The SAS, special forces from the US and Canada and military intelligence officers spent months trying to locate them.

A force consisting of SAS troopers backed up by about 50 paratroops and Marines spearheaded the task force that rescued them. US and Iraqi troops were also involved in the mission. Relaxed and rested after his 36-hour stay at the fortified British Embassy in Baghdad, Professor Kember was flown out of the green zone by military helicopter yesterday to begin his journey home. He then boarded an RAF military transport at Baghdad airport for the short flight to neighbouring Kuwait. From there he was being flown home.

Maxine Nash, of CPT in Baghdad, said that the organisation had not paid for his flight back to Britain. She said: “He elected to go through the Embassy, they arranged it. We did offer to pay for commercial flights for everyone but that can be difficult because it means driving through dangerous areas.”

She admitted that the pacifist hostages had mixed feelings about being rescued by the military. She said: “Our mandate is violence reduction so this was a tough call. Before they were kidnapped both Tom and Jim had said they didn’t want to be rescued.” Ms Nash said that the group was now considering leaving Baghdad. “After what has happened we’re going to spend some time thinking about what to do.”

Last night British diplomats in Iraq tried to sidestep the row over the apparently ungracious behaviour of the peace activists. Diplomatic sources let it be known that the three men did agree to face further questioning yesterday from intelligence agents trying to hunt down the group who held them for 118 days.

An intelligence source said: “They gave what help they could. They recognise that there are other hostages, including Westerners, still in captivity who we believe were taken by the same group.”

The source added that Professor Kember had “privately expressed his thanks to his rescuers” though he did not meet them. The activists explained that they could not be of much help with descriptions of their captors as the group kept their faces covered.

The three men revealed how, shortly before the SAS burst their way into their prison before dawn on Wednesday, their captors suddenly moved them to a downstairs room.

They were tied up and bound together. The hostages heard their captives leaving. British officials insisted that there had been no deal to free the trio.

They said that interrogators told the gang member they arrested this week that he must reveal the location of the hostages or face 30 years in jail.

RESCUE FIGURES

The hunt for Norman Kember and his fellow hostages involved

250 men from the Task Force Black US/British/Australian counter-kidnap unit

100 men from Task Force Maroon, the Paras and Royal Marines backing special forces

15 men in helicopter crews

AND tens of thousands of pounds spent on helicopter and transport aircraft flights

















To: steve harris who wrote (56485)3/25/2006 12:12:57 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
THIS WHAT IS LEFT OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
......................................................
Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
Mar 18 2006

breitbart.com

By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently.
Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."
"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."
Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.
When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" _ conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.
Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.
"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."
Bush has caricatured the other side for years, trying to tilt legislative debates in his favor or score election-season points with voters.
Not long after taking office in 2001, Bush pushed for a new education testing law and began portraying skeptics as opposed to holding schools accountable.
The chief opposition, however, had nothing to do with the merits of measuring performance, but rather the cost and intrusiveness of the proposal.
Campaigning for Republican candidates in the 2002 midterm elections, the president sought to use the congressional debate over a new Homeland Security Department against Democrats.
He told at least two audiences that some senators opposing him were "not interested in the security of the American people." In reality, Democrats balked not at creating the department, which Bush himself first opposed, but at letting agency workers go without the usual civil service protections.
Running for re-election against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement."
The assertion was called a mischaracterization of Kerry's views even by a Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Straw men have made more frequent appearances in recent months, often on national security _ once Bush's strong suit with the public but at the center of some of his difficulties today. Under fire for a domestic eavesdropping program, a ports-management deal and the rising violence in Iraq, Bush now sees his approval ratings hovering around the lowest of his presidency.
Said Jamieson, "You would expect people to do that as they feel more threatened."
Last fall, the rhetorical tool became popular with Bush when the debate heated up over when troops would return from Iraq. "Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq," he told GOP supporters in October, echoing similar lines from other speeches. "That is foolhardy policy."
Yet even the speediest plan, as advocated by only a few Democrats, suggested not an immediate drawdown, but one over six months. Most Democrats were not even arguing for a specific troop withdrawal timetable.
Recently defending his decision to allow the National Security Agency to monitor without subpoenas the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorist ties, Bush has suggested that those who question the program underestimate the terrorist threat.
"There's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack,'" Bush said during a January visit to the NSA.
The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall's congressional elections.
Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts, and protectionists who do not want to open global markets to American goods, when most oppose free- trade deals that lack protections for labor and the environment.
"Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world," he said this month in India, talking about the migration of U.S. jobs overseas. "I strongly disagree."