Immigration Reform


It really isn’t news that Mo Brooks said something racist. He’s done it before. He’ll do it again. Unless someone does one hell of a job with a write-in campaign, he’ll be re-elected this fall. He will say some more racist shit after that. And he’ll probably get re-elected every other time he runs. He is a Republican from Alabama. He’s from the same district where Stormfront was founded. He’s from a district that is just South of the town in Tennessee where the KKK was formed. There are two active Skinhead groups in the largest city of his district. They aren’t the only ones. That same city is still under a Federal desegregation order & recently attempted to re-zone districts in a way that would have made them even more unequal. Being openly racist is not an old concept here. And a politician openly opposing any liberties for a non-white person is going to get support for doing just that. Don’t feel shocked that Mo Brooks said something racist, be horrified that saying that is something his constituents would support. His racist statement is indicative of a bigger issue. Maybe it’s time outsiders challenge & scrutinize the bigotry that goes on here. That might inspire a change.

Late to the Party




WASHINGTON — With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives. The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March. Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence. “I am furious,” said Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington. “We’re mad, and we’re tired of it.” Republicans are bracing for a battle where substantive arguments could be swamped by political optics and the intensity of the clash over women’s issues. At a closed-door Senate Republican lunch on Tuesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday. Some conservatives are feeling trapped. “I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence. Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say. Critics of the legislation acknowledged that the name alone presents a challenge if they intend to oppose it over some of its specific provisions. “Obviously, you want to be for the title,” Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said of the Violence Against Women Act. “If Republicans can’t be for it, we need to have a very convincing alternative.” The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month. As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats’ timing. The party just went through a bruising fight over efforts to replace the Obama administration’s contraception-coverage mandate with legislation allowing some employers to opt out of coverage for medical procedures they object to on religious or moral grounds. Polling appears mixed over which side gained political ground on the fight, but Republican lawmakers are not eager to revisit it. State efforts in Virginia and Ohio to mandate ultrasounds before an abortion or ban abortions once a heartbeat is detected have further inflamed passions. And the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday pounced on a suggestion by Mitt Romney that he would eliminate federal financing for Planned Parenthood. “There are lots of other issues right now that could be dealt with other than this one,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, who is responsible for Republican messaging. “I suspect there’s a reason for bringing it up now.” But if Republican lawmakers are not eager to oppose a domestic violence bill, conservative activists are itching for a fight. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the conservative Concerned Women for America, said her group had been pressing senators hard to oppose reauthorization of legislation she called “a boondoggle” that vastly expands government and “creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims.” Last month on the conservative Web site Townhall.com, the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund “used to fill feminist coffers” and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes “divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.” The third reauthorization effort of the legislation started off in November the way the previous efforts had, with a bipartisan bill and little controversy. The measure, authored by Senators Crapo and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, attracted 58 co-sponsors, including Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Ms. Murkowski, Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois and Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts. But Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, found multiple reasons to oppose the bill when it came up for a formal consideration last month. The legislation “creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims, period,” Mr. Grassley said when the committee took up the measure. After his alternative version was voted down on party lines, the original passed without a Republican vote. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, one of two women on the judiciary panel, said the partisan opposition came as […]

Violence Against Women Act Divides Senate


If you run a Facebook page, there is a way to delete individual items without deleting a whole thread of comments.  If someone is violating TOS, then you have an obligation to get rid of these posts.  This obligation does not mean that you have the right to delete benign comments.  In fact, when you delete all comments, it gives off the appearance that you are trying to censor the public. Much the same way that an individual can delete individual comments on their profile, pages also give you the option to only remove posts that you find to be offensive.  Instead of clicking the gear-shaped symbol on the page, you would just have to go to the comment that is believed to be in violation and click the “x”  that appears when you hold your cursor over that post.  See, it isn’t difficult.  It isn’t something that is impossible for you to do. If you continue to delete all posts when you should only be deleting a few, then you are going to inflame the public.  It is bad enough when people feel that the government isn’t listening to them, but when the “free press” is asking for their opinions and then deleting any opinion posted, people will begin to feel that they do not live in a land where they can vocalize their complaints.  It is odd when you participate in a mass deletion of posts, which could violate the right to free speech that many people cherish, but you complain about your own rights being violated when someone’s court files (including mental health records) are sealed.  If you’re really for the First Amendment, shouldn’t you be interested in protecting everyone’s rights? Because of a certain page determining that they had the right to delete any post that mentioned illegal immigration or cussed, I am now more annoyed that this post still exists.  The page went through and deleted comments made within a 24-hour time period, including ones that violated no Facebook rule and no laws concerning harassment, issuing threats toward another person, advocating discrimination, etc.  The page went further by threatening to ban anyone who they viewed to be violating their (non-Facebook endorsed) standards. The page did not delete his comments calling for a state-sponsored hunting party in every county which would be given “unlimited hunting rights to hunt them down and get rid od [sic] them.”  This is the equivalent of asking for the state to sponsor a lynch mob or a special police force that could legally kill someone here illegally from another country.  This would violate Alabama Code 13A-5-13, the actual violation has been bolded: (1) It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and protected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals. (2) It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States. (3) The intentional advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected when violence or civil disorder is imminent, and poses a threat to public order and safety, and such conduct should be subjected to criminal sanctions. (b) The purpose of this section is to impose additional penalties where it is shown that a perpetrator committing the underlying offense was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability. Violating this law in Alabama, which Mr. Hardin, a resident of the state of Alabama, is advocating is illegal.  If he actually were to go through with the crime he suggested (or someone else decided to go through with it after his advocacy of it), then he could be found guilty of committing a hate crime.  This crime could range from being considered a misdemeanor to a Class A felony, meaning he could receive a minimum of three months (misdemeanor) to no less than fifteen years (Class A felony). His call for a “hunting party” (lynch mob/riot) would also violate Alabama Codes 13A-11-3 (riot) & 13A-11-4 (incite to riot), which state: 13A-11-3: A person commits the crime of riot if, with five or more other persons, he wrongfully engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a grave risk of public terror or alarm. 13A-11-4: A person commits the crime of inciting to riot if he commands, solicits, incites or urges another person to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to cause or create a grave risk of public terror or alarm. What was said by him was bad enough, but the fact that the news station refuses to remove it from the Facebook page, in spite of it violating state laws, is completely disturbing.  It is more disturbing that less volatile statements have be deleted left and right, including one that encouraged the station to look into the increasing racist sentiment in the area. Despite the fact that the comments made by Mr. Hardin violate Facebook’s Terms of Service, with specific violations of rules 3.7. 3.12, and 5.1, that page has not deleted the comments that are in violation.  These three violations are significant enough that they would fall under violations that can result in the loss of his account.  Not only is his comment violating the site’s TOS, but by leaving it up the Facebook page that it is on violates the rights of the persons who were included in Hardin’s diatribe.  That would be a violation the TOS rule 9.5 and 3.12.  The page also violates rules 8 and 9 of the Pages Terms.  Rule number 8 is violated by Mr. Hardin’s call for a lynch mob.  Rule number 9 is violated by that media outlet setting up rules that go beyond […]

Dear Media



Earlier in the week, I was in a debate (more like a very hefty argument) with a group of people who tend to talk about all of those horrible illegal immigrants in America who spend their days trying to defile our civilization. (This is their sentiment, though not their exact words.) As with most people engaged in these arguments, the people who claimed this said that they were opposed to any sort of violent behavior and that they aren’t racists. I asked if a white person committed a heinous crime, would they discuss it? They said they would. RUSSELLVILLE, AL – Russellville Police are investigating a situation that ended in murder late Wednesday night. The victim, Robert Leroy Presley, 70, was confined to a wheelchair and suffered from a neuromuscular disease. Police have the suspect in custody, but say both men had weapons. – WHNT On one of their favorite stomping grounds, no one is talking about it. On another, the harshest thing that they are demanding is: life plus fifty years. If this were a Hispanic person killing a disabled person, the killer would be charged with capital murder and would be facing the death penalty quite soon after being arrested. Those who posted the “life plus fifty” would be asking for the death penalty. Those who haven’t posted, but would post if it were the other way around, would be asking for that as well. There would probably even be some who would use racial pejoratives and would demand that the killer be lynched. (I have seen this kind of language happen with regards to anyone from a Hispanic background.) Original Article

We Scream At Evil