Monday, October 29, 2007
When you read this endorsement, note that it is full of REASONS why you should vote for Faisal. Contrast that with the Washington Post "endorsement" of Nichols, which said NOTHING good about Nichols, but simply attacked Gill because he was TOO HARD ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
FansOfFasail had this up already in the post Potomac News and Manassas Journal Messenger endorse Faisal Gill.
Excerpts from the Editors, "Vote Faisal Gill in the 51st District":
They used a lot of superlatives to describe Gill:
Republican Faisal Gill comes out the winner when we compare the two newcomers vying for the spot being vacated by Michele McQuigg in the 51st Virginia House of Delegates District. ...
He seems to have a strong grasp of the issues that face his district and definite ideas of how to deal with them.
Though we don't agree with every stand he takes, we think he has the best interest of his constituents at heart and that he will serve them faithfully. ...
As an immigrant himself, Gill, offers a rare perspective on immigration, and we think his immigrant experience gives him more authority on the issue of illegal immigration.
We think that Gill will be an effective, level-headed and creative legislator, and we hope members of the 51st District will vote for him on Nov. 6.
intelligent, good-humored, strong grasp of the issues, definite ideas, best interest of his constituents, serve them faithfully, solid plan of action, rare perspective on immigration, effective, level-headed and creative legislatorThey also had some harsh words for his opponent:
However, [Paul Nichols'] misleading fliers about Gill show that when it comes to politics he has no qualms about crossing the ethical line.Especially nice was that the editors agreed with my position regarding Gill's law firm and it's work to help people immigrate legally:
That is not somebody we want as a delegate.
Despite all the misinformation about his law practice and its supposed protection of illegal immigrants, Gill does have a solid plan of action when it comes to the issue, including a plan to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants.
People under threat of legal deportation often do need law advice and advocacy. Gill should not be penalized just because his law practice is willing to offer that.
We don't agree with the draconian idea of handing out felonies to all businesses which hire illegal immigrants, as Gill does, but we think holding them accountable is the way to go.
Mason Conservativ- Will Faisal Gill Pull This Off?,
Virginia Virtucon- Potomac News endorses Faisal Gill For Delegate,
Skeptical Observer - No Qualms about crossing the ethical line
Sunday, October 28, 2007
I would understand a bit of dissappointment, since they had lost power, but the bitterness and raw hatred poisoned the political discourse in this country.
One would have thought 2006's election wins would have made them a bit happier, but no, they are still running around screaming their hate-filled rhetoric, and now they even target other democrats for not moving quick enough on this or that.
So I got a real kick out of an article at Raising Kaine today which asked "why is the angry right so angry?" I know a lot of conservatives. Some of them are angry -- at other republicans for turning their back on conservative principles. But mostly they are upbeat people. I'd hardly call them the "angry right".
But apparently a poster at the Angry Kos can't figure out the source of this non-existant anger, and somewhat at Raising Anger picked it up:
Has anyone noticed lately that the right is seething? I mean more than normal, they're absolutely furious these days, in general, at everything it seems, and I have no idea what it is they're so pissed about half the time. Any guesses?
Maybe there's mad about being called angry by people who are the poster-children for "the angry man".
It gets worse and worse...see here and here for more on JMDD's minority voter deception tactics. Sadly, it's not surprising, given that this woman's been willing to pull a "Willie Horton" in the past. So much for the image of the Davises as "moderate" in any way; to the contrary, they're just like the Bushes. - promoted by Lowell)
Her campaign is telling minority voters that today is election day. Ben has the details.
Yep, if we are to believe Lowell and James in this post, minorities in Northern Virginia are so stupid that, finding a door hanger telling them today is election day, and asking them to vote for Davis, will believe today is election today, will go vote, will find no polling places open, and will then not show up to vote on the actual election day.
But even though James and Lowell are progressives, I don't believe they really hold minorities in such low regard. So it's clear they are just faking it, hoping that some of thier white progressive readers DO think minorities are so stupid that they will believe this attack.
One day minorities will wake up and realise that the party they support holds them in very low regard.
"It was unsettling to see our home address, home number and our daughters' names circled with red arrows," said Petersen,
The mailer does not circle his "home address", his "home number", or his "daughter's names" with a red arrow, or even a red circle. Anybody reading this will think that there is a red circle with an arrow around each child's name, drawing attention to it.
But the fact is, the thing that has drawn attention to his information on the flier is his PUBLICIZING that the information is on the flier, after Ben Tribbet did the same thing online.
As noted in the article:
Davis said her opponent has already sent out a mailer that contained pictures of his children along with their names. She also pointed out that the disclosure forms are public documents and available on the Internet. Petersen's campaign Web site, she added, also lists his home address and his home number is listed in residential phone books.
Chap gave a reason for his whining, to explain why the same information he has disclosed is BAD when his opponent does it:
"It's one thing to advertise that information, but it is outrageous to do it in an attack that says I am a bad guy and incites people against me."
Remember, Chap is a Democrat. With Democrats, pointing out what they have done, or quoting what they say, is a negative attack that incites peolple against them.
The article has the Larry Sabato quote that Ben Tribbet hashed up so bad:
University of Virginia political expert Larry Sabato said the mailer went too far, but doubted the issue would "effect the election."
"I don't blame anyone in the public eye being upset at having the home address and phone number listed," Sabato said. "As a rule, candidates and campaigns ought to stick to official numbers and addresses. This is a venial sin instead of a mortal sin."
Saturday, October 27, 2007
So now, everybody who hates Raising Kaine will call Chap's kids and ask why their pictures were used by Lowell. They will be harassed at school, his wife will be hounded in the supermarket.
At least Lowell didn't tell us that Chap named his child after Hitler's wife.
Chap should have a press conference outside Lowell's office. Does Lowell have an office? Does he have a job :->?
On a more serious note, Lowell says:
Also, the DC Examiner has a pretty good article up, quoting Prof. Larry Sabato calling JMDD's actions "a venial sin."
So even Lowell recognizes that the mailer was a simple mistake, a quite forgivable "sin" for which no real penance is required. Or maybe he doesn't understand what Larry was saying. Lowell ignored when Larry said of Rex Simmon's attacks on Hugo "somewhere between ludicrous and desperate."
I'll take "venial sin" over "ludicrous and desperate" any day.
At some point, the news media has to stop pandering to these mental cases on the left. We all can see how fake their outrage is (or should be).
Any voter who cares about the integrity and character of their public servants should steer clear of Republican Jill Holtzman Vogel's "spark and command of state issues" that were so critical in stealing the 2000 election for Bush-Cheney even though Al Gore won.
Let's remember history. At NO time in 2000 was Al Gore EVER in posession of enough votes to win the election. Despite the Democrat's best effort at suppressing votes in the panhandle (with the help of their polling friends and news buddies), Despite the Democrats best effort at manufacuturing votes through a selective recount which targeted heavily Democratic counties and established never-before-used rules to count a host of normally unusable ballots, Despite the Democrats hard work to disqualify largely-Republican military ballots, at the time counting was stopped, Gore was still behind, and by many accounts was falling FARTHER behind based on the state-wide recount (which I remember sitting and watching on TV).
HL shows the danger of thinking people dismissing "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Many suggest that since Bush will be gone in a year, people should be allowed their BDS. But we can see that BDS transfers to others, and that it's pretty much "Republican Derangement Syndrome" at this time.
A couple of days ago, Chap's "unofficial" blogger Ben hysterically posted about a campaign flyer. In the post rudely titled "The Davis Family Is Sick":
Sources tell me that Sharon Petersen has been overwhelmed with hate filled phone calls from this mailing.
I, like many people, assumed that since Ben had "sources" (more than one), it was probably his good friend Chap, so I assumed she was really getting dozens of hate calls. But this was a lie -- Chap says " his family has not been overwhelmed with calls" (details below).
Next, (in what we now can see was a coordinated campaign to smear Chap's opponent), Ben posted that the mailing had:
subjected his small children to harassment from the public
and also that:
There is no specific threat yet, but the bizarre phone calls are enough to have law enforcement's attention.
So Ben claimed there were harrasing, bizarre phone calls that targeted his "small children".
Then the truth started to come out. First, Chap made a statement. Talking about the phone calls, he said:
"I got a phone call from my wife Sharon. She said that someone had called our house asking angry questions about me and Enron."
That's it. Chap SAYS the caller asks angry questions about Chap's involvement with Enron. NOT about his family, NOT attacking his family.
Nowhere does Chap mention ANY threats to his family, OR attacks on his children. Instead, he says THIS about "other phone calls":
"Later that afternoon, she saw other calls to the house but did not answer them as she didn’t recognize the caller i.d."
Unknown callers. No evidence they are related, we get these every day. But clearly, not answered, and therefore couldn't be "hate-filled phone calls".
"At least one unknown person left a message asking a return call."
Did they leave a number? Chap doesn't even describe this as "angry".
Then, From the Washington Post, we get this from Chap Petersen:
Petersen acknowledged that his family has not been overwhelmed with calls. Since the piece began hitting mailboxes Wednesday, only two angry phone calls have come to his home. His wife, Sharon, didn't answer five to 10 other calls, and the callers left no messages, he said.
TWO calls. Chap said the first one didn't attack his family, just was angry about Chap and Enron. We don't know about the other call. In his Press Release, Chap said someone left a message. In the Post, he says callers left NO MESSAGES. So maybe he counted the message as one of the two "angry" phone calls.
So, let's compare Ben with the truth. Ben said: "Sharon Petersen has been overwhelmed with hate filled phone calls ". Chap says " his family has not been overwhelmed with calls".
Ben said: "subjected his small children to harassment from the public". Chap said they only got two angry calls, one message on the machine, and one call his WIFE answered where the caller asked about Chap and Enron. NO mention of harrassment of his children.
Ben said they were "bizarre phone calls". Chap NEVER mentions ANY bizarre phone calls -- a person asking a question is hardly bizarre, nor is leaving a message asking for a return call. Callers who don't leave messages at all aren't bizarre either, and a 5-10 calls from unknown people isn't bizarre, at least not at MY house.
So, it seems Ben made up most of his "facts", drummed up a story, and sucked his readers into his fantasy (including me, as I believed him at first).
One thing's certain, thousands of people are now looking for this flyer that will tell them Chap was a lobbyist. Thanks, Ben.
While I and many serious people quoted in the Washington Post thought the web site had a quite overinflated view of their standing in the community, I agreed that it would be better if the name of the person was included in the ad (and also would have made the ad a better ad, because the person who made the comment was much more believable than the web site).
Well in case the progressive blogs REALLY cared about the issue, and weren't just pretending to care to attack a republican... (pardon me, I'm laughing so hard I can't hardly type) ....
Here's a much better example of how you can lie to voters through improper referencing.
Seems Chap Peterson wanted to say something bad about his opponent. But he figured nobody would believe it if HE said it, so he wanted to give it some credility.
So, he found a quote in the local NEWSPAPER, and used it in the ad. The ad prints the quote, and the name of the newspaper where the quote came from.
Unlike a web site name, when a newspaper name is given, but no person's name, it means the quote was a quote of a fact from the paper, or a quote from the paper's editorial opinion.
So, which was this quote? Was it a quote of a fact from a news article? Well, no. Was it the opinion of the paper? Well, no again. So, what was it?
Well, the ad had two quotes. One was supposedly from the Fairfax Connection, and says "Ad Crosses Line". Below that, Fairfax County Times name is given, with the quote "is completely fabricated".
The ad therefore misleads you to think someone said Davis's "Ad Cross Line, is completely fabricated". Of course, that's from two different papers. But that's only the start of the deception.
Because, as Chris found out over at Mason Conservative, the "quote" Chap attributes to the "Fairfax County Times" wasn't FROM the editors. It was a quote IN the paper from someone.
And WHO was that someone? Again, with thanks to Crhis, from the Fairfax County Times, "Petersen rebukes allegations in Devolites Davis' TV ad":
On the gas tax, Petersen stated that the 38-cent increase allegation "is completely fabricated."
Yep. The "quote" from the paper was actually CHAP'S OWN WORDS.
So, Chap Peterson gave a quote to the newpaper, which the published. He then used his own quote from the paper in an ad, but attributed that quote TO THE PAPER, rather than to himself, making it look like the paper agreed with him.
For the record, and you can look at the article, the paper never agreed with Chap about anything. The entire article is based on quotes from Chap, and from Michael McDonald, whom the article says is:
a former campaign/political consultant for Ron Christian (Devolites' opponent for state senate in 2003), said he has been following the race between Devolites Davis and Petersen
But he never agrees with Chap on any of Chap's complaints. Instead, he says:
McDonald said he would not be surprised if the Petersen campaign started going more negative as the race gets closer to Election Day, Nov. 6.
We've seen that as Chap has sent out the paid bloggers and unpaid bloggers who give him "implausible deniability" while they attack Davis' personal life and her grown children, and now as Chap himself accuses Davis of deliberately putting his family at risk, a charge that is unfounded but will put HER family at risk from "progressives" who will take him seriously and will want to "get revenge" on her -- they already made plans for it over at NLS before Chap temporarily put a stop to it.
At the time, I thought Chap was being a good guy, but it seems now he just thought they were jumping the gun, and wanted them to stop until he could get into the act himself.
Anyway, That's it. Chap Peterson put a quote that SAID it was from the newspaper, but was actually his own quote. I'm waiting for Dr. Carter to show up on the front page of the Post to denounce this improper and misleading ad. I'm waiting for Raising Kaine to make a front-page post about how evil Chap Peterson is.
No, I'm not really waiting. The progressive bloggers, like the Democratic Party of Virginia, aren't serious, they are faking their outrage, just as DPVA is lying about candidates in mailers all over the state. Principle is a commodity for Progressives to tossed away during elections.
Here's a funny video MC put together to illustrate Chap's false attribution of his own quote in his own literature:
Over at Anon is a Woman, a Blogger has committed the unpardonable sin. I'm not going to link the picture here, but if you go to the site, there's a picture of Chap Peterson, with HIS ENTIRE FAMILY. HE'S GOT KIDS, and the KIDS pictures are RIGHT THERE IN THE PICTURE.
Now, some crazy lunatic is going to take that picture, and, well, well, you know, who knows what a lunatic would do with a picture. He might figure out how to go to Chap's web site and get even MORE information, like his last name.
OH WAIT. The Progressive Blogger has POSTED CHAPS LAST NAME!!!! Oh the Humanity!!!!! She put it in a LINK, so people could SEARCH HER BLOG with HIS NAME and FIND THE PICTURE!!!!!
Apparently, Chap did a press conference where he whined and acted all victimy, and the liberals think this will make people want to vote for him. I guess he's going to that all-important sympathy vote, the "we love whiny victims to represent us" vote.
But THAT IS NO REASON for a BLOGGER TO POST A PICTURE OF HIS ENTIRE FAMILY.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
So I guess they were rather dissappointed when all he did was announce what we all knew already, that he wasn't going to run for Senate.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
In my post, I said the following:
Yep, if you are a Christian who has fled persecution from a Muslim country, and you don't otherwise qualify for legal immigration, our nation's LAWS allow you to LEGALLY stay in the country -- but only if you qualify, which often can require a lawyer to put together the legal proof.JM first says:
Those of us in the Christian community support the asylum process, which is a LEGAL METHOD to stay in this country, and is LEGALLY granted to people even if they arrived here without legal basis.
Now, I'm certain that Paul Nichols supports the law of asylum. America IS the beacon of protection for those, especially Christians but also Jews and those of other religious faiths, who would otherwise face torture and death. I'm guessing that even JM supports the asylum laws in our legal immigration rules.
Note the euphemism "they arrived here without a legal basis." What Charles means is "they arrived here illegally."It wasn't a euphemism. If you enter the country without the appropriate papers, but you do so BECAUSE you have a reasonably founded fear of persecution, you are actually NOT here illegally. You can make a legal request for asylum, and being here already is NOT held against you in those procedings. Of course, the same is true if you came on a legal visa, but it is about to expire and deportation has started to coincide with the termination date (in which you are actually legal until the date).
Then JM insists that, if someone has come here "illegally", by whatever definition he has, then they should be deported:
At this point Charles' skills as a mindreader fail him. If someone enters the United States illegally then I am in favor of deporting them, each and every time.
Remember, we are talking specifically about people who have fled their home country because they fear religious persecution. These people are sneaking out of their country to escape capture, and going to one of the few countries in the world that actually offer protection.
I thought JM would understand the concept of a religious people fleeing persecution in their own countries, who might arrive without proper papers. In World War 2, Jews were fleeing Germany under threat of persecution, and they didn't have passports, visas, or a right to be in the countries they were fleeing to.
The United States put Asylum into our immigration law because a majority of Americans support protecting people from religious or political persecution. I assumed (falsely, apparently) that JM was with a majority on that issue, but he has made it clear that, if a Muslim convert to Christianity has fled Syria with his family, and makes the mistake of showing up where JM makes the rules, that family is heading right back to Syria where they will be publicly and painfully executed as an example.
After all, they didn't file the the proper applications and wait their turn.
I trust that others, even who support JM's attack on Faisal, don't support deporting Christians and Jews to their deaths by islamic extremists.
Here I'd say that I trust that even JM wouldn't really do that, except he's already faulted me for putting words in his mouth, so I guess for now I'll take him at his own word.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Even if a lawyer tried to only represent "good" people, they are assigned indigent people who need help, and are expected to provide top-notch legal services, even to the guilty ones. If Nichols refused to represent an indigent illegal immigrant, he'd be breaking his oath -- but I'm certain Nichols would have no problems representing illegals.
Over at GBF, where truth is an inconvenience, here is what JM says about that quote:
Oath? What oath? Only criminal defendants are guaranteed court-appointed attorneys.
Which of course was exactly what I was talking about. JM can't refute my claim, so he lies about my claim:
Police only Mirandize persons facing criminal charges. Deportation or forcible removal from the United States is a civil matter.
I was specifically talking about criminal law, not deportation. JM continues:
To put it bluntly so that even Faisal Gill supporters will understand—if you immigrate to the United States and are resisting removal in a civil proceeding then you only have the rights which we give you. You do not have the rights of a defendant in a criminal trial.
Which is why, in regard to oaths and requirements, I used the case of an illegal in a CRIMINAL TRIAL.
But, let's look at exactly WHAT Gill and Gallinger say about immigration. First, you should read the entire entry at their web site. It's quite extensive, as the law firm helps people with legal immigration, legal work visas, etc. In fact, the firm's practice, reading the web site, is focused on ensuring that people who have a LEGAL RIGHT to be in the country are able to do so. Immigration law is difficult, and it takes a lawyer sometimes to understand it and follow it, which is what we WANT immigrants to do.
The section on deportation is two paragraphs at the end. The first paragraph is ignored by the Gill-haters:
The U.S. has long been a beacon of freedom. This is incorporated into the immigration system through the granting of asylum. A person who is persecuted in their home country for religion, politics, race, nationality, or membership in a social group can permanently live and work in the U.S., even if they would otherwise be deported. Asylees (those granted asylum) are also able to qualify for permanent residency. Because the benefits given to asylees are so great, it can be very difficult to qualify. A potential asylee must demonstrate to the USCIS a "well-founded fear" of persecution in the home country. Gill & Gallinger have the abilities necessary to help you with this important process. We can also help you apply for Withholding of Removal (allowing you stay in the U.S. when otherwise eligible for deportation) and gaining protection based on the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Yep, if you are a Christian who has fled persecution from a Muslim country, and you don't otherwise qualify for legal immigration, our nation's LAWS allow you to LEGALLY stay in the country -- but only if you qualify, which often can require a lawyer to put together the legal proof.
Now, JM is right -- an indigent doesn't have a LEGAL RIGHT to taxpayer-funded representation. But an indigent facing religious persecution NEEDS a lawyer nonetheless, to put together the legal case to qualify for the LEGAL claim of Asylum. SO what happens is that Christian organizations, or other well-meaning groups, often donate services, or donate money to hire services, of good immigration lawyers. Those of us in the Christian community support the asylum process, which is a LEGAL METHOD to stay in this country, and is LEGALLY granted to people even if they arrived here without legal basis.
Now, I'm certain that Paul Nichols supports the law of asylum. America IS the beacon of protection for those, especially Christians but also Jews and those of other religious faiths, who would otherwise face torture and death. I'm guessing that even JM supports the asylum laws in our legal immigration rules.
So, rather than having to argue against it, they simply IGNORE that section on the Gill and Gallinger web site.
Instead, they go to the SUMMARY paragraph at the end of the long discussion of legal immigration support:
Even if you or your loved one is already in the process of being removed from the U.S., Gill & Gallinger may be able to help. We can help you qualify for protection from deportation based on Cancellation of Removal, Waiver of Deportation, Asylum, or other methods. Time is extremely important in situations dealing with possible removal, so contact the Gill & Gallinger today for a free consultation.
What this paragraph says is that, in addition to all the things above they had offered legal services for, in getting to come to our country LEGALLY, that many of those same LEGAL protections can be applied even if you already face deportation. They didn't WRITE the laws, that's what the law SAYS.
And thier offer isn't to 'get people off' from a valid deportation. The service they offer is to work to find a LEGAL remedy, to get their clients qualified for LEGAL status. This is what we all say we want -- for immigrants to go through the legal process, to be here LEGALLY. Gill and Gallinger offer legal services to those who want to be legal immigrants.
I will also note that NOWHERE on their entire site to they ONCE use the term "illegal immigrants". Being "illegal" is a legal term, and is decided by the courts or legal body. The deportation hearing is part of that process, and until adjudicated, the defendant is not "illegal", he is an "alleged" illegal. If the defendant can successfully demonstrate a qualification under immigration law to be in this country, the deportation will be cancelled, and by definition the immigrant will be a LEGAL immigrant, NOT an "illegal immigrant".
Will some of these people be deemed illegal? No doubt. Just as a lawyer who promises to only defend "innocent clients", will still lose cases, making their clients "guilty" under the law.
The point is, neither Paul Nichols, nor the MJM, and least of all Jonathan Marks and Greg Letiecq, have bothered to find out what kind of clients are being represented here. They ignore the body of the firm's work for LEGAL IMMIGRATION, ignore the work for helping those seeking asylum, and focus on the provision of legal representation to HELP PEOPLE BE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
JM does so by lying about what has been written, but Paul Nichols is a lawyer and knows better.
Greg Lettiecq has bought into the stupid argument about lawyers representing illegals. So my question is, since Greg has endorsed Paul Nichols, did Greg get a pledge from the Nichol's law firm that they don't represent illegal immigrants? They do a lot of different types of law:
Nichols Zauzig Sandler, P.C. practices in the following areas of law: Domestic Relations, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Criminal, Real Estate, Banking Law, Business Law, Traffic Offenses, Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody, Matrimonial Law and Separation Agreements.
Illegal immigrants could need those kinds of services. So, how can the President of HSM, having claimed that a candidate is disqualified if they represent illegals, endorse a lawyer who cannot pledge NOT to represent illegals?
I searched the Nichols firm web site (link above), and found no mention of denying service to illegal immigrants.
For example, the nichols firm web site says:
Nichols Zauzig Sandler, P.C. is comprised of ten lawyers devoted to the zealous representation of their clients. The law firm is committed to the advocacy of its clients' causes of action and the justice system. With emphasis on personal injury, medical malpractice, products liability, domestic relations (family law), commercial litigation, banking and real estate, this law firm provides the experience needed in handling complex litigation in the Northern Virginia area.
Illegal Immigrants may well need help with real estate transactions, because it could be harder to get through the process without legal papers. Nichol's firm promises "zealous representation" of their clients, so if they don't prohibit illegals, it means his firm stands ready to help illegal immigrants buy and move into a house.
Or what about "medical malpractice". Illegal immigrants use our medical services, and it's likely that from time to time they don't get better. Without a firm policy denying legal representation for illegals, it seems the Nichol's firm is committed to the advocacy of illegal immigrant client who, having used our public system to get free health care, might sue american citizens when they have a bad outcome.
Or what about Paul Nicho's specialty, Family Law/Divorce/Child Custody. Without a policy to ensure no illegal immigrants are signed as clients, Paul Nichols could be helping illegal fathers to get custody of american children from citizen mothers.
Fact is, the idea that people charged with violating immigration law don't deserve legal representation is stupid. Nichol's law firm would NEVER pledge not to represent people who are alleged to be illegal. Nothing on their web site says they refuse to serve illegals, nor should it.
But it is the height of hypocrisy for Paul Nichols to attack his opponent for representing people charged with immigration violations, when his own firm does not have any statement refusing representation to illegals. And it is also hypcritical for Greg to attack one candidate for being in a firm that represents people alleged to be illegals, and then to endorse a candidate who is a partner in a law firm that has no policy to refuse to represent illegals, or gang members, or hardened criminals, or fathers who cheat on their wives.
Alas, JM and the protesters got lost somewhere, so I didn't get to meet him.
Well, tonight I was going to go to the HSM citizens meeting. I knew it would be a packed crowd, but figured I could shoe-horn in. I figured I'd put in a brief appearance at the Republican committee meeting, and head on over. It sounded like JM was going to be there. But if he was, I probably wouldn't see him through the masses anyway.
Well, it turns out I was so tired that I couldn't bring myself to drive from McCoart to the HSM meeting. I am sorry I didn't make it, because from what I hear it was well-attended by our republican candidates, including Jeff Frederick, Faisal Gill, and Chris Royce.
And apparently, if I had shown up, I would have been able to see JM, because from what I hear, the crowd was somewhat less than what you might expect. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, if it was hard for candidates to make time for this event, it had to be hard for HSM members to clear their schedules at the last minute.
If I had shown up, I would have asked Paul Nichols this question: "Nothing on your firm's web site tells me, so I have to ask you -- how does your firm screen your clients to ensure that none of them are illegal immigrants?"
After all, Paul Nichols seems to think that illegal immigrants don't deserve legal representation, and that being a partner in a firm that represents illegal immigrants would disqualify him from consideration for the position.
Therefore, I have to assume they have some way to make sure they don't represent them. Paul Nichols must never have had any "family law" practice involving an illegal family, no adoption issues, no marital difficulties, no child placement or other family issues. And his other partners and junior law members have certainly never defended an illegal on a drunk driving charge, or petty theft, or larceny, or assault, or even (gasp) a deportation hearing.
But we all know how hard it is to tell if someone is here illegally, so I'd love to know what Paul does to figure that out. He must have a questionaire, ask them for legal papers, etc. Maybe we could take Paul's firm's process and apply it to employers hiring illegals.
My guess is that the Nichol's law firm does NOT discriminate against illegal immigrants in representation. My guess is they don't ask, don't tell, and are happy to take their money and get them off on criminal and civil matters. After all, that's what lawyers do -- represent people.
But certainly Greg Letiecq wouldn't express support for a lawyer that works for a firm that doesn't ensure they don't represent illegals, right?
In Virginia Beach, a Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates is blamed for giving convicted criminals "get-out-of-jail-free cards" while working for the state. In Danville, a Republican candidate is alleged to have been a leader in a national organization that wants to end Social Security.
And in Fairfax County, Republican Del. Timothy D. Hugo is accused of working for a lobbying firm that overcharged the government, represented abusers at Abu Ghraib prison and profited from the war in Iraq.
The Post is a great example of what I discussed in my reprint of my 2005 article on the press. Namely, they point out the negative attacks, without giving us the facts to know which attacks are truthful, and which are just made-up. Did the Democrat let convicts out of jail? Is the republican a leader in a national organization? The post doesn't say, even though the second charge is easily verified or refuted (which makes me think it is false). The first is harder to judge, and may be more of an opinion or description of a result than a literal complaint.
But it would have been easy to the Post to note that Hugo's lobbying is unrelated to any of the things he is accused of.
Many candidates who are in office or have run before say they are shocked at how personal and vicious the attacks have been this year, accusing their opponents of outright lying in many cases or, at the very least, distorting the truth.
The allegations flying back and forth in the campaign for the open House seat in Fairfax's 34th District have gotten so negative that Republican candidate Dave Hunt responded with a mailer about Democratic opponent Margaret G. Vanderhye that says, "We can't trust a word she says."
If one candidate lies about the positions of the other candidate, and the other candidate says the first one is lying, that's not "tit-for-tat", or a sign that both sides went negative. If your opponent lies about you, it's fair game to call them on it.
The Post echoes the opinion given in an AP story I highlighted in last week's Potomac News column, that the false over-the-top and negative attacks are driven by the Democrat's desire to win back the senate:
Many candidates and lawmakers attribute the extreme negative campaigning this year to an increased number of competitive races, the abundance of money raised by campaigns and, most importantly, the potential to change which party controls the General Assembly.
The Democrats could make significant gains in the Republican-led legislature next month when all 140 House and Senate seats are up for grabs. Democrats could take control of the Senate for the first time since 1999 and pick up a half-dozen or so seats in the House of Delegates.
The Post lists many of the false charges that we've already highlighted before:
And in Prince William County, the conservative Club for Growth has filed a complaint with state officials against the state Democratic party and Chris Brown, the Democrat running against Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick (R-Prince William) over a campaign mailer in the 52nd District.
The Club for Growth's complaint stems from two campaign mail pieces sent by Brown that it says wrongly states that Frederick has a plan to raise the sales tax by 34 percent and that the Club for Growth political action committee, of which Frederick is a member, supports the increase.
"It's not just negative. It's flat-out opposite to what the truth is," Frederick said. "Maybe they want to win so badly they're doing anything."
Brown said that he stands by his literature and that voters should know that Frederick is a member of a rigid, ideological group. The Club for Growth favors lower taxes and reduced government spending.
Even though the Post couldn't bring itself to admit what the Potomac News easily recognized, that accusing a group that "favors lower taxes" of threatening to raise your taxes is just wrong.
In the 51st District of Prince William, Democratic House candidate Paul Nichols has accused Republican candidate Faisal M. Gill of running a law firm that helps illegal immigrants avoid deportation. Nichols' campaign literature stated: "Faisal Gill: So wrong on everything we can't even believe he's running for office."
This is literally true in that sometimes people lose court cases, but a false claim because, as Nichol's knows, the courts are the ones who determine whether an immigrant has a legal case to be here or not, and lawyers are needed to make that system work. Until the court rules against them, the people being represented are not "illegal immigrants", they are simply CHARGED with being illegal, and require legal representation in order that justice be served.
Next door in the 50th District, which includes part of Prince William and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, Democratic House candidate Jeanette Rishell accused Republican Del. Jackson H. Miller of voting for driver fees that give a break to illegal immigrants. Miller fought back.
Another misleading statement, although the Post had several examples out outright lies they could have used if they weren't trying so hard to be 'even', like Rishell saying Jackson voted to raise his salary. In this case, Jackson voted for the final transportation bill, which included Democrat Governor Tim Kaine's amendment to the abuser fees to apply them only to legal residents of the state. This was said to exclude out-of-state drivers, but also excludes those who are ILLEGAL residents.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
At least JM can READ a calendar. He notes in this blog entry that Greg Lettieq of Help Save Manassas has done a last-minute scheduling of a candidate forum in eastern Prince William for Monday, October 22nd.
Greg of course knew this was a PWCRC meeting nght, because he received the call to meeting a couple of weeks ago like the rest of us. Also, we meet the 3rd monday of every month. (CORRECTION: As it says on the PWCGOP web site, the 4th monday of each month).
Now, I won't accuse Greg of doing this because the Woodbridge HSM candidate forum is the one for the race where the Republican is the lawyer of the firm suing him for libel, the race in which he just endorsed the Democrat in violation of his PWCRC oath (a good reason for Greg to skip the meeting). My guess is, being the last minute, this was the only night Greg could find a big enough room AND get enough of his membership free to have the meeting.
But for some reason, Marks is unaware or ignorant how time works. See, time moves forward. On Tuesday, you don't really know what someone is going to do on Wednesday. So most sane people, when there is an event schedule, and later another group schedules an event for the same time, would know that it's the SECOND scheduler who has double-booked the day.
But that wouldn't make for a false, illogical blog entry, and therefore wouldn't be up to GBFaisal standards. So instead, Marks says:
PWCRC schedules "Call To Meeting" on top of Help Save Manassas' "Candidates Night".
Having postulated time travel, he proceeds to illogically suggest that the PWC chair was trying to stop people from attending the HSM forum by scheduling a regular meeting for our regular night when HSM had NO FORUM ON THE CALENDAR.
Maybe JM should ask why Greg seems to not want the members of the PWCRC to come to his candidate forum in Woodbridge, home of his endorsed Democrat candidate.
Meanwhile, HSM should ask the more pertinent question -- why is Greg Letiecq, president of an organization wanting to crack down on illegals, endorsing a candidate who says that existing laws are fine and we shouldn't do anything else?
It might be fun if Paul Nichols shows up, just to ask him if he is with Sharon Pandak in opposition to the HSM-supported PWC illegal immigrant resolution. Because if he did oppose the resolution, it would be fun to watch Greg's head explode from the logical contradiction of endorsing the candidate who opposes his organization's signature issues.
But Greg's already showed his colors by making a bizarre attack on his nemesis for being "too hard" on illegals, wanting to push the federal and state government to crack down "more than current law allows", if I understand the 3rd-party discussions.
Update: JM has posted this correction to his blog, in this thread. I see where he got confused, because Tom over at Citizen Tom posted the letter just a couple of days ago, without a date on it, and obviously JM isn't getting the official notice of the PWCRC meeting. I don't post the meeting notices, since everybody gets them, and they are on the web site, under "upcoming events".
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Rush ALSO matched the $2.1 million dollar winning bid. Out of his own money. A fact most mainstream media is ignoring, of course.
And, he didn't just choose this charity out of thin air. He is on it's Board of Directors. In other words, he's been supporting our troops through personal action long before the Democrats chose to use the power of the United States Senate to try to silence him and intimidate a media outlet (just like they did with ABC on the "Path to 9/11", using threats of government action to try to get ABC not to run the piece critical of Clinton).
Meanwhile, Senator Reid went to the floor of the Senate, where he can lie without being held accountable (protected by law for libel, subject only to the rules of the Senate which he can break with impunity as Majority leader with the Democrats in charge). There, he all but claimed credit for Rush's auction, weaving a yarn about how he and his best buddy "Mike May" discussed the issue and didn't imagine it would raise this much money:
WHEN I SPOKE TO MARK MAY HE AND I THOUGHT THIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T MAKE MUCH MONEY, A LETTER WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATIC SENATORS COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMETHING.
Of course, the man's name is Mark Mays, not "May".
Now, Rush had called on these 41 Democratic Senators do put their money where their mouths were like he did, and match the donation. Hey, I'd be happy if the 41 of them TOGETHER would match the donation, but none of them seem to care for the troops that much.
Reid, instead of offering a donation, did what Democrats often do when confronted with a need -- tried to get everybody ELSE to pay for it, while he took credit:
BUT IT CERTAINLY IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN $2 MILLION. NEVER DID WE THINK THAT THIS LETTER WOULD BRING MONEY OF THIS NATURE. AND, FOR THE CAUSE, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS EXTREMELY GOOD.
THERE'S ONLY A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT SO I WOULD ASK THOSE THAT ARE WANTING TO DO MORE, THAT THEY CAN GO TO HARRY REID LETTER AND IT WILL COME UP ON E-BAY. I ENCOURAGE ANYONE INTERESTED WITH THE MEANS TO CONSIDER CONTRIBUTING TO THIS WORTHWHILE CAUSE
...WE SHOULD DO THAT AND TRY TO ACCOMPLISH GOOD THINGS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS DOES THAT, MADAM PRESIDENT. MORE THAN $2 MILLION FOR A LETTER SIGNED BY THIS SENATOR AND MY FRIENDS.
Note how he keeps talking about "his" letter, as if he's the one who "donated" it. And like it's HIS signature that makes it worth 2 million, rather than the audacity of his sending the letter. And how he asks HIS supporters to go give a donation (he later apparently explained that he meant to go to HIS web site and there was a pass-through donation box).
Of course, for all the nice things he said about "putting aside differences" he hasn't apologized for falsely accusing Rush of attacking our soldiers, AND his false suggestion that Rush doesn't really support all our troops (Rush has actually BEEN TO THE WAR ZONE to meet with and entertain our troops).
And why did someone bid 2.1 million for the letter? Was it because Reid and his "friends" wrote it? Here's what the buyer said:
“The Eugene B. Casey Foundation believes freedom of speech is a basic right of every citizen of this country. The purchase of the smear letter was to demonstrate their belief in this right and to support Rush Limbaugh, his views, and his continued education of us.”
Friday, October 19, 2007
Taking a cue from Senator Reid, who wrote a letter with false claims to attack Rush Limbaugh, and stealing the idea from another internet commenter, I wrote the following letter to Senator Reid regarding the disgusting statements of Pete Stark, who accused our soldier of blowing up innocent people, and our President of sending children to Iraq to get their heads blown off "for his pleasure".
Honorable Majority Leader Reid,
You may recognize the form of this letter.
At the time I send this letter, over 3,808 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and over 28,000 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.
Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude.
That is why Pete Starks’s recent characterization of troops as “blowing up innocent people” is such an outrage. Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Stark would say that our troops are "blowing up innocent people".
Mr. Stark has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale. The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it.
A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 13 percent of service members approved of the Democrats plan to surrender and pull out of Iraq, while almost half actually wanted to increase the number of troops in Iraq, an approach President Bush took for our country that has turned things agound.
From this support by our troops for more troops, it is clear that Mr. Starks’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members. Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate, and don't deserve to be accused of blowing up innocent people.
Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Stark’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is "blowing up innocent people”.
We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Stark to apologize for his comments.
I'm not expecting a response. The Democrats obviously were expressing PHONY outrage about attacks on our troops.
After all, The Democrats still haven't called on Murtha to apologize for falsely saying our troops killed innocent people in cold blood, or apologized for supporting the organization that gave a platform for Jesse MacBeth to falsely accuse our soldiers of killing women and children, or forced Kerry to apologize for claiming our troops were running around in the middle of the night breaking down doors and terrorizing innocent Iraqi citizens.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
STOP HOLDING POOR FAMILIES HOSTAGE.
Stop blackmailing people. If you bring up the original SCHIP program tomorrow, it will pass overwhelmingly, and Bush would sign it the next day. We could have the program up and running again before the weekend.
But the Democrats have no plan to do this. Heck, liberal bloggers like Lowell are upset that they didn't hold off the veto vote longer. Democrats are saying they have an "election issue" (remember, the issue isn't until NEXT NOVEMBER).
So what, are the democrats going to cut the Frosts and Wilkersons off from necessary insurance for a whole year, just to trick people into voting for them?
Come on, for once, Democrats, actually DO SOMETHING for your constituents. Bush proposed a FIVE BILLION DOLLAR INCREASE in this program. If you think that is too little to fund the existing program, propose a number, and back it up with evidence. Bush has said he'll listen.
Stop the demagoging, STOP THE LYING, pass the SCHIP bill and send it to the President. You thought the republicans were so scared they'd vote for ANYTHING, but we proved you wrong. Someone in Washington still cares about the taxpayers. So get off your butts, STOP making "campaign issues", and DO YOUR JOB. Re-authorise the republican SCHIP program.
"It's for the Children". (not the children that are running the House, the actual children who you are scaring and holding hostage).
That should have been the end of that story. But for some bizarre reason, on Monday Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a floor speech attacking a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh, from the floor of the Senate, repeating the lies first circulated by Media Matters.
Worse, he then produce an official letter, signed already by himself, Chuck Schumer, and two other Democratic Senate Leaders, repeating the lies about Rush Limbaugh and calling for the Clear Channel company to force him to apologize. Read the letter here : Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.
That letter was then signed by a total of 41 idiots in the Senate who ignored the truth AND the proper job of an elected official. That included our own James Webb.
In addition to lying about Rush, the letter repeated a lie that James Webb told in the Democratic Response to the State of the Union address, a lie I covered in this post, Webb's Misleading State of the Union Address. Specifically, in the letter the Democrats state the following:
A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh's insult is directed at thousands of American Service Members.
As I noted last January, and explained in a letter I sent to Senator James Webb, that is a false interpretation of the poll, which can be found HERE. Webb in January, and the Senate Democrats now, falsely claim that the 42% who disapproved of Bush's handling all opposed the war itself. But in fact, many of those who disapproved were upset because they thought we needed MORE troops. In other words, they supported the war, just not the limited way Bush was fighting.
The relevant quote from the survey:
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there.
So around 38% , about the same as approved of Bush, thought we had the right number of troops. Only 13% opposed the war (saying we should have no troops there). Webb used this to claim we should oppose the surge, even though almost half the troops WANTED more soldiers on the ground.
The Democrats didn't need to lie about this poll -- nobody is arguing that there are thousands of soldiers who personally oppose the war, but are still doing their duty admirably. They also didn't need to lie about Rush Limbaugh "attacking" those troops, when he was defending them by calling out a phony soldier who falsely accused the soldiers of war crimes. They also didn't need to misuse their position as elected leaders to use the power of the government to try to scare a company into censoring a private citizen.
Who knows why they lied about the poll, lied about Rush, and broke their contitutional oaths. Who knows why 41 senators took the unprecedented step of calling out a private citizen from the floor of the senate where they were protected from being prosecuted for their slander.
Rush put their letter on E-bay, auctioning it off for charity. The current bid is $2,000,200. All for the children of slain troops. Rush has promised to match the final bid, and has called on each of the 41 signatories to match the final bid as well, to prove that they actually care about the troops, and aren't just using this as a political ploy.
Let's see how many of them will take him up on the offer. My guess is we shouldn't expect it.
Oh, and while the Democrats are falsely attacking Rush for something he didn't say, they are supporting their own Pete Stark, who said of our troops today from the house floor:
"But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
You are going to spend it to blow up innocent people -- that's Stark's comment on what our war spending is about. And WHO is blowing up innocent people? The people we fund, our own troops. He also said the President sent our troops to get THEIR heads blown off for his amusement, which is a dispicable statement that unfortunately many "progressive democrats" will accept as truth, because they are deranged.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Now to see by how much.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Just in case you missed this, it turns out that "When Immigration Goes Up, Prices Go Down." Not only that, in a finding that conservatives will certainly cheer (of course they will - ha!), immigrants -- legal or not -- "force markets to run more efficiently, and thereby make cheaper prices available for all." That's right, immigrants lower inflation and make markets work better. Sounds like a conservative dream-come-true. Oh, but wait, there's some guy speaking Spanish at Lowe's; deport the bastards!!! *snark*
Republicans oppose minimum wage increases because they make markets less efficient and hurt poor citizens that mostly vote democrat, and Lowell SUPPORTS minimum wage increase. Republicans oppose illegal immigrants because they undercut the wages of legal residents and hurt poor citizens that mostly vote democrat, and Lowell SUPPORTS illegals working for slave wages.
And Lowell IS the voice of the "progressive" democratic party. And for some reason poor people still vote democrat, even when the "progressives" take the poor people's health insurance away to hold them hostage to get a tax on poor smokers and to buy the votes of richer people.
Most impressive speaker so far -- a woman who was an immigrant who came here legally, and is now a citizen, who thanked Corey for telling her about the meeting, and said she supported the resolution because it's hard work getting here legally, and basically it's not fair that others circumvent the process.
Funniest thing -- a lot of people are wearing green shirts. "Not with my taxes, not in my name, rescind the resolution". Some of them admit to being illegal, most are using the translator.
I like the hair color on the translator.
But my FAVORITE line was a guy who said something like this, speaking of Corey's use of his discretionary funds to send out the flyer: "So Corey spent $30,000 to buy votes. But the REST of you (pointing to all the other supervisors) use YOUR money to buy votes in $500-$1000 increments".
I'd love to hear the responses from each supervisor arguing that they DON'T give their discretionary funds out based on constituencies and to earn credit and votes. In fact, I could argue that Corey did this less than most -- last year he wanted to use HIS funds to broadcast planning commission meetings, something that we all should care about, but wouldn't be a payoff to any particular organization.
Anyway, they think they'll keep going until about 2am.
WJLA ran a little story about it, didn't see anybody I knew. Then they had the results of a viewer poll, in which 86% of the respondents said local governments should deny services to illegal immigrants.
I still don't get why so many people who say they are legal immigrants are saying they will be kicked out of the country if this resolution passes. Most who say that have a translater, and I can only guess that a spanish-speaking organization has been using the language barrier to mislead these people into supporting other people who didn't come here legally like they did, and who take the legal immigrant jobs and depress their wages.
Now a guy wearing a "34" jersey is up. His parents are legal immigrants, and he notes that this resolution doesn't target hispanics, but illegal immigrants. This country is a great country because of laws. "You can be eloquent, but it won't make you right". He also used my analogy, that if he wakes up in the morning and there are 5 very nice people in his basement, he will kick them out. He says "Nobody is racist, not today". He can say that, he's a black man.
Like I said before, if a person broke into your house, watched your TV, sat in your living room, and slept on your floor, you'd kick them out even if they washed your windows.
11:48 PM. We are up in the 300's now, but that doesn't mean a lot, because after all the residents we get to start with non-residents.
A lot of the speakers say they are afraid of getting deported. Some say they are afraid they will be pulled over while driving, and end up being deported. But they all start with their name and address. How did we get to where people could express FEAR about going out, but not about publicly proclaiming their illegal activity with their name and address?
I don't think the speakers who admit to being illegal are doing their side any favors, especially when they say they think that it's unfair to deny services to people here illegally.
11:53PM Another speaker thanks Corey for reminding him about the vote with the flyer, and notes that it worked because people are here at midnight. He also gets a laugh when, in reference to a number of the anti-resolution folks who have said how many people could have been helped by Corey's "discretionary fund", he said we could have fed the world by now with the money. He also suggests the translater may want to translate what he is saying for the crowd.
I didn't realise just how many people we had living in this county that don't speak english, and are scared. It's clear the language barrier has allowed a deep rift in our community. It seems some have exploited this language barrier to stir up anger in the hispanic community. But who knows, I can't communicate with that group, and they can't communicate with me. How are we supposed to co-exist and be a united county when we can't communicate with each other.
Another spanish speaker who was proud to work for this country, but who spent half his speech denigrating Corey Stewart personally and trying to convince the other supervisors that they weren't evil like Corey was. Not likely a good sales pitch.
Next person says we should focus on better education, that police should be arresting murderers and not catching illegals.
I'm noticing more of the pro-resolution folks are reacting quite negatively to the continuous drumbeat from the anti-resolution speakers all talking about how hard they work and how much we'll miss their hard work.
Another female speaker, her grandparents came legally from mexico. She feels offended that the other side is calling her racist. She notes the people being treated unfairly are those who are waiting in line but can't get in because of all the illegals. This speaker also thanks Corey for sending the note, and says she asked the translater to translate her words for the hispanics in the hallway, but the translater refused because she was 'on the wrong side'.
As another speaker said, sure it's painful to have to go back to your own country. But in the end it will be better, because if they come back legally they won't be living in fear anymore of being caught.
When he said that, it made me think about people who have escaped prison, and lived their lives hiding in the fear they would be discovered and re-arrested. Many times the seem relieved when they are caught, even if they have to finish their term, because they no longer live in that fear.
Words used by the anti-resolution side have definitely been harsher and attacked the pro-resolution folks a lot more than the other way around. A lot of people who are anti-resolution have talked about the Iraq war.
12:22 AM. I like this speaker. He's against the resolution, but he makes a good but misguided point. He's talking about how "our country", and I hope he meant "America", has given all these people a great opportunity they never got in their own countries. This is true. It's why so many people want to come here. But there are many people legally waiting for their legal turn to come and enjoy what this country has to offer. The speaker doesn't address why we should reward those who cut in line with all that this country has to offer.
12:24 AM, guy skipped his kid's birthday to be here, and is blaming the board for some guy outside who was apparently saying racist things and tried to cut in line. It is unfortunate that there are some who are racist, but that is not a point against the resolution. This guy lives in Alexandria, but says his business has been hurt.
Just as I think some of the pro-resolution people expect too much out of this resolution, the illegal immigrants are holding out way to much "hope" if the resolution is rejected. It's like the think that if we reject the resolution, they will be allowed to stay here illegally. But that's not the case. The things the county is doing will do little to change the status of illegals. They will still be illegal, they will still get deported. They will still live in fear of being caught. About the only thing they will have is they will get more public money before they get caught.
12:30am. Here's a guy who actually came out because he saw the show on TV and decided to come out and speak. I think they are getting close to the end. He mentions that a lot of the people who said they were illegal made a big deal out of "paying taxes", and notes that he pays taxes as well.
If we had a sane illegal immigration policy that was enforced, all these illegal immigrants wouldn't have come here and settled in and thought they had a right to be here. But just because they got away with it for so long doesn't mean we should let them get away with it in the future.
Legal immigrants are required to prove they won't be a burden on taxpayers. You don't get in here legally and then qualify for a bunch of government programs, even if you pay taxes. There are millions of people waiting to come in, so we can be a little picky.
But those who came here illegally don't always meet those qualifications, and they seem to be really upset that they might lose a couple of government services they have become used to (really, there aren't many being effected by this -- one is the incarcereration drug program, I hope none of these people ever need that).
I actually admire that people come here for a better life, as the speaker now is saying, but that's what LEGAL IMMIGRATION is fore.
12:35 AM: Now a woman is claiming that no legal immigrants or citizens want to do construction, that only illegals do construction. Also that we should go back to when native americans were americans. And she's yelling at the board because they aren't all listening to her talk.
12:37 : An american female who is trying to speak spanish, dressed up like a statue of Liberty.
But she doesn't have a translator, so it's hard to know what she is saying, my spanish is getting better as the night goes on but I don't think she's speaking "mexican spanish".
12:39: Now she says "In case you don't all speak spanish" -- and she gives us the english version. I thought I recognized that. But she was closer than she might have expected in that I think a lot of the crowd speaks spanish.
12:42: This guy isn't earning any friends on the board. He attacked Covington, one of those he'd have to win over, and then said we were all illegal immigrants because this country belonged to the indians.
12:46: This woman just said "I don't see any black people here who are against us". But as I noted that several black people have spoken for the resolution. And apparently only illegal immigrants will work in nursing homes and clean the old people. But she's legal and SHE says SHE does that work. So maybe we'll be OK after all?
And she's talking about people who are here "illegally" but did it "legally".
But it's apparent the handlers outside have gotten the message, the last few speakers have said how they know other people work hard. A lot of them also bring up God and Jesus.
12:50 This speaker says we are racist because 3rd-world countries are bad places and they just want better lives and who are we to stop them. She keeps saying "we", but she said her parents came here and she's a citizen. She also thinks the resolution will keep children from using a public swimming pool.
12:53: Now there's a male translater, He's not as good as the previous translator. The speaker reminds us that "we clean your houses". Well, nobody really cleans my house, but when it IS cleaned, it's either me, or my wife, or my children. Not all of us have the money to hire cleaning people. And if I did, I wouldn't hire an illegal, I'd hire a legal resident and I'd pay them a fair wage.
12:55: This guy starts by asking if we believe that he's a 3rd-generation american. Then he said he was lying. So apparently we were right to question his statement. He IS a legal, he has his papers. He does make the point that some pro-resolution people attack things that have nothing to do with "illegals". His whole family is legal and he had 8 people in his house and 6 cars, and feels people are targetting him when they complain about "hispanics" living too many people to a house.
He's a construction worker, so apparently there ARE non-illegals who will build houses for us. And he's paying his way through college. What I don't understand why he's for illegals, since he's a legal resident, he said he was a citizen but I'm still wary because of his first question.
Now I'm confused because he said he was in construction and putting his way to college, but he drives 40 minutes each way to work. Oh well.
1:01 am: this guy just made the perfect case against illegal aliens, but thought he wasn't because he's attacking the Iraq war. He seems to be saying that if we just sit back, the invasion will be over eventually and we'll all be happy in a mexican puppet-state. I don't think that's a big selling point, unless you are a Mexican.
And the guy turns out to be a Ron Paul supporter. I guess it all makes sense now. :-)
1:03AM: This guy says he saw the show, got out of bed, showered and now he's on TV. He runs a construction business, and is talking about all the people who are willing to work. I don't doubt illegals are "willing to work", but frankly I don't doubt that there's a lot of immigrants waiting in their home countries who are ALSO willing to work, but also want to learn our language and follow our laws, and they can't come here because the illegals took all the jobs.
Now he makes the mistake of suggesting the illegals help Social Security. HE must not know that they steal numbers, and that when they return to Mexico our country is trying to put a reciprical agreement in place to send their social security funds back to Mexico with them.
1:05: Hey, it's Anke. I've never seen Anke before. Anke's an immigrant. Her parents were immigrants, and came legally. She's doing a good job, "They did it the Right Way". That's the real message here, let's get immigrants who do it the right way. Good job, Anke.
1:09: Next speaker thinks it is horrible that people have to be "afraid to drive their cars to work". I wonder how SHE would feel about my analogy about a felon who broke out of prison being "afraid" of being caught. Now she's misrepresenting the bill, saying it says "if you see a hispanic, pull them over".
Oops. No clapping is allowed. Next speaker notes dogs in our country are treated better than people in his own country. I guess we should bring his whole country into Prince William.
Buenos Noches. Actually, I think it's Buenos Dias now.
1:16 AM: The translator isn't speaking into the microphone. I don't know if anybody cares. A lot of people say they waited seven hours or even since 11:00 am. I'm wondering, once they were signed up, couldn't they just go home and watch and come back when their number came up? They are allowing people to speak out of turn.
1:18: Another american who is speaking spanish. I can understand him though. He is welcoming "immigrants", calling them his "family", and says they are hard workers. They are like us. I don't think he's used the word "illegal" or "undocumented", although to tell the truth I don't think I know the spanish word for "undocumented". I think he just used some bad language about the resolution.
1:21: A speaker in a bright yellow shirt. I feel awake again. He's now noting that the construction industry is saturated by illegals which are forcing down the wages (which Lowell thinks is a great thing), and driving out legal workers who were making more money. Now he's speaking spanish. I guess they'll have to listen to him, even though the translator won't translate pro-resolution speakers. He wasn't wearing an HSM sticker, but he sounded like he'd be a good addition to their group.
1:24: Another illegal. I just realised they are all making a big mistake. They all note they pay income taxes, and social security taxes. But neither of those taxes come to the county anyway. We get money from sales tax (which illegals pay less of because they work for lower wages), from property taxes (which illegals pay less of because they live more to a house), and from car tax (which illegals pay less of because they are poor and generally own older cars).
The speaker keeps saying that in 1990 "there was no Prince William County". I have news for him. There WAS, and it was a great place to live. I actually lived in Westgate in 1981. Now he notes that he's illegal but his kids are legal -- we can't do anything about that, but the federal government could fix that, and should. And yes, it sucks that if he gets kicked out of the country, the kids will either have to live without the parents in the U.S., or take them to a country they aren't citizens of. But that was the person's decision.
I will go back to the analogy. If a person breaks out of jail, and then gets married and has kids, it sucks if he gets caught and gets sent back to jail. But we don't decide to forgive him for his past because of it, it was HIS fault.
OK, back to the speaker -- he says the illegals built everything in our county. Apparently illegals are building a lot of our school buildings, as if that's a problem if the illegals leave. But as a previous speaker noted, if the illegals leave, we'll have plenty of space in our schools. She thought that would be a problem, wondering "what would we do" if we had empty schools. That's a problem I really want to have.
1:31: Man working in the Mortgage industry predictably fears that if illegals leave his business will be hurt because our property values will drop. He thinks our property taxes will have to go up. That is patently untrue -- we know that illegals are the poorer residents of the county, and we know that the poor residents have a disparate cost to the government. If a large number of illegals leave, and the house values decline, there will be fewer cars on the roads so we won't have to build new ones, we won't have to spend any more money building schools, we won't have to expand the sewer and water and electric systems, we won't need more 911 operators, or new social service workers. Our "tax rates" would go up when our property values decline, but the raw tax amount we pay should go down because we won't have as many expenses.
1:33: Here's a woman who's legal, but says her husband would have "starved" if he hadn't illegally crossed the border. What that has to do with the resolution I don't know, but I'm not sure why she couldn't just send him some food once in a while. Don't they have food in Mexico? I'll be happy to send food aid to Mexico if that will help.
1:35: This woman says she just became a citizen, but for some reason she still doesn't speak english. I thought you had to have english proficiency to get citizenship. I'm confused now. She says 95% of those who built the McCoart building were "hispanic". But were they illegal? I wish she could speak english, because she is very passionate and the translator is not.
1:42 AM: Immigrant, not sure if he's legal or illegal, he's in construction, worked on rebuilding the pentagon so I'm guessing legal because I can't believe they would have allowed illegal immigrants to get access to the Pentagon, even just for construction.
1:48: female translator back. Speaker started learning english 10 years ago, went to college, but still wants to have the translator. I think he just wants to stand next to her for a few minutes. He wants to deport the "true criminals", but doesn't want to get deported himself. I guess either he's an illegal, or he doesn't understand what legal means. Now he says his documentation is in line, but he still fears getting sent back.
If the group Mexican Without borders really cared about this guy, they would have told him he had no fear of being deported, rather than scaring him.
It's 1:51, so it looks like we are going until at least 2:00 AM.
1:53: Apparently, every illegal immigrant who is here has been here for decades, and have children, and never take ANYTHING from the government. This one owns a cleaning business. She fell out of a 3rd-floor window. She also fell off a 40-foot ladder. She's broken both arms and both legs. Apparently she didn't go to the hospital, because she said she's never taken "anything", but she doesn't seem to have health insurance.
1:56: Citizen time ends. Afternoon business continues. Well, it's clear the status quo can't be maintained. THe anti-resolution folks seem to think if we just drop the resolution, everything will go back to normal and they can live illegally with no fear of deportation.
First, that ignores the fact that a large majority of the residents of the county are tired of the status quo, and will consider it unacceptable to keep the status quo.
Second, that ignores the fact that without the resolution, the illegals are STILL illegal, and will be deported if they are caught. Absent the resolution, they are still subject to being turned into ICE whether they commit a crime or not, whether our police question them or not. THeir employers are still subject to punishment, and there will be increased enforcement against those employers.
What the anti-resolution folks were REALLY advocating is amnesty. They are here illegally, and want to be made "legal" because they "work really hard", because "we can't survive without them", and "they pay taxes".
2:00: Mary Nohe says he's not on any side. Not surprising. He's asking for an amendment. He's talking about going after the "real criminals" who are also illegal. I thought we already do that. But Nohe does fund the 7 new police positions in his version.
He calls for outreach to the immigrant community to educate them on the actual resolution. That's actually a good idea, because it's clear they've been lied to.
But I don't like his clause to assign an "independent oversight", mostly because I fear the "independent" group will be like the HRC, not really "independent". I could live with some oversight to ensure there is no racial profiling, but think we could do that in-house. I'm tired of government essentially shirking it's responsibilities.
If Nohe is serious, he will have given this amendment to Stirrup and Stewart, and they will know how to respond.
2:06. Nohe brings up the "10 million dollar shortfall" which we learned last week. That was actually a better number than expected, which probably saved the resolution. He also has a clause referencing the state attorney's opinion about what we can and can't do.
It sure sounds like Nohe is on board, if his amendment is really as benign as he makes it sound. It's a friendly amendment, and accepted. So it seems Nohe's on board.
2:24: May speaks in spanish out of deference to those in the audience that don't understand english. In response, a woman screams that they will all burn in hell for "separating her from her children". I'm guessing she thinks she'll be deported now and her kids won't come with her.
2:26: Jenkins complains that he had to sit through what turned out to be like a "public hearing", thinking we should have had a public hearing where the staff would have sat instead of him? Or maybe not. But Jenkins thinks that if you put a notice in the paper 5 times, it magically reaches the entire county, as if each time a DIFFERENT 20,000 people read the paper. Fact is, most people even who GET the paper won't see a public notice.
I would have liked to have seen a public hearing, but they could have done that months ago. Anyway, Jenkins is on board.
2:28: Barg is supporting it, so long as we spend even MORE money to fund public education through the police department. I guess if you are going to try to overcome the months of misinformation, it's going to cost a little money. The fear is real, but misguided.
I have been somewhat encouraged by some recent editorials which have done some of this hard work.
When I first wrote this column, the paper rejected it because they were afraid to publish my facts I had collected about some false advertising. That's when I got the idea to make the column about the news media rather than candidates.
Unfortunately, in the back-and-forth trying to get the column past the editors, they published a preliminary version of the column I had sent them to see if I was getting to where they'd accept it. The original column as published can be found here, "PUBLISHED VERSION".
Here's the way it was supposed to run, from October 2005, "When Reporters fail to inform, we all lose":
By Charles Reichley
When Reporters Fail to Inform, We Lose
Political campaigns involve a certain amount of deception. Anyone who receives a flier, or sees a campaign commercial, has to wonder how truthful they are. But many people assume the press wouldn’t let a campaign get away with anything too inaccurate or misleading. We count on reporters to keep campaigns honest. But too often they don’t – and we all lose.
A good example can be found in a recent flier the Barg for Delegate campaign sent out attacking her opponent, Delegate Jeff Frederick. In the flier, the campaign claims that Frederick “voted to allow illegal immigrants to attend Virginia colleges, putting them ahead of legal residents”. The campaign wants you to believe he support illegal immigrants.
There was in fact a vote in 2004 (HB 156 Higher educational institutions; prohibits admission of illegal aliens), and in 2005 (HB 2910 Higher education; prohibits admission of illegal aliens to any public institutions in State). But the official Virginia web site (http://leg1.state.va.us) says Frederick voted FOR each bill, both in committee and on the floor of the House. In other words, he voted to PROHIBIT illegal immigrants, not ALLOW them. To say otherwise misleads voters.
But, so far as I can tell, no reporter covering this campaign has mentioned these bills or Frederick’s votes, even though they quote him as saying Barg is lying about his record. The information is publicly available. The press should know this, but they have not shared it with the voters.
It seems they treat campaign coverage as less than “real news”. Instead of taking it seriously, they see it as some sort of game, of which they are observers, not referees. They simply provide play-by-play. Maybe they are afraid to inject themselves into the process. So, rather than provide information which would help voters understand the issues, and reveal who is playing fast-and-loose with the truth, they perpetuate the cycle of half-truths and misleading campaign ads.
It’s like a pick-up basketball game with no referee. If a team plays by the rules, but the opponent breaks the rules, the opponent wins. The honest team can’t compete without someone calling the fouls, unless they too start fouling. But then it’s not a basketball game, it’s a brawl. In a political race where one campaign is willing to say anything to win, an honest candidate is at a serious disadvantage if the press is not there to police the truth.
A campaign can put out fliers refuting inaccurate claims, but that just fuels the “he-said, she-said” nature of the contest. Like a mother whose children come running to give their version of how the cookie jar fell to the floor, voters are left wondering which campaign is telling the truth. Sometimes there is no way to know, but often there are facts that the press could report. And if they did, people could see which campaigns were deceiving them, and judge their other claims accordingly.
Sometimes facts are presented in a dishonest way. For example, the Barg campaign flier said that Frederick voted against funding for transportation, education, and more police. Their “proof” is his vote against the 2004 budget. He did vote against the budget, because it included a huge unnecessary tax increase. But he voted for alternate budgets with similar funding. And in 2005, when we had a large surplus because of the tax increase, he voted to return some of the money in a sales tax cut, and to use the rest for transportation, instead of letting it be frittered away in wasteful spending. You could say he voted to de-fund the entire government – but that wouldn’t reflect reality.
Sometimes the press contributes to the problem. A Potomac News article on Saturday quotes Barg: “My opponent has taken tens of thousands of dollars from developers”. A check of the facts (see www.vpap.org) shows only a single $1000 donation to the Frederick campaign from a developer, in January of 2004. But the reporter doesn’t tell us that, even though he cites the web site to get the total donations for the two candidates. Because he doesn’t give the facts, readers are left with the wrong impression.
This past week I talked to campaign consultants, candidates, and other elected officials. Many expressed difficulty getting the press to report “the facts”. It’s easy to dismiss this as sour grapes. But it seems to me that even those who use deceptive advertising wish the press would police the field better. Doing so would create a powerful incentive for campaigns to be more honest with the voters.
If the press won’t do the job, voters have to do it themselves. Read the fine print. Get educated. Don’t base your votes on sound-bites and glossy fliers. And when you read a story that doesn’t give you the facts you need, write the paper and tell them you expect better.