A breath of fresh air is about to enter the governor's mansion in New Mexico after years of pro-illegal alien pandering from Bill Richardson. Republican Governor-elect Susana Martinez came out swinging when it comes to illegal aliens stating she doesn't support amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. She also said she is eager to meet with President Obama and tell him to secure the southern border.
I am awaiting the response from the pro-illegal alien groups and supporters and how they will attack this woman. She is of Hispanic decent and the illegal alien lobby will simply be apoplectic in trying to come to terms with someone so outspoken.
While many have gotten behind neighboring state Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer, Brewer has never come right out and said that she opposes amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. Martinez has done so before even taking office.
Martinez also says she wants to end the practice of giving illegal aliens driver's licenses in her state and to revoke those that have already been issued.
"I don't support amnesty… there has to be some other way of dealing with the issue," she told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. "It may be we identify individuals but we cannot just have a path to citizenship created when there are people in line already doing the proper things."
She also spoke out against the New Mexico law that allows illegal immigrants to receive driver's licenses and then have the ability to travel throughout the country.
"My focus has been on removing the driver's licenses and revoking those that have already been issued," Martinez said. "I never want an individual who's in New Mexico who has been a victim of a violent crime not to be able to dial 911 and call the police and get the same treatment that any American citizen would receive as a victim of crime."
Is that a breath of fresh air or what from a governor of a state? Straight forward with no wishy-washiness. It's almost as if you are in a dream.
The Council on American-Islamic Relation (CAIR) has tipped its hand when it comes to its true intentions in the United States of America. A ballot measure recently passed by voters in Oklahoma to ban the use of contemplation of Sharia law in court decisions. The measure garnered more than 70% support. Sharia law is specific Islamic law and has no place in the United States of America when court decisions are made. The ballot measure was put forward after over 80 courts in England have allowed Sharia law to be contemplated in decision making and rulings. In other words, there was indeed a basis for concern in putting forth the ballot measure, it was not done willy-nilly.
CAIR however has filed a direct lawsuit claiming it is simply bashing those of Islamic faith. To anyone who looks at the situation though it doesn't take too much to come to the conclusion that voters in Oklahoma seem to have preempted some goal of CAIR in this country - and CAIR is none too happy with it.
Why would a so-called "civil rights" group actively pursue filing a lawsuit against a popular ballot measure that clearly spells out that the supreme law of this country is the U.S. Constitution, unless their motives in the end were to do away with such? If CAIR and those who support them were not ultimately trying to push for a Sharia based law system why would they attack attempts to preempt and stop it? A true non-profit civil rights group would put out a statement or a stance that they felt the ballot was an attack on them and make the public aware, but they would not go as far as trying to kill a ballot measure passed by voters.
Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange
The average voter can now see with this action by CAIR that their intent in the end was to indeed have Sharia law considered in the courts - either now or in the future. Their filing of the lawsuit has tipped their hand and made that abundantly clear.
The sad thing is that there has now been an injunction issued against the ballot measure by a federal judge not allowing it to be instituted. In other words, until that time Sharia law has an open and unadulterated place in our court systems according to this federal judge.
U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange ruled that the measure, which passed by a large margin in last Tuesday's elections, would be suspended until a hearing on Nov. 22, when she will listen to arguments on whether the court's temporary injunction should become permanent.
"Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities," said Muneer Awad, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who filed the suit last Thursday, claiming the law violated his constitutional rights.
The most bogus of arguments is that used above by Muneer Awad. His statement tries to justify the implementation and consideration of Sharia law contradictory to our own - and to declare that as his constitutional right. One need look no further than the Sharia law allowing the stoning of people to see that banning consideration of that law when making a decision in no way violates Awad's "rights". To the contrary, keeping that kind of law out of our court system upholds the rights of all in this country.
Muneer Awad
Awad continued using his serpent-like and deceptive language which twists reality in on itself to gain some kind of sympathy from patriotic Americans.
"We are humbled by this opportunity to show our fellow Oklahomans that Muslims are their neighbors and that we are committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and promoting the benefits of a pluralistic society," Awad said.
I don't believe that many Americans in this country, of all faiths, ethnicitys and class, thought they would see a day when it was so openly declared that a specific religion and its laws - which are opposed by a large majority in this country and are in direct contradiction with our constitution - would actually be taken seriously as having any place in our courts. Or that they would see a day when a federal judge agreed that our constitution and its laws should be held in question; for that is what Judge Miles-LeGrange has done with her current decision.
And spare me the "well the Christians and the Ten Commandments..." argument. Those do not openly challenge our constitution and the laws of this land.
For Awad to try to say that allowing Sharia law to be considered in the courts is in some way "upholding the U.S. Constitution" shows exactly the type of snakes, liars and thieves that those who belong to CAIR are.
The good thing is that these serpents in our midst have exposed themselves for all to see. Anyone who was previously drawn in by the syrupy words of those like Awad and CAIR now see the truth of what they are attempting to do to this country and what they stand for.
Jim Matthews sits as a county commissioner in Montgomery County and ran as a Republican and received support from the Republican Party. I have met Matthews several times now and questioned him on illegal immigration and other issues. My opinion of him is that he is a smooth talker, though smarmy. He is the brother of that bastion of conservatism, Chris Matthews of MSNBC.
Jim Matthews
Since he was seated as a commissioner, Matthews has done nothing to work with Bruce Castor, the true conservative among the commissioners. He has pushed Democrat and left-wing agendas. He sided with the left-wing commissioner almost as soon as he sat on the board.
On immigration he pretty clearly stated to me after the debates that he was for some kind of pathway to citizenship and that it would be hard-hearted to deport illegal aliens. He totally deflected on how he would handle illegal aliens in the county. I wrote about it in October 2007 and included the video you see below where he answers the question on illegals in the county with the following statement: "I choose not to be drawn into that conversation." and deflected putting the onus totally on the feds - that is something right out of the liberal pro-illegal alien playbook.
Matthews is now trying to weasel his way into some cabinet position in Governor-Elect Tom Corbett's administration.
This is not the first time that Matthews has been censured by the Republicans. He is up for re-election in 2011 and in the article below he does mention that he could possibly run as an independent if he doesn't get his golden cabinet position and the Republicans refuse to back him next year.
The Montgomery County Republican Committee voted to censure Matthews in November 2008. The resolution was approved unanimously by 56 county Republican officials. The censure was intended to punish the chairman for publicly aligning himself with Democratic commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel shortly after the 2007 election.
This guy is nothing more than a liberal wolf in conservative sheep's clothing and the Republican Party has had about enough of him. He took donor money and support form the Republican Party and then went and implemented a left-wing agenda.
Recently at a commissioner's meeting Ruth Miller and I confronted him on recent plans for the county to buy up farm land to designate it as "open space". Yes,, they wanted to, and have, spent millions buying up property to just let it sit there and be publicly owned. They weren't buying it to develop or for a public building, but to just sit there. It is idiotic that they would do such a thing rather than to allow a private sale of the property and for it to be used in some sort of productive manner. When asked about this I got the feeling that Matthews was talking down to me as if I was some sort of peon. I mentioned all above and he did not seem to agree with me at all. Not something a Free Market Conservative would do.
Word is that Matthews was not Republican Castor's first choice to run with him, but Castor had someone else in mind during the last election cycle. Bob Asher, the chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Committee (MCRC) - the same committee now censuring Matthews, pushed Matthews on Castor. Matthews was elected, but received poor vote totals. A far wing left loony named Joe Hoeffel is the third commissioner. Hoeffel is a piece of work himself, who seems to have his thumb in every left-wing fantasy from global warming to "sustainable development". Any way that someone could steal your money or control your life, Hoeffel is right there with it. Enough about him though. Despite Matthews's poor performance in the election, somehow Matthews has wormed his way into being not only a county commissioner, but the Chairman.
Now the MCRC has censured Matthews for not upholding the principles and promises he made to voters and the Republicans that he took donations and support from.
Here is the censure from MCRC:
---
WHEREAS, Bruce Castor and James Matthews were endorsed by the Montgomery County Republican Committee as Candidates for County Commissioner in March, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the voters of Montgomery County chose a Republican administration when they elected Bruce Castor and James Matthews as Commissioners in November of 2007; and
WHEREAS, James Matthews has engaged in a continuing course of conduct since December of 2007 detrimental to the Montgomery County Republican Party; and
WHEREAS, the continuing course of conduct includes the following:
he has failed to form a Republican Administration contrary to the will of the voters; and
he has implemented policies and an agenda inconsistent with his campaign platform betraying the Montgomery County voters who elected him and those who contributed to, and worked for his election; and
he has promoted the cause of Democrat elected officials and implemented the Democrat platform; and
he has systematically engaged in the hiring of Democrat Party operatives and Democrat failed candidates; and
he has taken retribution on certain persons because he perceived they did not support him in the Republican Party endorsement process; and
WHEREAS, the Montgomery County Republican Committee has made every effort over the last year to persuade James Matthews to live up to his promises to the Party, his donors, and the voters of Montgomery County to advance the principles of the Republican Party; and
WHEREAS, James Matthews' continued actions have made it clear that he steadfastly refuses to accept the mandate of the voters that he implement the principles of the Republican Party; and
WHEREAS, the Montgomery County Republican Committee desires to make clear that the actions of James Matthews in office are contrary to the wishes of the voters and that James Matthews has not acted in conformity with Republican principles by failing to form a Republican administration and pursue Republican policies.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Montgomery County Republican Committee censures James Matthews for conduct in office not reflective of Republican principles and for failure to form a Republican administration in express opposition to the will of the electorate and in breach of his own promises to do so.
A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals heard arguments Monday in the Department of Justice's complaint against Arizona's illegal immigration enforcement law SB1070. During the hearing Judge John T. Noonan Jr had some harsh words for the Department of Justice and its arguments against SB1070.
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument." Noonan said. I would like to second Noonan's opinion having read SB1070.
U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton in Phoenix put a hold on portions of the law back in July 2010. Arizona appealed and that is where things sit as of now. The case is expected to reach the US Supreme Court as both sides say they are not going to back down.
There are three judges that are hearing the appeals case: John T. Noonan Jr., Carlos T. Bea and Richard A. Paez. Bea and Paez are of Hispanic descent, which has perked some interest around the accusations that the laws are racial profiling - at least in the so called "Hispanic Community" that the pro-illegal, race-based Hispanic groups claim exist. With that being said I am doubting that it will have much impact on the appeals case. The pro-illegal alien groups would try and have you believe that this is about America, and Arizona in particular, against Latinos, but the reality is it is about the rule of law; and when arguing things based on the rule of law and not on their ridiculous accusations that America is racist, SB1070 should have no problems.
As far as general stances, Noonan and Bea are Republican appointed justices who tend toward conservative results in their judgments. In other words they follow the rule of law. Paez is a Democrat appointed justice, which to me means he may side with the bleeding heart or emotional plea of "this is racist" over the written rule of law. Color me skeptical, but over my life I have found liberals are totally driven by emotion over reason and I have little faith in their judgment when it comes to cracking down on issues like illegal immigration.
The lawyer for Arizona, John J. Bouma, said that claims by the pro-race Hispanic groups are unfounded as Arizona has always been a mix of ethnicities.
"Arizona has a long and proud tradition of a Hispanic population, and nobody is trying to take away from that," Bouma said.
Press room after court hearing
Supporters of SB1070 rallied outside the courthouse. Governor Jan Brewer came out to massive amounts of press and had this to say via Facebook:
Just left court. Had press conference with about 100 reporters. It was my duty and honor to represent Arizona today and defend SB1070. It was truly a historic day. Thanks for the supporters outside the courthouse.
Time will tell the outcome of this appeal and the outcome of the coming Supreme Court case.
Sarah Palin made a last day endorsement of Tom Tancredo for governor of Colorado. As is quite telling with Sarah Palin though, she managed to leave out the issue of illegal immigration in her reasoning, stating that Tancredo will fight for lower taxes, smaller government and start growing the economy.
Palin seems to have this habit of cozying up to those who put their foot down on illegal immigration, all while remaining pro-amnesty. I guess she's hoping some of their actual backbone on illegal immigration is transferred to her by the people's perceptions, but that is why I and other citizen journalists are here - to point out her's and other's double speak.
I'm sure Tancredo was pleased to receive her endorsement, even as late as it was - just the day before the election, but her motives clearly had nothing to do with illegal immigration and I'd just like to point that out.
Marten Kudlis was just three years old when he died. Sitting in a Baskin-Robbins having some ice cream he was tragically killed by an illegal alien drunk driver who plowed into the building. The illegal alien had been arrested 16 times, but never handed over to immigration, nor deported due to the sanctuary city policies of Denver, Colorado.
The mayor of Denver is John Hickenlooper, a pro-illegal alien and sanctuary city mayor who is currently running against Tom Tancredo for governor of Colorado. When your poor policies actually have consequences, these politicians get defensive and start crying "unfair". And if they can't do it themselves, they send out their lackeys. Hickenlooper's lackeys include the Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition (CIRC) who was quick to attack the ad.
In this latest ad released by Tancredo the father of Marten Kudlis tells the story of his son's death and points out that "Bad Policies Kill People".
Illegal alien race-based support groups have already come out attacking the ad. They try and claim that the sanctuary city policies of Hickenlooper did not contribute to Marten's death. They simply don't like to face the facts. They try to diminish the death of Marten as simply a "human interest story". "No candidate is above using a good human interest story to push their candidacy along," said CIRC spokesman Alan Kaplan told the Daily Caller.
These groups always run around screaming about the children all of the time when it comes to deportations of parents. They act as if the child and parent are being taken off in cattle cars to be executed. Their human interest story is the crying illegal who got caught breaking the law. But when it comes to a child sitting in an ice cream shop being killed by someone who should have been prevented from coming here - and deported when found to be here - they are quick to change their tune to "who cares about the children!"
The illegal alien supporters - and Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition in particular - are making Marten's death into a meaningless and unpreventable death and are quite simply disgusting. They put the rights of illegal aliens over the right to life of a three-year-old American child.
A Texas National Guardsmen was killed in the city of Ciudad Juarez across the border from El Paso. Jose Gil Hernandez Ramirez, 21, of El Paso, was found shot dead on the street along with 42-year-old Rafael Ramirez Reza. The border city was shut down and taken over by gun battles that raged through the streets entering residential areas and forcing people to run to schools to ensure their kids were safe. Businesses went into lock-down for hours not allowing employees to leave. Members of drug cartels carjacked vehicles to barricade streets.
A spokesman for the Texas National Guard said that there is a prohibition for full time staff and members of the guard to remain out of Mexico, but that is only when they are on duty. Off duty they have been warned that Mexico is dangerous and to avoid it or be extremely cautious when in the country.
There has been no reason given as to why Ramirez was in Ciudad Juarez, the FBI says they are looking into the matter.
Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky were convicted of what is being called a federal "hate crime" yesterday in Scranton, PA in the beating death of illegal alien Luis Ramirez. They face life imprisonment and are expected to be sentenced in January 2011. The first thing you should know about this federal case though is that the conviction wasn't on a "hate crime" statute, but a statute of the federal Fair Housing Act. Yes, you did read that right. I'll explain that in a bit.
Top: Brandon Piekarsky; Bottom: Derrick Donchak
The witch hunt by the federal government against Piekarsky and Donchak began when they were found not guilty for causing the death of Luis Ramirez in Shenandoah, PA in July 2008. Both were convicted of simple assault in May 2009 and sentenced to at least 6 months in June 2009.
I covered the Shenandoah trial extensively day by day. I found the evidence and testimony at trial in 2009 to be consistent with their convictions and sentencing. You can read the day by day trial coverage, which included a charge of ethnic intimidation - the state version of "hate crime" - at some of the links below.
I will not rehash the whole trial here, but I will state that if I believed that these two were guilty of murder I would be the first to point that out, but as you review the trial in the above links I believe you too will come to the same conclusion that I did.
The first trial - Why Donchak and Piekarsky were found not guilty
Here is a basic rundown of the events that occurred and why the teens weren't convicted of murder.
Six teens who got some booze after a town carnival type event were wandering around town. They came upon 25-year-old illegal alien Luis Ramirez in a park late at night, around 11:30PM, alone with a severely underage girl (13) who just happens to be the younger sister of Crystal Dillman. Dillman, who claims that Ramirez was her fiance and has two children with him and a third from a previous relationship, later received an undisclosed sum from People Magazine for a three page article and $25,000 from a victim's advocate fund. Testimony by Ramirez's friends say that he was drinking prior to going to the park. At the recent federal trial the 13-year-old girl was called Ramirez's "girlfriend" in court.
Brian Scully
The teens approached him asking them what they were doing there. A fight ensued and slurs were thrown from both sides as it progressed. One teen, Brian Scully, who took a plea deal in the case says he punched Ramirez and knocked him to the ground and said that he was the one yelling "go back to Mexico". Scully says he heard no racial slurs from Piekarsky. Another teen, Colin Walsh, who took a plea agreement and is facing 9 years, with hopes to have his sentenced reduced to 4 for cooperating, claims that he also punched Ramirez. The teens then started to leave. During the fight Ramirez got up and had time to make phone calls to multiple people. He could have walked away. The teens walked away at this point. Scully testified that Ramirez then charged them from behind punched him in the head. A second fight ensued.
Colin Walsh
Walsh testified "Walsh: I took Ramirez down with a solid 'uppercut hook' and saw him hit his head". Ramirez hit his head on a curb. Scully claims he tried to kick the unmoving Ramirez in the head but missed then claimed Piekarsky kicked him in the head. Walsh says he doesn't remember Scully trying to kick Ramirez, but claims Piekarsky did, but he made many contradictory statements in his testimony such as shoe colors etc. and stated "Walsh: me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez." at one point. No physical evidence was ever introduced. No shoes with blood etc. And as noted all of them had been drinking which brings all of their detailed testimony into question.
The charges of murder arose because Ramirez died two days later due to head trauma. However, at trial Dr. Daniel Brown, a neuropathologist who had examined Ramirez's body on Aug. 1, 2008, testified:
I observed a blood clot between his brain and a protective covering, and blood in an area usually containing spinal fluid. The left side of his brain had extensive contusions and swelling. Because of motion of the brain, an injury to the back of the brain caused an injury to the front. No evidence of trauma to the right side of his brain.
Injuries consistent with a moving head hitting a stationary object.
Note the pathologist says the cause of death was a moving head hitting a stationary object, not a moving object hitting a stationary head. Thus the only physical evidence in the case points away from a kick causing his death.
With all of the testimony, lack of evidence and the testimony of teens who were drunk at the time, it was not a shock to see the two acquitted of murder. Also due to the low threshold of racial slurs, it was also not a shock that they were acquitted of state ethnic intimidation charges. I would just like to point out that if this had been a racially motivated attack, there would have been no lull in the fighting, no time for Ramirez to make multiple cell phone calls and no second attack. The teens would have jumped on Ramirez and beat him to death from the start. Yet they did no such thing. After the initial fight they went to leave and Ramirez attacked them.
The verdicts, evidence and testimony were not good enough for some though.
Illegal Alien Support groups demand a witch hunt - and get it!
Governor Ed Rendell
As soon as the verdicts and sentencing came down illegal alien support groups in the country which had been rallying in Shenandoah prior to the trial - including MALDEF, La Raza and LULAC - vented their rage and put out their tentacles to their contacts within the federal and state government. They declared that it was a sham trial because it was an all-white jury. One of those tentacles reached Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell who contacted the Federal Department of Justice urging them to prosecute the two. And just a little over 6 months after their sentencing the feds indeed did so. In December 2009 the federal government indicted Donchak and Piekarsky on federal "hate crimes" charges and the witch hunt was on.
As you now know, Piekarsky and Donchak were convicted of those charges yesterday. There is also unsurprisingly no outrage from illegal alien support groups that the jury was all-white for this trial - as that was simply a straw man argument from the start since Shenandoah is a mostly white area. What you would be shocked to hear though is on what charges they were convicted of. As the papers blare that they were indicted of a "hate crime", the true charge has nothing to do with hate, it has to do with preventing illegal alien Luis Ramirez from living where he wants to.
Yes, this charge is under the Federal Fair Housing Act. Here is straight from the Department of Justice's proud press release on the kangaroo conviction of the two - from their civil rights division.
The jury found the defendants guilty of violating the criminal component of the federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it a crime to use a person’s race, national origin or ethnicity as a basis to interfere, with violence or threats of violence, with a person’s right to live where he chooses to live.
There are no Civil Rights for illegal aliens
First, I would just like to point out that recently many have been confusing civil rights with human rights and this is just such a case. Civil rights are those bestowed on a citizen by their country. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, have no civil rights in this country. That is one of the cherished benefits of becoming a citizen. This has been obfuscated by these race pandering groups and attorneys looking for cases and persecutions. They try to confuse you into believing that our system works on human rights and it does no such thing. The UN works on the human rights system. The United States works on a defined civil rights system as outlined in our constitution. A violation of Luis Ramirez's claimed "human rights" has no place in our courtroom. And as he was not a citizen of this country he has no civil rights, so the civil rights division of the Department of Justice is outside of their jurisdiction.
Second, after reviewing the original case above which was a charge of murder and "ethnic intimidation", why is the federal government using some housing clause to prosecute two young men. Piekarsky was only 17 at the time and Donchak was just over 18. How were they depriving Luis Ramirez of where he lived because he got in a fight with them in a park late one night?
Obviously this is the only charge that they could make stick against these two and it should outrage every American that the federal government would go to such length to convict a citizen on unrelated charges just to bow to the whims of the illegal alien lobby. These groups are using the justice system to prosecute people they do not like by trying to make you believe that crimes are segmented between murders that were nice murders and murders that were hateful murders. But going beyond this, no murder even occurred in July 2008, it was an accidental death due to a fight. Yet, these two face life in prison.
Double Jeopardy - Piekarsky and Donchak were tried twice on the same charges
Another item that should should be brought to the reader's attention in this case is the violation of Piekarsky's and Donchak's constitutional rights. As I pointed out in an earlier article on this case, under the fifth amendment of the US Constitution it states quite clearly "[no person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". As the two have already faced "ethnic intimidation" charges under the state of Pennsylvania, they should not be allowed to be tried once again for the same incident and the same charges after being acquitted.
The Department of Justice seems to have tip-toed around the fifth amendment by charging them with some Fair Housing Act clause, but as anyone can tell by the headlines in all of the papers, this charge had nothing to do with violating Ramirez's right to live in a house in Shenandoah and everything to do being charged with a "hate crime". As they tout quite clearly it is because they were white and he was Mexican and that is why they were charged and convicted. This is all word play to violate their civil rights under the constitution.
(Update 3:53 PM Oct 15: as an example here is the headline for an AP story "2 men convicted in beating death of Mexican immigrant in Shenandoah" - http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/10/2_men_convicted_in_beating_dea.html - 1) they weren't convicted of beating him to death 2) they weren't convicted of a "hate crime" 3) they were convicted of preventing him from living where he wanted to live. Outrageous lies from the AP)
The fifth amendment was put in place just for such a situation. So that the local, state and federal governments could not charge someone over and over with the same crime in order to eventually get a conviction. It prevented retribution, harassment and corruption. Quite clearly though the illegal alien lobby has managed to get the federal government to take retribution for them and any citizen should take heed at the power of these groups. They are more powerful than you might have imagined and have friends that will back up their goals and efforts even at the federal level to send a message to those opposed to illegal immigration that if you even look at an illegal alien wrong you better watch your back.
Denial of bail why? Are Piekarsky and Donchak a threat?
Piekarsky and Donchak were denied bail and now sit in a federal prison while they await sentencing. This is just one more injustice placed upon them. It is the federal government, with no prior evidence or reason, claiming that these two are such a risk of violating another persons federal Fair Housing Rights that they should be locked up until sentencing. With all that can be found in this one incident, I don't believe I could find one logical or reasoning person who reviews the Donchak/Piekarsky case who would believe that their previous convictions and actions as law abiding citizens would come to the conclusion that they would do such thing again.
Attorneys for Donchak and Piekarsky say they will appeal the conviction. I applaud them for that, but with the current corruption and obvious vendetta-style actions taken by the Department of Justice on behalf of supporters of illegal aliens I seriously doubt they will get a fair appeal trial.
The case of Donchak and Piekarsky is not only a travesty of justice it is a direct warning that our rights are not ours and that they can be violated at will by those in power. You may read other news reports on this case. Many will not delve into the actual case as I have done. None will address the injustices that this case brings forward in regards to violating individual citizen's rights. They will not address how this same type of tactic of Double Jeopardy may one day be used against you because corrupt individuals in this country have an agenda that you are getting in the way of.
Latina race group pump their fists outside the Schuylkill County Courthouse at Piekarsky and Donchak preliminary hearing - August 2008
There is a concerted agenda in the case of illegal alien Luis Ramirez. It was a tailor -made situation for those calling for an amnesty for illegal aliens - but only if they could get a conviction of Piekarsky and Donchak. It didn't take the Pro-Hispanic racist groups long to exploit the situation. In December 2008 they included Luis Ramirez in a filing with the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS is a group that is trying to claim some jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the United States. They used Luis Ramirez in a filing entitled "Latinos Not Protected In US", as an example of the hate against Latinos in the United States. The ruling in the Piekarsky/Donchak case threatened their claims - and they were none too happy. They had to get a conviction of the two or their agenda could not move forward.
Those in support of illegal aliens will celebrate and simply publicly state that these white boys got what they deserved because obviously they were hardcore racists. They will claim "justice" has been done. Those words coming from their lips are quite simply disgusting. They want their agenda of open borders and unmitigated illegal immigration to continue and those who get in their way should be made an example of. They have no idea of the word justice. They have no idea of the rights of our constitution. They have no respect for the rule of law. And the "Justice" Department has followed them down that hole.
Video of Piekarsky's and Donchak's Attorneys discussing the verdict
There is no doubt in my mind that the whole of the Obama Administration is nothing more than a reality TV show designed to fool the American public into believing that he stands for them. Who are the most susceptible to this subliminal messaging that everything is grand and OK? The youth.
It has now been revealed that for an upcoming town hall meeting being hosted by MTV, BET and CMT that a talent agency, backstage.com is being used to not only select the audience, but to "ensure that the ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views". I'm sure that's their goal.
The casting call requires that not only do applicants provide their address and phone number, but that they also provide a photo of themselves, you know for that "diversity" angle. You wouldn't want too many blacks, whites, asians or hispanics to be in the mix. Oh and of course as a talent agency you want to ensure that the crowd for the show is "pretty". Nothing turns the viewing audience off more than some haggard looking people.
In addition to the photo applicants must reveal their political stance, the one issue they are passionate about, their school and other information that the administration can use to track these people and ensure that they won't be some plant that asks the president a question that makes him actually have to fall off script.
It is a total show - and not a very good one at that.
Those watching the Show who haven't been paying attention will view this staged reality TV as actually off the cuff; a real bunch of people who just happened to walk off the street who are all young and pretty, but also sound smart on the issues like global warming, diversity and why they should continue to get a hand-out. "Yeah Bro! That chick hit the nail on the head when she was talkin' 'bout free health care! Why should I have to pay?"
I can see him fooling the MTV crowd and the BET crowd, but the CMT crowd? I grew up during my young days in Alabama and unless they ask a question of some guy with mussed up hair, who just went out with his buddies to take a few shots and who still has fresh mud on his jeans from going Mud Slidin' and Mudding I'm thinking they'll detect the staged performance. They'll detect the streams of liberal bubble headed, foolish youth. The candidates who make the cut of the talent agency will surely not represent them. Just another ruse to try and fool the American youth into thinking that even the country folk are behind this fabricated president.
Dubbed “A Conversation with President Obama”, MTV touted that the town hall will bring the president before 250 young people that represent a “broad cross-section of backgrounds, interests and political viewpoints,” who will ask questions of the president and over Twitter.
ABC points out that Obama walked around during his campaign talking about how "real" his town halls were and how "real" the people and questions were. Sure, Mr. President, maybe if you keep saying it enough people will believe it.
If anything good could be said about the The Gong Show, at least it had a real audience. I think the American People have had about enough of this charade and have collectively been banging the gong for far too long...
Crisantos Moroyoqui, 36, has been arrested for the beheading of a man in Chandler, Arizona. Moroyoqui, an illegal alien, is said to have beheaded the victim after an argument. The victim and friends went to a casino after the argument. The next morning the stabbed and beheaded body of the victim was found on the living room floor with his head laying nearby.
Police followed bloody footprints to a residence nearby and found Moroyoqui with what appeared to be blood on his pants and shoes. Law enforcement is still looking for three other suspects in the case.
Chandler Detective Frank Mendoza said they rarely encounter these types of cases. Police also say that Moroyoqui has refused to cooperate with police.
I argue that we will see more and more as the escalation of criminals inside our country is allowed to continue unpunished.
It's funny to note that in the article below it is not mentioned that Moroyoqui is an illegal alien in print; yet in the video report by the reporter it is noted and stated that Moroyoqui could face further charges for his illegality. I won't hold my breath on the other charges.
Here are the other three men they are looking for. They may be traveling in a 2003 red Ford Explorer with California license plate 6FWR784.
Juan Campos Morales Aguilar, also known as Isai. He Hispanic male approximately 5 feet 10 inches tall, 220 pounds with short dark hair and a thin mustache. He was last seen wearing blue jeans, a black shirt, white T-shirt and blue jeans.
The second suspect is Jose David Castro Reyes. He is a 25-year-old, Hispanic, 5 feet 10 inches tall and 180 pounds. He has short hair and is clean shaven. He was last seen wearing a white shirt, white T-shirt and jeans.
The third suspect is known only as "El Joto". He is Hispanic with a thin build and short spiked black hair and a goatee. He was last seen wearing a black patterned shirt, white T-shirt and jeans.
