Random-American

I know, I know…illegal aliens are just here to work…yadda, yadda…

From UnionLeader.com:

Police say a Manchester man admitted to being an illegal immigrant following his arrest on drunken driving charges…

Antonio Roman Garcia-Mercado, 25…was arrested after his vehicle struck the guardrail on Interstate 93 north of Exit 5, police said.

Following the arrest, police said, Garcia-Mercado confessed to living illegally in New Hampshire for approximately seven years. He is originally from Mexico, according to police affidavits.

…

After being pulled over, Garcia-Mercado admitted to drinking between 10-20 beers with friends at a party in Manchester the previous night, police said.

Garcia-Mercado failed a field sobriety test and was unable to produce a valid driver’s license, police said. During the traffic stop, Garcia-Mercado acknowledged hitting “something” on the interstate but was unsure exactly what he had hit, police said.

After his arrest, Garcia-Mercado was taken to Parkland Medical Center in Derry for a blood test.

Perry reported in his affidavit that while waiting for the test, Garcia-Mercado admitted to him directly that he was originally from Cuernavaca, Mexico, and that he “did not have his papers.”

Perry added that Garcia-Mercado said he had lived in New Hampshire for seven years, that he was living in the United States because of the greater job opportunities, and that he had been “sent back (to Mexico) a couple of times” in the last seven years.

Garcia-Mercado was scheduled to appear in court yesterday, but his arraignment was rescheduled for Tuesday, July 1, at the Derry courthouse so a Spanish-speaking translator could be present.

Previously kicked out of the country “a couple of times,” been living here seven years, and still can’t speak English?  Since he had no license, odds are he had no insurance either, so who’s going to pay for the guardrail damages?  And who’s going to pick up the tab for his hospital visit, hmm?  The good ol’ American taxpayers?

Secure the borders.  Enforce the laws.  Stop the madness.

Fred Thompson took at look at what the recent Supreme Court ruling granting habeus corpus to terrorists who are being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.   He compares what rights prisoners of war had before, and what rights they have now.  Man, I wish he would have stayed in the presidential race.

From Fred Thompson at PajamasMedia:

In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:

• The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence.
• The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.
• The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.
• The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.
• The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.
• The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.
• The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence
• The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.
• As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.
• The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.

Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient — and the result?

Their decision granting them the right to habeas corpus relief in federal courts.

…

First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate…

Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas…

Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions…

…

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.

read it all…

This is complete politically correct asshattery.  In the era when so many fathers abandon their responsibilities, school kids in Scotland were prevented from showing their appreciation of their dads in class.  They were not allowed to make Father’s Day cards so as to not offend single mothers and lesbians. 

From Telegraph.co.uk:

Thousands of primary pupils were prevented from making Father’s Day cards at school for fear of embarrassing classmates who live with single mothers and lesbians.

The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools “in the interests of sensitivity” over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households.

It only emerged after a large number of fathers failed to receive their traditional cards and handmade gifts.

Family rights campaigners last night condemned the policy as “absurd” and argued that it is marginalising fathers, but local authorities said teachers need to react to “the changing pattern of family life”.

…

The making of Mother’s Day cards and crafts, in the run-up to Mothering Sunday, remains generally permitted.

But the Father’s Day edict follows a series of other politically correct measures introduced in primary schools, including the removal of Christian references from festive greetings cards.

A column written by Barack Obama was recently posted on Real Clear Politics that was directed towards women.  In the remarks, there’s little praise of successful business women, but an abundance of talk about how hard and unfair life is.  No mention of individual liberty, responsibility, accountability, and personal empowerment.  Only expanded government, more ‘entitlements,’ redistribution of wealth, increased spending, and more slinging of ‘fairness.’  Oh, and who do you think is going to pay for all this?… the good ol taxpayers, of course, including women who are already working and struggling.

He even had the gall to say “Michelle and I want our two daughters to grow up in an America where they have the freedom and opportunity to live their dreams and raise their own families.”  As if they currently don’t have freedom and opportunities here?  Do the opportunities and praise of hard work that he lavishes on his wife, mother, and grandmother he mentions in his column not apply to his daughters?  Gimme a break.  The opportunities, freedom, and liberty that exist in this nation are better than anywhere else on Earth.   Talk about a pessimist, sheesh.

From Barack Obama via RealClearPolitics:

…To help with childcare, I’ll expand the Child and Dependent Care tax credit, so that working families can receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses. I’ll double funding for afterschool programs that help children learn and give parents relief. And I’ll invest $10 billion to guarantee access to quality, affordable, early childhood education for every child in America.

And with more and more households headed by two working parents - or a single working parent - it’s also time to dramatically expand the Family and Medical Leave Act. Since more Americans are working for small businesses, I’ll expand FMLA to cover businesses with as few as 25 employees - this will reach millions of American workers who aren’t covered today. We’ll also allow workers to take leave to care for elderly parents. We’ll allow parents to take 24 hours of annual leave to join school activities with their kids. And we’ll cover employees who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

I’ll also stand up for paid leave. Today, 78 percent of workers covered by FMLA don’t take leave because it isn’t paid. That’s just not fair. You shouldn’t be punished for getting sick or dealing with a family crisis. That’s why I’ll require employers to provide all of their workers with seven paid sick days a year. And I’ll support a 50-state strategy to adopt paid-leave systems, and set aside $1.5 billion to fund it.

Expanded government, increased spending, more ‘entitlements,’ higher taxes.. that’s his idea of ‘hope’ and ‘change?’  No thanks.