Saturday, May 13, 2006

Once more the fish wrapper shows its true colors.

Roses & Thorns

# A THORN: To ourselves, for not passing out the blame properly in last week's thorn when we improperly credited a radio talk show host for organizing an anti-immigration rally on Cinco de Mayo. The event was organized by a coalition of members from the Constitution Party of Missouri, the Missouri League of the South and supporters of the Fair tax. We should have included them in our thorn, and now we do.

Here once again the majority of people are being labeled as anti-immigrant. Hey snooze loser get a clue, most people aren't getting angry at people that immigrate here LEGALLY. The problems come in when people commit a misdemeanor entering the country illegally then the felonies occur when they use forged documentation to get jobs in the U.S.

If the editorial board could possibly pull there collective heads out of their arses long enough to breathe fresh air they might actually get a clue.

To the editorial board;

Article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, read it, learn it, comprehend it, then write stories on HOW the federal government is failing in there Constitutional duties. The founding fathers realized how important the freedom of speech is, but I would bet they believed the news medias job was to report the truth.
Your advertisement to get on the editorial board proclaims you must back up your assertations with facts, I guess the current board didn't have to meet that obligation.

district 139

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

why republicans & democrats should be given the BOOT

I don't need to say much on this. The democrats want them to have free access in order to garners votes. The republicans wnat them here freely because the business lobby puts large dollars into the campaign coffers.

Still think there is a difference?

Everyday I'm not in Jeff City allows a individual or company getting entitlements to remain happy.

state representative candidate for the 139th district

Officials disclaim Bulletin 'tipping' report
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is refuting a Daily Bulletin report that the U.S. Border Patrol provided information to the Mexican government about the whereabouts of civilian border watch groups.

Read the disputed article: U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols

See the Mexican Government Web page:

"Today's report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, `U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,' is inaccurate," read the statement issued Tuesday evening. "Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the government of Mexico."

Kristi Clemens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, would not elaborate on the agency's statement other than to say the U.S. gives information to Mexican officials under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which provides foreign nationals being detained by a government the right to consular access.

"This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries," according to the statement.

An August 2005 document, "Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes" -- posted on Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site -- suggests U.S. officials were giving out more details than required by the Vienna Convention. Part of that information was the location of U.S. citizens participating in volunteer border patrols.

The Daily Bulletin reported on the contents of that document and two others on the Mexican Web site in a story published in Tuesday's editions.

Mexican consulates also went beyond the boundaries of the Vienna Convention, asking U.S. Border Patrol officials to provide them with information on "vigilantes" operating along the U.S. border, according to the August 2005 document.

Some of the information cited in the Mexican document originally was given only to U.S. Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, border watch organizers said.

"Nobody but law enforcement and Border Patrol knew where we were at," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "So how is our base address on a Mexican government document dated last August? Nobody, not even media, had this information."

Ramirez said he revealed the location of his base camp only to local and federal officials. The Mexican document gives the exact location of his group's site, which was on private property near San Diego.

According to Ramirez, the group had no encounters at that site with undocumented migrants, which would have been the only cause for that information to be revealed under the Vienna Convention.

On Monday, Mario Martinez, a U.S. Customs and Border spokesman, told the Daily Bulletin that when illegal immigrants are apprehended in the U.S., they have the right, under the Convention, to be represented by their country's consulate office and to information regarding their apprehension.

Information contained in a Border Patrol agent's field report, which is filed when a person is caught, would reveal the location of the detainee and therefore the area where the volunteer group is operating, Martinez said.

Martinez did not deny that information on the border volunteers was being shared with the Mexican government. He added that the group's whereabouts also were identified by numerous media outlets.

However, the Mexican report also contains specific information on civilian groups operating much farther inside the United States.

For example, the document notes that 50 Minuteman volunteers work in Chicago, focusing mainly on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Minuteman volunteers said specific information -- such as the number of volunteers and their plans -- could have been provided only by law enforcement officials at that time. The document credits the various Mexican consul general offices in the U.S. with providing the information to the Mexican Foreign Secretary for the reports.

"How did they know the number of volunteers in Chicago? And why should the Mexican government care?" asked Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Washington, D.C.

The three reports on the Mexican Web site documented the activities of the civilian groups based on concerns the Mexican government had about volunteer patrols on the border in 2005, said Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.

"The Border Patrol does not report activity of the Minutemen to the Mexican consulate," Laveaga said. "But it's all a matter of perception. If a migrant requests to have counsel, which is their right under the Vienna Convention, then the information is provided to the counsel."

Throughout the Mexican government's reports on "vigilantes," it is noted that Mexican consulates in the U.S. contacted Border Patrol officials seeking U.S. cooperation in reporting instances of civilians monitoring the border. Among such requests:

The Mexican consul in Presidio, Texas, asked the Marfa Sector's Border Patrol chief to alert them if the U.S. detected any volunteer activity.

In Phoenix, consulate officials asked the Border Patrol to notify them if civilian groups apprehended any undocumented migrants so consulate representatives could interview them.

In San Diego, the document referred to a meeting with Border Patrol Chief Darryl Griffen stating that "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented migrant."

"It appears the border reports are the tip of the iceberg," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which began patrolling the border last April.

Such requests from Mexico, and U.S. officials acquiescing to them, are not new, say Border Patrol agents.

Scott James, a former Tucson agent, resigned after eight years of service in February, citing a lack of support for agents by the Department of Homeland Security.

He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents' activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations.

Such courtesies were not extended to consulate offices of other countries, James said.

Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at or by phone at (909) 483-8552.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Can the News Leader be trusted?

Last Friday our local talk show radio host held a rally described as a "Pro American Rally." I've been to a few of these events in the past and to be down right honest it consist of average people waving American flags and standing up for what is right.

Our local rag, which our talk show host calls the "fish wrapper" decided to pen this gathering of people as an "anti-immigration rally."
I'm not aware of to many people on this continent as being anti-immigrant, however when we discuss the laws of this nation and those that break the laws of coming here, then that is a different topic.

As a Libertarian I have no qualms with people trying to gain entry into this country to try to better themselves, after all it seems natural to do so. Every country has immigration laws which need to be abided by to make sure the element of people coming across the border are the type of individuals we want here. I'm not being picky but I don't want those that want to drain the generosity of the taxpayer in this country. We have enough welfare deadbeats and we shouldn't import more from other countries.

News Leader("fish wrapper") your completely off base with this story and you should make an official apology to those in attendance at the rally, I won't hold my breathe waiting on it to be published.

Tom Martz
candidate for 139 district

I chose to not allow government to think for me, I vote Libertarian.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

When governments overstep there authority

Is this possible? Some will tell you that our elected officials have the authority to do as they wish, after all we gave them the power through the ballot box.
In the private sector when an employee doesn't perform they end up losing their job.

What happens in the public sector? These people are given extreme job security and the voters have many loopholes that must be jumped through in order to get rid of incompetence.
Our very own city council has turned on the wishes of the people an instituted a ban on PitBull dogs. I've already written a blog that deals with this issue but now the voters are circulating a petition to get this measure on the ballot.
Eight members of a city council went against 50+ citizens of this city to show them who was the boss of the city.
Eight members passed an ordinance and it will require I believe 4000 signatures to get this measure placed on the ballot. Just doesn't seem right does it?

Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People?
Well, many of the fanciers of the breed would yell out a resounding, "No.", in spite of the fact that 'pit bulls' kill more humans than most of the other dog breeds combined.
"Oh, no. They were bred to be friendly towards humans." is the mantra one will often hear repeated. This idea flies in the face of the statistics. No other "breed" (although the term 'pit bull' is generally considered to be a group of breeds) has killed as many Americans as have 'pit bulls'. (NB: We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada officially attributed to a 'pit bull'.)
Does this mean that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous towards people? Even if we believed all the myths about 'pit bulls', the statistics still point to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the 'pit bulls' in society are ever involved in biting incidents. For instance, if there are at least 50,000 'pit bulls' in Canada, and we theorized an astounding 25 'pit bull' attacks, that would still mean that 99.9% of 'pit bulls' are never involved in attacks. Surely 99.9% of a population shouldn't have to pay the price for the transgressions of such a tiny minority.
So, are 0.1% of 'pit bulls' inherently aggressive towards humans? No, again. Even those 'pit bulls' that have been involved in serious biting incidents can be rehabilitated through responsible ownership and ethical training techniques. Only those who have never been successful at re-training dogs believe it can't be done. (Read about Dr. C. W. Meisterfeld's documentary, "The Unique Nature of Man's Best Friend: Rehabilitated 'Pit Bulls'")

Breed specific legislation isn't a very good idea and neither is trying to define a vicious breed. Back in the 70's most people were terrified of Doberman Pinchers, to the extent that Hollywood bought into the hype an made quite a few movies with these killers dogs as the stars.
The 80's brought us to German Sheppard attacks;

"Children: Children are okay providing no roughhousing or chase games are permitted. Young children should ALWAYS be with an adult and NEVER left unattended with ANY dog.

This breed makes a great family pet when properly trained, and will love and protect your children almost to a fault. It can be suspicious of your children's friends, which could lead to a biting incident if the child shows fear or flight.

Other animals: The Shepherd may want to chase small animals, cars, bikes, joggers and may be dog-aggressive. It is essential to train and socialize a Shepherd with people, other dogs and all household pets".

The next link will take you to an actual website that talks about the different breeds of dogs that have been known to attack. From your lovable Pomerian to a Chihuahua, and and all dogs or most animals for that manner can attack and damage someone.
Like normal the city council knees jerked and without thinking of the better good of the city they done what was best for the city council.

I choose not to let government think for me, which is why I won't vote for a republican or democrat.

Tom Martz
candidate for the 139 district