Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime

1 Comment

You know you just can’t make this stuff up can you ?  Where is Steve Hilton when you need him….wouldn’t he love to be talking about this on air today…….you know he would, ha ha………….

Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime

Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime, at least not according to DHS Chief Janet Napolitano.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.

Huhhh? Since when?

In an interview with CNN’s John King last week, Napolitano discussed Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, a strict enforcer of immigration laws who says he wants illegal aliens to be prosecuted and jailed.

King said: “A lot of Democrats in Congress want you to investigate him. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.”

Napolitano responded: “Sheriff Joe … knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

“What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.”

Sure, get them as well. But I’m still trying to figure out how being in this country illegally, is not a ‘crime’. If it were NOT a crime, wouldn’t these illegal aliens then be ‘legal aliens’?

She went on to say; “And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.”

Crossing the boarder (illegally) is a CIVIL offense?

Since exactly when?

Oh, I know, Jan 20, 2009 when Obama get sworn into office. His probably just with a wave of his Messiah Hand, took the illegal alien statutes off the federal crime books.

The fact is, crossing the border without authorization is a crime.

The statute reads: Sec. 275. [8 U. S. C. 1325]

(a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Pretty much sounds like a crime to me.

And THIS is the woman Barack Obama chose to run the Department of Homeland Security. What a freaking joke.

She doesn’t even know what constitutes a crime in her own office.

Probably why she released those illegal aliens who were working in Washington state, and then gave them green cards to work here legally.

myfox orlando community forum


Hate-crimes’ bill to muzzle Christians?

Comments Off on Hate-crimes’ bill to muzzle Christians?



‘Hate-crimes’ bill to muzzle Christians?

House urges committee to include ‘sexual orientation’ in federal law

© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

The House of Representatives has voted to urge a conference committee to add “sexual orientation, gender and disability” to federal hate-crimes law, a development some observers say would muzzle Christians who speak out against homosexuality.

On Sept. 28, the House voted 213-186 to pass a procedural motion encouraging a conference committee to include the hate-crimes legislation in the final version of the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4200).

In June, Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced the new language meant to protect homosexuals as an amendment to the Senate’s version of the Defense Authorization Act. The Senate measured passed by a vote of 65-33.

The bill imposes special fines for those who commit a “hate crime” against a protected class and provides federal assistance to those prosecuting such crimes. Existing hate-crimes law provides federal help to states and localities in prosecuting crimes based only on the victim’s race, religion or national origin.

Christian activists believe that if passed and signed into law, the legislation could be used to target Americans who voice their opposition to the homosexual lifestyle – including pastors preaching and reading the Bible.

“Passage would literally throw open the door to attacks against people of faith, who could be prosecuted with federal monies for expressing their views on homosexuality!” warns Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America.

Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, says if it becomes law the legislation could be used to “muzzle public discussion of homosexuality and even someday silence pastors.”

Knight commented, “It’s a very dangerous bill, because it adds ‘sexual orientation’ to hate-crimes law, and it greatly expands federal jurisdiction.

“If your grandmother is mugged, it won’t be a big deal [unless she is a lesbian],” Knight said. “And the law-enforcement authorities may have to put more of their revenues toward the mugging, say, of a homosexual guy walking down the street. Both deserve protection, but certainly the gay guy doesn’t deserve more than your grandmother.”

Wrote Knight in a WorldNetDaily column: “Homosexual activists have redefined any opposition to homosexuality as ‘hate speech.’ Laws already criminalize speech that incites violence. It’s easy to imagine a scenario in which any incident involving a homosexual can be blamed on people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism.”

Because it offers special protection to specific class of people, the legislation “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Cass stated.

The Human Rights Campaign hailed last week’s House vote.

“Congress should work to protect Americans, not discriminate against them,” said HRC President Cheryl Jacques. “We laud Congress for this vote, especially Minority Leader Pelosi for offering this motion and working to get the overwhelming support of her peers. We urge conference committee members to take it to heart – keep the federal hate-crimes bill in conference committee.”

According to HRC, the House passed a similar motion in September 2000 by a 232-192 vote, but that amendment was removed in conference committee. The homosexual-advocacy group claims the new hate-crimes language has been endorsed by more than 175 law-enforcement, civil-rights, civic and religious organizations.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a new law was passed in Canada that adds sexual orientation as a protected category in the nation’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

Opponents of the new law fear the Bible will be deemed “hate literature” under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

Earlier this year in Sweden, which also has strict hate-crimes laws, a pastor was arrested at his church after he began reading Bible verses condemning homosexuality.

Some states have included sexual orientation in their state hate-crimes laws. Last month, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill expanding that state’s statute to include not only homosexuals and transgendered people but also people who merely associate with those who are part of a protected class.

“While every hate crime represents a personal tragedy for the victim, hate crimes also are an attempt to intimidate a larger group or community of people,” the bills’ author, Senator Sheila Kuehl, told 365gay.com. “Hate crimes tear at the fabric of our society and it is important that we have a strong and effective response to them.”

In Pennsyvlania, pastors are concerned they could be targeted under that state’s new hate-crimes law, which added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as motives that trigger heavier penalties for the crime of “harassment.”

The Center for Reclaiming America is urging citizens to contact the House members and senators who are on the conference committee to ask them to remove the hate-crimes language from the final bill.


Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits




Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits

Described as ‘protection against government degenerating into tyranny’

By Bob Unruh

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and long has been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty,” so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits.

The ruling came in a decade-old dispute over a private operation’s request to hold a gun show at a county fairground, even though the county prohibited gun possession at its facilities.

The new ruling from the usually liberal 9th Circuit said Alameda County in California was allowed to ban guns at its facilities, but in general the 2nd Amendment provision for Americans to keep and bear arms applies not to just federal gun limits but local rules as well.

“In Nordyke v. King … we may very well be seeing the beginning of the end of that very unsatisfactory set of circumstances, wherein state and local governments need not so much as pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment,” he continued. “In the 9th Circuit, in fact, that end has indeed arrived.

“This development is very significant, because the 9th is the largest, and thus one of the most important, federal circuit courts. It is also considered the most ‘liberal,’ and thus perhaps the most resistant to protecting the right to keep and bear arms,” he continued.

Hofmann cited a concurring opinion by Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote that nothing less than the security of the nation – a defense against both external and internal threats – rests on the provision.

“The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security,” Gould wrote. “We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.”

The court opinion this week said, “We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.’

“Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’ Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later,” the court continued.

“The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments,” the opinion said.

The court previously had ruled exactly the opposite way, but it said the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which confirmed that the 2nd Amendment right is personal as well as collective, prompted the reversal.

At Poligazette, a commentator noted it is a major victory for the pro-gun position.

And another Gun Rights Examiner writer, David Codrea, said, “This is big – especially coming from the 9th Circuit, notorious for its hostility to gun rights. Look for an appeal. And then look to see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.”

Technically the county cannot appeal, since its policy to restrict guns on county property was upheld. But the plaintiffs, Russell and Sallie Nordyke, could appeal on behalf of their gun show operation.

The 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“This necessary ‘right of the people’ existed before the Second Amendment as ‘one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,'” the ruling said. “Heller identified several reasons why the militia was considered ‘necessary to the security of a free state.’ First, ‘it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary . . . . Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”

The decision appears to run counter to the general direction sought by the administration of President Obama three months into his tenure.

He’s (Obama) already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban “assault” weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

Worldnet Daily.com