February 15, 2006
For the Love of All That is America, Learn What The First Amendment Is…
Throughout the cartoon controversy people on both sides talk about free speech and a free press. While in general, these can be construed as the freedom to say what you want, people are conflating Constitutional protections with the idea that one shouldn't face any consequences to their speech.
Free speech, but more specifically, the Constitutional protection of free speech has absolutely nothing to do with private individuals and what they can do. The First Amendment is not a protection from your fellow citizens (or foreigners). It is a protection against what the government can do, and the government alone.
When the Dixie Chicks protested that people were boycotting their music, they claimed Free Speech. No one said they didn't have the right to say what they did; they were saying they weren't going to continue giving them money if they wanted to engage in that behavior. This is perfectly legal and why our country is so great. We don't need the government to create hate speech laws here; the free market system largely takes care of the problem. Yes, you have a right to say stupid things, but that doesn't mean you have the right to continue to get subsidized by the public if you do. This is the lesson that the creators of "Book of Daniel" learned.
When Islamic radicals (who are the minority) burn down embassies and threaten violence, it is shameful behavior. You don't protest the stereotype of being a fanatical murder by being a fanatical murder. However, Muslims hacking websites is not a Constitutional issue. There are laws to prevent it, sure. It's bad behavior, sure. But it is not an attack on the First Amendment. It is high time people on both sides realize what the First Amendment is and what it is not.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 9, 2006
DI Reprints Mohammed Cartoons...
I got wind of this early, but today the Daily Illini reprinted the infamous Mohammed Cartoons and as was expected, they were flooded with phone calls, letters, etc. The news has broken nationally with the old editor and chief posting updates.
Personally, I don't know how I feel about it except to say that the new editor meant to prove a point and got the reaction he wanted. At some point I'll write on my opinions of the mischaracterizing of free speech (private citizens influencing others to not run things is not a free speech issue, certainly not in terms of the 1st Amendment), but the situation is pretty deep in all the issues it covers. I'm trying to put together a panel discussion on the issue, we'll see where it goes.
Michelle Malkin plugs it and more on the issue.
UPDATE: Here is the Chancellor's response.
UPDATE 2: Here's a brief quote from the AP article out on the subject (Not known is it is linked online anywhere yet)...
AP-IL PROPHET DRAWINGS DAILY ILLINI Student-run newspaper reprints some of Danish newspaper's cartoonsCHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) - The student-run newspaper that serves the University of Illinois community on Thursday ran reprints of some of the cartoons whose publication has sparked outrage and violence in many parts of the Islamic world.
The Daily Illini, which is independent of the UI, ran only six of the 12 cartoons first published in September in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, but led with the one that has caused the greatest furor: a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as part of his turban.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
Mexico Invades the United States
Just after it has been released that there has been over 200 unauthorized border crossings unto US soil by the Mexican military, it appears that people dressed as Mexican military provided armed cover for drug dealers fleeing Texas into Mexico. Mounted machine guns were pointed at law enforcement apparently by the Mexican military inside the borders of the United States.
Some will dismiss this as meaningless posturing despite the fact that if the US military every crossed a border in an unauthorized fashion they'd scream bloody murder. Some may dismiss this as another attack on immigration, despite the fact that no immigrants were involved. In this case, suspected drug dealers fleeing with over a half-ton of drugs were trying to escape Texas law enforcement inside the Texas border, and they were provided armed cover by what appears to be the Mexican military. Some may say it just appears they were dressed like that, and it remains to be seen exactly who those people were, but if there are people running around in military uniforms using military-grade weaponry, Mexico ought to be doing something about it. Especially if they make a habit of causing international incidents on American soil.
For too long the border has gone underprotected. This isn't about immigration, per se. The United States should significantly loosen the restrictions on those who wish to come here to work and have a better life. However, that has largely been lost in the debate where few people understand that there is even a legal way to immigrate and equate those who illegally enter the country with those who follow the proper process. The political cowardice of those in office to enforce the laws related to the border have led not only to rampant illegal immigration but outright mockery of the law. Mexico provides guides for people wishing to enter the US illegally and then the Mexican government demands that Social Security checks be sent to Mexico.
There is nothing wrong with someone trying to get to the US for a better life for themselves and their children and the fact that people still come here in droves speaks volumes about the strength and vitality of the American economy. However, the de facto open borders policy has lead to military incursions, open drug trade, and even easy terrorist access into the country. There are those who say we can't win the drug war. They have a point when a foreign military can invade the United States and provide cover for drug dealers while the White House remains silent.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
Guard the Boarders: Video Footage of Mexican Military Incursion of US Soil
It's one thing to debate whether or not workers should sneak into the country. It's another to pretend that Mexican military defending drug lords on our own soil is no big deal. Do you think Mexico would like Marines on their side of the border? You bet they'd raise a stink in the UN about it. But the US shrugs it off. There are those who think we can't win the drug war, well it certainly doesn't help when we let the military of another country defend the drug trade on our own soil. Below is the GTB blogburst.
====
Last week, those of us who keep an eye on border issues noticed that several mainstream media sources had featured articles about the regular Mexican military incursions over our borders and into our country. This is nothing new, as the Border Patrol has documented hundreds of such illegal incursions by an armed Mexican military over the past decade, and our government has done nothing to curb these incursions. In fact, it seems our government has looked the other way. While I'm relieved that this information is getting out into the mainstream, I have little confidence that our governement will actually do its job and secure our borders.
Some confrontations between the Mexican military troops and our own Border Patrol agents have become violent as Mexican soldiers have fired their weapons at the Border Patrol. It's a mystery why our government refuses to acknowledge these hostile invasions. They surely know about it, and the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. has gone so far as to publicly deny that the Mexican soldiers are hostile, but rather there to "patrol for illegal border jumpers". Contrary to that public statement, however, most of the Mexican military troops on the border are moonlighting as security escorts for drug smuggling gangs the coyotes who are running large groups of illegals across the border.
T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran who heads the National Border Patrol Council [said], "Intrusions by the Mexican military to protect drug loads happen all the time and represent a significant threat to the agents. "Why else would they be in the area, firing at federal agents in the United States? There is no other explanation," said Mr. Bonner, whose organization represents all 10,000 of the nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents.He also challenged reports that Mexican military units had crossed mistakenly into the United States, saying, "Every country's military has a [global positioning system] nowadays, including the Mexicans. "If the border is so poorly marked, why don't the thousands of Border Patrol agents working 24/7 along it ever seem to get lost, and none of us have been issued a GPS," he said.
[...]
Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel. U.S. law-enforcement officials have long thought that current and former Mexican soldiers are being paid to protect drug shipments bound for the United States.Several agents said the attacks have escalated in the past two years as U.S. security efforts on the border have increased -- including the July shooting of two agents in an ambush near Nogales, Ariz., by assailants in black commando-type clothing, who fired more than 50 rounds. Authorities said the gunmen used military-style cover-and-concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico. No one has been arrested.
Without any federal commitment to secure our borders, the Minutemen, a volunteer citizen's group, has performed an invaluable civic service in patrolling our borders to document and verify the location of illegal border crossers. They, too, have encountered Mexican soldiers on the WRONG side of the border. The video clip below comes directly from the Arizona Minutemen who told the Mexican soldiers, when confronted, they were there as "media" to document the border situation. It is incredibly important to note that there is no reason why American citizens should EVER be required to justify their lawful activities on American soil to a FOREIGN military presence. That is anathema to our rights as American citizens!
(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) January 20, 2006 – The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps ("MCDC") announced the release today of video footage of an incursion by a unit of the Mexican army across the U.S. border in Arizona.Chris Simcox and a group of Civil Defense Corps volunteers encountered a squad of approximately eight armed Mexican soldiers about 500 yards inside American territory. The Mexican soldiers started running back through the brush to Mexico when they realized they had been spotted.
The video shows a uniformed Mexican soldier climbing through a barbed wire fence on American soil to return to the Mexican side of the border as he races to catch up with the other Mexican soldiers who had also climbed back through the fence as they retreated back into their country.
A group of armed Mexican soldiers then returned to the barbed wire fence (on American soil) and confronted Simcox and the volunteers. A discussion in Spanish ensued, with the agitated soldier 'in charge' saying the Americans had no business being there.
Simcox and the volunteers did not budge. The Mexican soldiers left and drove off. Judging from earlier activity observed at the ranch that morning, Simcox is of the belief that a trafficking operation had been disrupted by the volunteers.
The footage, filmed in 2004, was sent to then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. His office did not respond. The video has remained in the Minuteman video archive and is being released in response to recent news reports that over 200 cross-border incursions by the Mexican army have been documented since 1996.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the Left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.
Enter the ACLU. An organization that is solely devoted to the protection of the bill of rights is in the role of advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like their war on abstinence education, this isn't an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone's rights.
The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in the Bill of Rights implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, someone else being presented ideas you disagree with. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist only THEIR policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that ideas is unacceptable. Likewise they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.
You can't be all you can be if you're dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18 year old is too young and ignorant to join the military but a 14 year old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hopes that our weakness there is strength. The side that insists on due process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their abuse of prisoners.
Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asia allies worry that we can't win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can't.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
MSM Refuses to Take Genocide in Darfur Ad
Think Progress has the news that NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates are refusing to run Be a Witness ads covering the genocide that is going on in Darfur. They haven't covered any of the news during the year except for token sound-bites because apparently Natalee Holloway takes precedence.
Turns out that for every 100,000 dead in Sudan, the issue gets 1 minute of press. To add insult to injury they won't let people even pay them to cover it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 31, 2005
Why Health Care is Cheap in Canada - The Value of a human life is $1.33
Canada Red Cross used HIV blood
The gist is that the Red Cross up there messed up and distributed HIV positive and Hepatitis infected blood and 3,000 people died as a result. In the ensuing case, it was found they were negligent and they face a fine of $4,000. That means they are liable for $1.33 per person killed.
In the US if they did this, do you think they'd get by with only a $4,000 slap?
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:59 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 21, 2005
Problems Continue in Sudan
UN Sudan Situation Report April 17, 2005
I haven't written much about this lately, but the problems still exists out there. Civilians are still be denied access to humanitarian assitance and there are still problems out there. Further, two bordering countries, Ethopia and Eritrea appear to be entrenching for war and have mobilized their people accordingly. The UN is calling for more troops and asking the government in Khartoum to stop the militia violence.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
