Florida Lawmaker Seeks to End Ban on ‘Dwarf-Tossing’

Bout damn time!!! I haven’t been able to throw a dwarf since 1989 and have really missed it, almost as much fun as watching Obozo trip over his ears!  Seriously, this is one headline I never expected to see.

Published October 07, 2011

A Florida lawmaker wants “Big Brother” to stop interfering with how little people make their living — even if their living entails being tossed around in a bar.

Republican Florida state Rep. Ritch Workman introduced a bill this week that would reinstate a bizarre and some say cruel practice known as “dwarf-tossing.” The activity involves bar patrons competing to see how far they can throw a padded little person.

Florida outlawed the practice in 1989 after it briefly caught on throughout the southern part of the state.

But Workman on Monday filed a bill calling for the repeal of the law. He said he’s not an advocate of dwarf-tossing, describing it as “repulsive,” but said it’s not the government’s role to prohibit the activity.

“I’m not even sure why this is entertaining … but some people like to do it, and some people like to get paid to be participants in it,” he told Fox News.com. “At best, this should be a local ordinance. … It’s not in the state’s purview, in my belief.”

Little people advocates didn’t see it the same way, citing safety concerns with the practice Workman’s bill would reinstate.

Leah Smith, spokeswoman for Little People of America, said her group is opposed to the bill. “If Representative Workman is concerned about the employment of people with disabilities, efforts to address workplace discrimination, improve workplace accommodations of people with disabilities, and raise awareness about the benefits of hiring people with disabilities, would be more productive (than) legalizing an activity that threatens the safety and dignity (of) people with dwarfism,” she said in an email.

The law was passed after the former carnival worker who brought the Australian pastime to Florida died in 1989. According to a Sun Sentinel report at the time, he died of alcohol poisoning, with a blood-alcohol level of .43 percent. Medical examiners did not find internal injuries suggesting his job was directly responsible for his death.

The state law now prohibits any activity involving “exploitation endangering the health, safety and welfare of any person with dwarfism.”

The law allows the state to fine violators up to $1,000 and suspend or revoke their liquor license.

Workman said he’s received complaints since filing the bill, and acknowledged the public backlash might “turn people off” from supporting his proposal.

Smoke pot? Want to buy a gun? Don’t think so!!!

Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban

DENVER — You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.

An open letter dated Sept. 21 from Arthur Herbert, ATF assistant director for Enforcement Programs and Services, said that, “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

That didn’t sit well with Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who fired off a letter this week to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. saying that the policy raises “serious legal issues under the Second Amendment, and the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment.”

The conflict illustrates the contradictory state of affairs between the states and federal government on the subject of medical marijuana. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have passed medical-marijuana laws, a situation the Justice Department has agreed to tolerate despite continuing to enforce federal laws banning marijuana use.

Where the agency draws the line is often a source of confusion. The Sept. 21 letter was issued in response to gun sellers who asked the agency for guidance because buyers were showing them medical-marijuana cards as identification.

Mr. Bullock blasted the ATF for failing to consult with state officials before issuing the directive, saying a cooperative approach “would be much better than the type of unilateral proclamation represented by the ATF letter.”

Critics contend that the law unfairly discriminates against marijuana users because patients who take other controlled substances, such as OxyContin, have no such restrictions. In his letter, Mr. Bullock pointed out federal law allows those who are prescribed controlled substances by a physician to possess or buy firearms and ammunition.

“The ATF letter does not take this into account,” said Mr. Bullock, who called on the department to work with the states in “exploring a reasonable solution to the problems created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives letter.”

Mr. Herbert states in his letter that marijuana, as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, cannot be prescribed under federal law, “even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”

The policy puts gun dealers in a difficult position, say critics.

Potential gun buyers must state on an ATF form whether they use marijuana at the time of sale. If they answer “yes,” they are denied the purchase, but even if they answer “no,” the seller cannot complete the sale if there is “‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance,” according to the directive.

“The dealers have no way of knowing whether someone smokes pot unless they come in toking,” said Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt. “It’s just one more way to aggravate the dealers and play ‘gotcha’ with the dealers. They [the ATF] are totally out of control.”

In an editorial this week, the Denver Post blasted the directive, calling it an “assault on constitutional rights.” Colorado voters legalized medical marijuana in 2000.

“[U]sers of medical marijuana are faced with two choices: pass on gun ownership or illegally lie about their use of marijuana,” the Post said. “Unbelievable.”

Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, said his organization is drafting a letter asking the ATF to use its discretion “to be more compassionate toward medical-marijuana patients.”

“The ATF said their hands were tied, but that’s not the case,” Mr. Fox said. “This is just another way to single out and harass medical-marijuana patients.”

Montana voters legalized medical marijuana in 2004, but its use exploded after the Justice Department’s 2009 memorandum saying federal authorities would not target marijuana users as long as they comply with state law, Montana Justice Department spokesman John Doran said.

“We went from 3,000 to 30,000 medical-marijuana cardholders in the space of about a year,” he said. “We also saw an increase in the number of types of businesses.”

Those included so-called “cannibis caravans,” which traveled throughout the state signing up people for medical-marijuana cards. Often there was no doctor on site, but rather a doctor from another state who spoke with patients via computer, Mr. Doran said.

The Montana legislature cracked down on the industry earlier this year with a bill that repealed the voter-passed initiative and replaced it with tighter restrictions. In response, advocates gathered enough signatures to place the more liberal version on the November 2012 ballot.

“States, including Montana, have acted to address problems and explore workable solutions,” Mr. Bullock said. “In doing so, however, we also face issues that are, candidly, created or exacerbated by federal actions and policies that do not always reflect the kind of careful approach and appropriate accommodation that should be accorded the states.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/6/medical-pot-users-fuming-over-atfs-gun-sale-ban/?page=1

Soros Loses Bid to Overturn Insider Trading Conviction

Published October 07, 2011

George Soros, the billionaire financier and liberal activist, was dealt a legal blow this week when the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn his nine-year-old criminal conviction for insider trading.

A French court convicted Soros in 2002 for insider trading in the late 1980s, but the Hungary-born investor appealed, arguing that the French law on insider trading at the time was too ambiguous to find him guilty.

But the European court ruled Thursday in a 4-3 decision that the French rules were clear enough to convict him.

Soros’s lawyer, Ron Soffer, told the Wall Street Journal that his client would appeal the decision.

“There are some serious questions that still need to be answered,” Soffer told the newspaper.

The conviction is based on a 1988 investment Soros made in French bank Societe Generale. A French court found that Soros sold his shares for $2.9 million in profits after receiving insider knowledge about a plan hatched by a group of wealthy French businessman known as the “golden granddads” to force a takeover of the bank.

The takeover failed but resulted in a higher share price for Societe Generale. French prosecutors launched an investigation in 1990 that ultimately led to Soros’s conviction 12 years later and a $2.9 million fine that was reduced on appeal.

Soros’s legal team has argued that even France’s former market regulator found the country’s insider trading laws too vague.

But on Thursday, the European court said in a statement that while the French law wasn’t precise, Soros was a sophisticated investor and “could not have been unaware that his decision to invest in shares in [Societe Generale] entailed the risk that he might be committing the offense of insider trading,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

Soros’s last chance to clear his name rests on an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.

Rand Paul: Obama’s Rhetoric Could Turn ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Violent

Rand Paul: Obama’s Rhetoric Could Turn ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Violent

Senator tells Judge Napolitano demonstrators remind him of “Paris mob”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, October 7, 2011

During a Fox Business interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senator Rand Paul warned that Barack Obama’s implicit support for the grievances of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protesters could provoke them to turn into a violent mob.

Scaling the heights of hypocrisy once again, Barack Obama – whose 2008 campaign was funded by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley – sympathized with the OWS protesters yesterday while grandstanding as the man to bring Wall Street back in line, despite the fact that his own cabinet is full of former Wall Street executives and he is even more reliant on Wall Street for his 2012 presidential run.

“He’s almost saying, I support them, I’d be out there with them,” Napolitano remarked in reference to Obama’s speech yesterday.

“As far as this Occupy Wall Street movement goes, you know I see it sort of like a Paris mob,” Paul told Napolitano. “I see the president’s rhetoric of envy inflaming the public.”

“I see this enflaming this Paris mob that I hope ultimately doesn’t result in lawlessness where they say ‘gosh those nice iPads through the window should be mine and why don’t I throw a brick through the window to get them because rich people don’t deserve to have them when I can’t have one,” said Paul.

Napolitano pointed out that the protesters, besides calls to raise taxes which is nothing more than an Obama administration talking point and would only serve to cripple the middle class, do have legitimate grievances and that a proportion of them are End the Fed advocates.

The Kentucky Senator highlighted the hypocrisy of some of the protesters vowing not to work for a corporation while carrying around expensive consumer products.

“They’re on their iPhone made by Apple incorporated, they’re wearing designer jeans their parents bought for them, that’s the kind of stuff I’m annoyed with when they say corporations are evil – corporations are businesses.”

Paul then added that he does agree with the protesters in their opposition to taxpayers being forced to pick up the tab for banker bailouts. The Senator has vehemently supported efforts by his father Ron Paul to audit the Federal Reserve and has spoken at End the Fed rallies.

While the riots that hit Paris and other metropolitan areas of France last year were driven by genuine grievances against the state for raising the age of retirement and other harsh austerity cuts even as European banks received trillions in bailout funds, the demonstrations were quickly discredited when black-hooded anarchists joined in and started smashing up private property.

In addition, as we documented at the time, although many sought to mischaracterize the London riots as the spearhead of a new revolution, the event quickly fizzled out with the participants having targeted their rage not against political or banking institutions, but against outlets of JD Sports and Apple stores. The entire episode was exploited by petty criminal opportunists to loot high-end consumer goods.

That’s why it’s important the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ demonstrators don’t allow their movement to be hijacked by self-proclaimed anarchists who are actually Marxists, and the deluge of Obama campaign fronts who have attempted to infiltrate and misdirect the protests – with MoveOn.org prime amongst them.

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-ob…treet-violent/

Do Not Allow President Obama To Impose Martial Law

Do Not Allow President Obama To Impose Martial Law

by Scott Lazarowitz

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: Two Kinds of Selfishness

http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz30.1.html

Some people are predicting that there will be a major economic collapse, caused by unsustainable debts and other government intrusions into private economic matters, and by central banks’ excessive money-printing.

In America, the Federal Reserve’s continued irresponsible and reckless actions will result in further devaluing the currency and huge increases in price inflation, especially in food and energy prices. Some are predicting that there will be food shortages, looting, rioting, and civil unrest and violence in America.

There are some people who believe that such events will be followed by President Obama imposing a nationwide martial law. Recent terrorism drills, such as the major drill last week in Denver, are believed to be part of the U.S. government’s preparation for either terrorism or false flag events, or part of preparation for planned martial law. Obama was recently in Denver. One hopes that what former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has documented, a possible huge underground government or military facility at the Denver airport, and other similar places, are not true.

But the subject of martial law needs to be discussed, because it’s important that the people of the U.S. states have an understanding of this before Obama imposes martial law, which is essentially a presidential-military-rule dictatorship.

Obviously, any imposition of martial law by the U.S. government would be not only a gross violation of state sovereignty, thus making the states even further subservient to the authoritarian rule of the federal government, but martial law goes against the Founders’ ideas of inalienable rights and liberty.

Martial law includes the suspension of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and dissent, the right to bear arms and self-defense, the right to freedom of movement, and the right to presumption of innocence. The Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of each and every human being to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are inalienable, pre-existing rights, meaning that they are natural and inherent rights, not given to us by any government. That means that no one, including government officials, police or military, may violate these rights or remove them – otherwise, they could not be considered inalienable.

Specifically, the right of the individual to life and liberty includes the right to own and control one’s life, and the right to be free from the aggressions of others, including police and military. The right of the individual to one’s life and liberty includes the “right to be secure” in one’s person, property and effects. In America, there are supposed to be no intrusions into the person or property of the individual without actual suspicion that a specific individual has committed a specific crime against someone else’s person or property. Even in those cases, the people were advised by the Founders to nevertheless question the official judgments of government agents.

Any suspension of these rights and civil liberties such as under a martial law would thus be an act of criminality by government officials, including the president, military and police, against the people. There have been many aspects of the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” including the Patriot Act and new warrantless surveillance intrusions, and due-process-free policies of apprehension and detention of Americans by federal agents, that some people believe to have been a back-door means for military rule in America.

As I wrote in my article, Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon, the rights to presumption of innocence (and thus the right to be left alone without suspicion) and due process have greatly diminished in America since the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to expand the federal government’s intrusive police powers over Americans. Putting such policies as the Patriot Act into place, and allowing for the apprehension, detention and assassination of Americans as well as foreigners, policies that remove presumption of innocence and due process, has made the U.S. government a much bigger threat to our liberty than terrorists ever could be.

Given Obama’s assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any due process, without having been convicted or even charged with terrorism, but by merely having been labeled a “terrorist” by government officials, and given the preponderance of historical evidence as to why we should not trust the judgment of government officials, Americans need to be vigilant. Why? Just one example is how current administration officials’ continuously label government protesters and Tea Party activists, antiwar protesters and even anti-ObamaCare activists as threats and “terrorists.” The crackdowns on peaceful protesters show more clearly how America is quickly turning into the Soviet Union.

Now, if you are a governor, and President Obama imposes martial law and orders you as governor of your state to enforce such an order, you are obligated by law to disobey that order, because it would be an unlawful order. Government officials recite an oath as they take their office, as do police and military personnel. Part of the oath for governor of a state – and local police officers for that matter – includes “support” of the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitutions. In some cases, the oath states that they will “obey and defend” the Constitution.

Some police officers’ oaths state that they will “obey the orders of superior officers” on the force. And the oath for enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces does include mention of obeying the orders of the President of the United States. However, when a superior officer or president gives an unlawful order, such as one that violates an individual’s right to due process or right to free speech or dissent, then the soldier or officer is obligated to disobey that order.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, explains here in this video why such unlawful orders must be disobeyed. The Oath Keepers organization notes that

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

The Oath Keepers organization views the soldier, military officer or police officer’s primary obligation of service as being to the people, not the president, and that their loyalty is to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. If the President of the United States orders governors, National Guardsmen, military soldiers, police officers, to enforce federal martial law, the purpose of which is to remove civil liberties and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then such an order, therefore, is an unlawful order, and government personnel are obligated to disobey such orders.

Here is the Oath Keepers’ list of orders they would not obey, particularly because, as the Oath Keepers themselves note, such orders are “unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason.”

We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people
We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I never thought that in my lifetime I would see such a strong possibility of economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest and martial law in America. But all of this is completely avoidable.

How are economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest and martial law avoidable? First, get rid of the causes of food price inflation. That means ending the Federal Reserve, ending central planning in money and banking, and allowing for free, competitive banking and competing currencies. Encourage the people to use gold, silver or something else of value as their medium of exchange, or a currency that is at least backed by something of value. Get the government out of money and banking, period.

Second, end the federal government’s intrusions into, restrictions on and subsidization of food production and distribution. Decentralize the entire food industry, and make the federal government stop infringing on the rights of local farmers and food producers, food distributors, retailers and grocers. Those local producers and traders – not government central planners – are the ones who know best how to handle their businesses, and what the consumers want and how much food should cost. No more police S.W.A.T raids on raw milk producers and other food producers.

We just can’t allow America to descend into the third world police state dictatorship that it seems to be becoming (and that is being reinforced in the schools). One step in the right direction would be to end all restrictions on civilians’ right to self-defense, and protect their right to own, conceal or openly carry weapons. That is what really prevents crime.

And communities need to consider de-monopolizing local policing and security. There’s no good reason for government to monopolize those functions. Let voluntary groups and private, competitive firms handle those things – that is what will end the current police-thug phenomenon.

Also, the federal government needs to end its counter-productive aggressions overseas and War on Drugs.

Finally, besides invoking the 10th Amendment and nullifying federal food, monetary and banking restrictions, and nullifying federal gun laws, if Obama orders martial law, then U.S. state governors must also nullify that, too. If Obama and federal agents and military insist on forcing martial law in the states against the authority of the states’ leaders, then the states’ governors may have to order state and local officials to arrest federal agents acting in violation of the states’ sovereignty and the people’s rights.

No, the way to deal with economic collapse, civil unrest and looting is not with a federal martial law presidential-military dictatorship. The way to deal with or prevent such a crisis is by going the other way: through decentralization and de-monopolization, and undoing all the governmental interventions that will have caused the crisis in the first place.

October 3, 2011

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

House dismisses resolution condemning Perry ranch

And this is the most pressing issue this country has?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news…ng-perry-ranch

Republican presidential politics made a surprising and unexpected appearance in the House Chamber Thursday, when a Democratic congressman sought to force a vote on a resolution condemning Texas Gov. Rick Perry for having a rock on his hunting ranch that contained a racial epithet.

The House voted to set aside a privileged resolution aimed at condemning the stone on Perry’s ranch offered earlier in the day by an impassioned Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL).

Earlier in the day, Jackson read his resolution on the floor. It called on the House to:

“Condemn Texas Governor Rick Perry for using a secluded West Texas hunting camp as a place to host lawmakers, friends and supporters on hunting trips at a place known by the name painted in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance called ‘N*****head.’”

The resolution came in reaction to a Washington Post report on Sunday that a hunting ranch leased by Perry and his family had, for some time, contained a stone displaying the racially-charged name of the grounds. Perry’s campaign has insisted in response that the word on the stone had been painted over in the early 1980s.

While most resolutions like Jackson’s are filed away to be dealt with at a later date, Jackson Jr. returned to the House floor around 1:45 p.m. to demand that his resolution be given a vote. The House chair, which is controlled by the ruling GOP, sought to table the resolution, which, in effect, would kill it and therefore not force members to have to take a vote.

In a stern a serious voice, Jackson Jr. refused to recant saying, “Mr. Speaker, N***** is offensive. ‘N*****head’ is offensive. And for a governor of one of the great states of our nation to hunt at ‘N*****head’ camp, it’s offensive, and I think that I’m expressing the moral outrage of all Americans.”

Jackson them demanded a recorded vote on Republicans’ move to table — or set aside — his measure; he sought, by doing that, to put fellow lawmakers on the record with a vote on the resolution.

The House voted to defeat Jackson’s resolution, 231-173, in a largely strict party-lines vote. Just one Democrat, Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, sided with Republicans in voting against bringing the measure to the floor.

A Democratic aide told NBC News that Jackson Jr., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke for many of the chamber’s Democratic members who had taken great offense that Perry allowed an insensitive word to appear on his property.


UPDATE: Breaking: Justice Dept seeking to block Alabama Immigration Law

Justice Department Asks Federal Appeals Court to Block Enforcement of Ala. Immigration Law

Imagine that!!  No further details available at this time.

The Obama administration asked an appeals court on Friday to block the enforcement of Alabama’s strict immigration law — widely considered to be the toughest in the nation — arguing it invites discrimination against foreign-born citizens and legal immigrants and is at odds with federal policy.

The Justice Department filed the challenge to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. It claimed Alabama’s new law “is highly likely to expose persons lawfully in the United States, including school children, to new difficulties in routine dealings.”

Alabama’s Strict New Immigration Law

Result of a federal judge’s ruling

The overhaul allows authorities to question people suspected of being in the country illegally and hold them without bond. It also lets officials check the immigration status of students in public schools.

A federal judge in Alabama upheld those two key aspects of the law, which have already taken effect.

Those provisions that took effect are what help make the Alabama law stricter than similar laws passed in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. Other federal judges have blocked all or parts of the laws in those states.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday that President Obama has been clear on his position that “efforts to address the issue of America’s broken immigration system through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

Alabama shrugged off the appeal.

“The fact that the Department of Justice has appealed comes as no surprise,” Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said. “I remain committed to seeing that this law is fully implemented. We will continue to defend this law against any and all challenges.”

Immigration became a hot issue in Alabama over the past decade as the state’s Hispanic population grew by 145 percent to about 185,600. While the group still represents only about 4 percent of the population, some counties in north Alabama have large Spanish-speaking communities and schools where most of the students are Hispanic.

The Justice Department’s appeal said parts of the law conflict with federal rules, and that “attempts to drive aliens `off the grid’ will only impede the removal process established by federal law.” It also said the legislation could impact diplomatic relations with foreign countries.

“Alabama is not in a position to answer to other nations for the consequences of its policy,” it said. “That is the responsibility of the federal government, which speaks for all the states and must ensure that the consequences of one state’s foray in to the realm of immigration law are not visited upon the nation as a whole.”

It also said requiring officers to report people without adequate credentials to federal immigration officials “unnecessarily diverts resources from federal enforcement priorities and precludes state and local officials from working in true cooperation with federal officials.”

Judge Grants Illegal Immigrant Work Privileges in Jail

Judge Grants Illegal Immigrant Work Privileges in Jail Sentence for Drunken-Driving Incident

By

Published October 06, 2011

| FoxNews.com

A Wisconsin sheriff is protesting a recent “slap-on-the wrist” court ruling that allows a man in the country illegally to seek employment as he completes an 11-month jail term from driving drunk in the wrong direction on an interstate.

“Why would we let an illegal immigrant out on work release to look for a job he’s not supposed to have? He’s in the country illegally,” Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. said, according to a report by The Journal Sentinel.

Clarke told his office staff Thursday to inform the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ask that the man be deported, the paper reported.

On July 21, Armando Rodriguez-Benitez, 35, was pulled over by authorities for driving with a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit while headed in the wrong direction on the I-43, the paper reported. An oncoming car was forced to intentionally crash into the median wall to avoid a head-on collision with the intoxicated man’s car, according to the report.

The paper, citing online court records, reported that a county judge sentenced him to 11 months at a county jail with so-called Huber work release privileges, under a statute that allows some inmates to leave jail to maintain their employment while serving out their sentence.

Rick D. Steinberg, Benitez’s lawyer, told FoxNews.com that his client has a “high degree” of character and education that makes the work release appropriate.

“This is not your normal criminal,” Steinberg said, adding that he has a supportive family and deep roots in the community. “Bottom line is that he made a mistake, and he apologized to the court in a better way than I could have.”

Steinberg didn’t dispute that Benitez is in the country illegally, though he declined to discuss Benitez’s employment status.

Christine Neuman-Ortiz, from Voces de la Frontera, an immigration rights group, told a local radio station that the sheriff is stereotyping immigrants.

“I think the sheriff should know he’s not an immigration judge,” she said reported WTMJ. “The decision was in regards to driving violations and not related to immigration issues.”

Benitez pleaded guilty to recklessly endangering safety, a felony, according to court documents. He was fined for drunken driving as a first offense, which is a traffic violation in Wisconsin.

The sheriff, meanwhile, criticized the sentence, considering Benitez had faced up to 10 years in prison and, in Clarke’s view, should have been deported immediately.

A phone call to the judge’s office was not immediately returned.

“If the judge didn’t find this incident serious enough to send him to prison for an extended period of time, then an 11-month bed-and-breakfast stay at the county jail is a waste of taxpayer resources,” Clarke said. “The deportation process should start today, not 11 months from now.”

Westboro Baptist Church tweets intention to picket Steve Jobs funeral via Iphone

Posted at 03:43 PM ET, 10/06/2011

Steve Jobs, Westboro Baptist, iPhones and iRony


Oh Lord. (Michael S. Williamson – THE WASHINGTON POST) As usual, it began with an Apple.

But this one was far more tempting — no worms, cleaner lines, admittedly some problems with battery life, but why look a gift apple in the mouth?

And it managed to tempt even the Westboro Baptist Church, the despicable band of publicity hounds who appear at the funerals of all and sundry to urge us to repent, or something. Now they’re planning to picket the funeral of Steve Jobs.

“Westboro will picket his funeral. He had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin,” Margie Phelps tweeted — from her iPhone.

That’s iRony for you.

“Gave God no glory & taught sin”?

But coveting Apple products is the original sin. Jobs was hardly breaking ground by making an irresistible Apple that held out the promise of new, untried knowledge. (Did you realize, before downloading this app, that you were naked?)

If the Westboro Baptist Church had been around in Edenic times, they might have been able to resist God’s apple. You couldn’t even play Angry Birds on it.

But Jobs’s Apple proved too much. The interface was just so intuitive!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Westboro Baptists are justly infamous — never have I looked forward to anyone’s funeral with such unqualified enthusiasm. You know that an organization has hit the absolute limit when Ku Klux Klan members show up to protest that they have gone too far.

If anything could convince me that there is no God (Christopher Hitchens’s collected works and the continuing popularity of Justin Bieber aside), it might be the uninterrupted existence of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I realize that there are more important things on God’s hands (you think Occupy Wall Street is bad, you should see the protests currently occurring on Gliese 581 G), but really, this is why thunderbolts were invented.

We tried turning the other cheek. We tried passing laws. None of it worked.

They are the Publicity Whores of Babylon. If Jesus came back to earth no doubt they would protest at his crucifixion that he had not led a godly enough life (what’s he doing with all those prostitutes and tax collectors?). “Get a haircut!” they’d yell. “And spend more time denouncing homosexuality and less time with that namby-pamby other-cheek-turning nonsense!” They are like the folks in the parable who stand at the front of the house of worship and loudly proclaim their own virtue — and we all know what happens to them.

But even they can be felled by an Apple.

Thanks once more to Steve Jobs for supplying this brilliant piece of irony.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/steve-jobs-westboro-baptist-iphones-and-irony/2011/10/06/gIQA2hDjQL_blog.html