Illegal aliens and their supporters have been told to wave American flags instead of their typical foreign flags (mostly Mexican) for this pro-invader anti-sovereignty protest. Yeah, that’ll make a big difference. Further, law abiding citizens have been asked to stay away and not counter protest because illegal aliens and their supporters are known to be violent. The chicken shit LAPD will not protect law abiding citizens. They never have, and they never will.
A British Muslim has shown ‘no remorse’ after desecrating a town’s war memorial with extremist Islamic slogans, a court has heard.
But the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that graffiti proclaiming future world domination for Islam, glorifying Osama Bin Laden and calling for the assassination of the British Prime Minister, ‘was not religiously or racially motivated’.
Tohseef Shah, 21, admitted a charge of criminal damage to the memorial, outside Burton College in Burton on Trent, when he appeared at Burton Magistrates Court.
Islamic message: Tohseef Shah’s graffiti ‘Islam will dominate the world’ was not religiously motivated, according to the Crown Prosecution Service
Shah admitted spraying the words ‘Islam will dominate the world – Osama is on his way’ and ‘Kill Gordon Brown’ on the plinth of the East Staffordshire Borough Council-owned memorial, on December 10 last year.
He was given a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the council, plus £85 costs.
Prosecutor Andrew Bodger said information about Shah and photographs of the graffiti were sent to CPS headquarters in London, for a review by senior lawyers.
Unrepentant: the court heard that Mr Shah had shown ‘no remorse’
They found there was insufficient evidence that the criminal act was racially or religiously motivated – which could have led to a more serious charges and a harsher sentence.
The graffiti was discovered by a council street cleaning manager, who reported the incident and photographed the damage.
The pictures of the desecration were shown in court.
CCTV footage showed two figures spraying the slogans on the memorial. Although they could not be clearly identified, the footage showed one of the vandals discarding the spray can.
Shah, Horninglow, Staffordshire, has no previous convictions.
He was later identified from DNA on the spray can and admitted his actions.
Mr Bodger said: ‘Shah wouldn’t give an explanation as to why he had done it and had shown no remorse for this very sensitive matter.
‘The words were cleaned off without difficulty at a cost of £500.
‘The CPS specialist unit was sent the pictures, as well as his mobile phone records, to see if there was a racially or religiously motivated connotation.
‘It was decided there was not enough evidence to prove this, and they decided it was politically motivated. It has caused great offence to the community.’
Defending solicitor Mumtaz Chaudry dismissed any belief that Shah held extremist views.
He said: ‘This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his family’s beliefs or his cultural beliefs. He is just an ordinary guy.
‘He is remorseful but, at the time of his interview, he was simply answering questions and didn’t realise that was the right time to show remorse.
‘He has no extremist views, his action doesn’t help the bad reaction in the community.
‘It was uncalled for, but we make mistakes. It was a stupid mistake and he is determined not to repeat it.’
Presiding magistrate Vivien Patterson told Shah: ‘This was a mistake, but I hope this is the first and last mistake you will make.
‘Although the damage is in the lower band, we view this in the upper end because it was highly visible to the community, in the town centre.
‘Your conditional discharge for two years means if you come back here again for another offence, you will be charged with this offence too.’
SAN DIEGO — A 17-year-old Mexican youth was sentenced Thursday to 40 years in prison for the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent who was shot repeatedly during a robbery attempt.
Christian Daniel Castro Alvarez sat silently with his head down throughout the sentencing by U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz in San Diego.
Castro pleaded guilty in November to murdering a federal officer near Campo, a mountainous area about 60 miles east of San Diego. He told authorities that he and others were attempting to rob the agent, Robert Rosas.
The sentencing came as a furious debate rages around America on a new Arizona law that requires local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration statuses if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally.
The courtroom was packed with uniformed Border Patrol agents as the judge read a letter written by the defendant apologizing to the family of the 30-year-old Rosas.
Rosas was shot several times in the head, from behind and while lying on the ground. Castro’s attorney had argued that two accomplices now in Mexico fired the fatal shots.
Castro told authorities the killing occurred during the attempted robbery he was forced to commit under threat of death.
A probation officer had urged a life sentence for Castro. Federal guidelines call for a minimum sentence of 30 years.
Rosas was the first Border Patrol agent to be killed by gunfire since 1998, according to The Officer Down Memorial Page, a website that tracks death of law enforcement officers.
U.S. authorities say Castro acted with others but have not said how many or announced arrests. The suspects are believed to have fled back to Mexico through a small crevice under a border fence made of corrugated metal, sparking a massive search on both sides of the border.
Castro surrendered to authorities at a San Diego border crossing last August, less than a month after Rosas died on the night of July 23, but his capture was not announced until he pleaded guilty three months later. He was charged as an adult.
Castro confessed that he and others lured Rosas out of his Border Patrol vehicle by leaving footprints on a dirt road, shaking bushes and making noises, according to prosecutors. Rosas, who was patrolling alone, was ambushed and stripped of his gun about 100 yards from the border.
Castro, who was 16 at the time, told authorities he was holding Rosas at gunpoint when the agent reached for Castro’s firearm. Castro shot once and shouted for help to his collaborators, who were walking toward Rosas’ vehicle. They opened fire.
Castro said one of his collaborators shot him in the hand, leaving a trail of blood back to Mexico. Castro’s DNA matched the blood.
The House on Thursday approved legislation that could set in motion changes in Puerto Rico’s 112-year relationship with the United States, including a transition to statehood or independence.
The House bill would give the 4 million residents of the island commonwealth a two-step path to expressing how they envision their political future. It passed 223 to 169 and now must be considered by the Senate.
Initially, eligible voters, including those born in Puerto Rico but residing in the United States, would vote on whether they wish to keep their current political status or opt for a different direction.
If a majority are in favor of changing the current situation, the Puerto Rican government would be authorized to conduct a second vote, and people would choose among four options: statehood, independence, the current commonwealth status or sovereignty in association with the United States. Congress would have to vote on whether Puerto Rico becomes a state.
Pedro Pierluisi (D), Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to the House, said that although the island has had votes on similar issues in the past, Congress has never authorized a process in which Puerto Ricans state whether they should remain a U.S. territory or seek a nonterritorial status.
At a news conference with Pierluisi, Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño (R) said: “The American way is to allow people to vote, to express themselves and to tell their elected officials how they feel about their political arrangements. For 112 years, we haven’t had the chance . . . to fully participate in one way or another in the decisions that affect our daily lives.”
In the last referendum, “none of the above” led with 50 percent of the vote, topping other options including statehood at 46.5 percent and independence at 2.5 percent.
Opposition to the House bill included Republican concerns about the consequences of Puerto Rico — where Spanish, as well as English, is an official language — becoming a state. Republicans said Puerto Rico would get six seats in the House, possibly at the expense of other states.
Faced with losing Congress, the Democrats want to make Puerto Rico a state whether the people want it or not. The Democrats would get two new senators, new congressmen and a campaign issue.Throw in voting representation for D.C., amnesty for illegals and voting for felons, all items on the Democrats’ agenda, and in their cookbook you have a recipe for Democratic majorities as far as the eye can see. It’s a plan to retain control at all costs and counteract a Tea Party movement that threatens to throw their big-government liberalism on the ash heap of political history.
You also have the added bonus of energizing Hispanic activists all too eager with administration help to paint the GOP as racists, particularly in the light of the new Arizona law that does nothing but say that since the feds dropped the ball on border security, Arizona will pick it up and run with it.
A scheduled Thursday vote in the House of Representatives on HR 2499, dubbed the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, was designed to rig the game in favor of Puerto Rican statehood, something native Puerto Ricans have rejected in the last three self-determination elections. Puerto Ricans like their current status just fine. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders do not.
HR 2499 would not make Puerto Rico a state. It would split the past voting process into the two parts. The first would be an up-or-down vote on whether Puerto Ricans simply want to change their island’s status from a commonwealth in association with the U.S. instead of an up-or-down vote on statehood in the past.
Democrats hope enough people favor independence or statehood to cobble together a majority in favor of status change. Once the first hurdle is cleared, a second vote will determine what the new status should be with the choices being commonwealth, statehood or independence.
This is where the Democrats’ subversion of the democratic process begins. The second vote winner is determined by a mere plurality of one of the choices. Under this plan, if statehood just finishes in the lead, it wins, even without a clear majority.
It gets better. Under HR 2499, nonresident Puerto Ricans living in the 50 states could vote in the new referendum. According to the U.S. Census, there are more eligible Puerto Ricans living outside the proposed 51st state than in it.
So native Puerto Ricans could vote no on statehood while their mainland cousins could make it a yes. In case the vote is still no, HR 2499 requires a new referendum every eight years or until it becomes a yes in favor of statehood.
This still wouldn’t make Puerto Rico a state, but it would grease the skids and let supporters paint opponents as racists in an election year. This would be ironic, since letting nonresident Puerto Ricans vote is making ethnicity a qualification rather than residency. Isn’t that racist?
The new state would automatically make America a bilingual nation in perpetuity. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English. It would create new spending demands to bring Puerto Rico’s economic status up to the mainland’s level. Puerto Rico’s median income is nearly a third lower.
Statehood for Puerto Rico would undoubtedly send two Democratic U.S. senators to Washington as well as six to eight more Democratic congressmen. Puerto Rico the state would have a larger delegation than 25 of the current 50.
The Democrats are also pushing amnesty for illegals and putting them on the “path to citizenship” to quickly add a massive new voting constituency likely to vote their way.
Another bill, HR 3335, would give convicted felons no longer incarcerated the right to vote. Think they’d vote for a law-and-order Republican? Not likely.
All these actions are designed to provide fresh sources of votes to replace those they are clearly losing — middle-class, tax-paying, Tea Partying Americans.
Belgium became the first European country to impose a full ban on wearing a burka last night.
Its parliament approved a draft law which states women can be jailed for hiding their faces in public.
The bill – which must be rubber-stamped by the Belgian senate – is set to become law by July.
Centre-Right MP Daniel Bacquelaine said last night: ‘The notion of recognising people in the street is essential to maintain public order.
‘It’s also a question of human dignity. The full face veil turns a woman into a walking prison.’
The ground-breaking legislation comes just ten days after an earlier vote on banning the burka was scuppered by the collapse of the country’s parliament and resignation of its prime minister, Yves Leterme.
Despite the political turmoil, MPs in the fragile five-party coalition managed to push through the controversial law yesterday evening.
It means anyone will be banned from covering their face in a public place, including the street, shops, offices, schools and hospitals.
Women will be fined £110 for the first offence.
If they refuse to pay or are caught a second time, they can be jailed for a week. It is estimated up to 400 of the country’s 280,000 Muslims wear the burka in public.
The move comes as other countries consider bringing in similar legislation. There is widespread support for a ban on burkas, or full face veils, and niqabs, which cover the head and face but leave the eyes visible, in the Netherlands.
In Switzerland, voters recently supported a ban on the construction of new minarets, while France is preparing to vote in July on its own law banning Islamic headwear.
Under French proposals, women would be fined up to £600 for hiding their faces, and be ‘unveiled’ at a police station so they could be identified.
Husband who forced their wives to wear burkas would be sent to prison.
Jean-Francois Cope, president of France’s ruling UMP party, said this week: ‘The prime minister has told us the new law on wearing burkas would be adopted by mid-September.
‘A recent survey found 70 per cent of French people are opposed to the wearing of full face veils in public.’
Despite widespread support for a ban, France’s highest legal body, the Council of State, has warned any law could be overturned by EU human rights laws.
Belgium’s law could also be challenged by the same legislation.
PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.
If Gov. Jan Brewer supports the changes, they will go into effect at the same time as the new law, 90 days from now.
The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word “solely” from the sentence, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”
Another change replaces the phrase “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest” to apparently clarify that officers don’t need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.
The law’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications “just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that’s been played.”
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.
Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn’t be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. “It is a lawful contact,” Pearce said.
The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer’s stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.
Brewer’s spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they’re illegal immigrants.
Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.
Pearce said that change doesn’t require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed.