Notice the back handed insult, "unlikely Marine."
Hell's Kitchen - Pantano made it out of a tough neighborhood 9/11 reactivated his inner warrior
New York Metro ^ | April 25, 2005 | Steve Fishman
Posted on 04/20/2005 11:05:41 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Pantano is, in most every way, an unlikely Marine. He was a Manhattan preppy—his mother is a literary agent—who graduated from Horace Mann and New York University. He’d charged into Goldman Sachs, rising quickly, and then into a film company, the Shooting Gallery. If he set his sights on conquest, it seemed to be in the business world, as many ambitious New Yorkers did. And yet, it turned out that what he truly dreamed of was to be a warrior—a real one....Now, a few weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pantano’s platoon had been dispatched to a dusty house along a dirt road near Mahmudiya, in the Sunni triangle. It was an ordinary house—one story, concrete. According to intelligence, it had been taken over by “Ali Baba,” as Pantano’s young Marines called the insurgents."
Just gotta love the political incorrectness of our Hereos!
Friday, May 6, 2005
They Can Catch US, But We Can't Catch Them!
So the Mexican government can capture suspected criminals from the United States, but we can't or will not do the same with illegals from Mexico? Maybe we should pay off the Mexican police for every Mexican they stop from entering our country.
By Olga R. RodriguezASSOCIATED PRESS
10:55 a.m. May 3, 2005
MONTERREY, Mexico – Mexico detained two U.S. border patrol agents during a routine border check that uncovered a box filled with illegal ammunition in their car, the Mexican federal attorney general's office said Tuesday.
U.S. Border Patrol agents German Verdugo and David Allen Navarro were arrested late Friday in Mexicali, across from Calexico, California, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Miguel Hernandez said._"He said the agents were off-duty and driving a private vehicle when they were arrested. Hernandez did not know why they were carrying the ammunition, the same assigned to other border patrol agents for use while on-duty.
"We're cooperating fully with Mexican law enforcement agents in their investigation," Hernandez said.
Verdugo and Allen Navarro crossed into Mexico in a lane assigned to vehicles with nothing to declare but were selected for inspection, Mexican federal prosecutors said in a statement.
Customs inspector found a box in the backseat of their car containing 1,286 .40-caliber and 10 .223-caliber Winchester rifle bullets, the statement said. Mexican law restricts that ammuniation to use by only the Mexican military.
The agents, both assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol in El Centro, California, are being held at a Mexicali prison and face weapon possesion charges.
The Mexican federal attorney general's office said the Border Patrol agents were unable to show that they could legally import the ammunition and didn't have a permit by Mexico's Defense Department.
By Olga R. RodriguezASSOCIATED PRESS
10:55 a.m. May 3, 2005
MONTERREY, Mexico – Mexico detained two U.S. border patrol agents during a routine border check that uncovered a box filled with illegal ammunition in their car, the Mexican federal attorney general's office said Tuesday.
U.S. Border Patrol agents German Verdugo and David Allen Navarro were arrested late Friday in Mexicali, across from Calexico, California, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Miguel Hernandez said._"He said the agents were off-duty and driving a private vehicle when they were arrested. Hernandez did not know why they were carrying the ammunition, the same assigned to other border patrol agents for use while on-duty.
"We're cooperating fully with Mexican law enforcement agents in their investigation," Hernandez said.
Verdugo and Allen Navarro crossed into Mexico in a lane assigned to vehicles with nothing to declare but were selected for inspection, Mexican federal prosecutors said in a statement.
Customs inspector found a box in the backseat of their car containing 1,286 .40-caliber and 10 .223-caliber Winchester rifle bullets, the statement said. Mexican law restricts that ammuniation to use by only the Mexican military.
The agents, both assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol in El Centro, California, are being held at a Mexicali prison and face weapon possesion charges.
The Mexican federal attorney general's office said the Border Patrol agents were unable to show that they could legally import the ammunition and didn't have a permit by Mexico's Defense Department.
Lock it Down, Arnie!
California state-run Mexico border patrol proposed
the May 5, 2005 04:30 PM ET
Printer Friendly Email Article Reprints RSS
By Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Saying the U.S. government has failed to secure the border with Mexico, California activists who helped recall former Gov. Gray Davis said on Thursday they would promote a ballot measure calling for the state to fund its own border patrol.
They unveiled the measure, the California Border Police Act, as the Minutemen citizens' group that patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico in April prepares for a similar effort this summer south of San Diego along California's border with Mexico.
"California has been trying to pressure the feds for 20 years to do a better job and they haven't," said Dave Gilliard, the measure's political strategist.
The campaign took its first major step on Wednesday by filing a draft of its measure with California's attorney general with the aim of placing it on the June 2006 ballot.
That step came amid last-minute preparations for Cinco de Mayo festivities. Mexican-Americans each year on May 5 commemorate an 1862 battle in Puebla, Mexico in which Mexican soldiers defeated invading French forces.
Cinco de Mayo is not an official holiday in Mexico or California, but it has become both a popular occasion and celebration of Mexican culture.
The timing of the measure's unveiling a day ahead of Cinco de Mayo was "purely coincidental," Gilliard said, noting he wanted to seize on the attention to illegal immigration generated in recent weeks by the Minutemen.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger raised the profile of the issue of illegal immigration by recently endorsing the Minutemen, raising the ire of Latino elected officials already disappointed by his opposition to granting drivers' licenses for undocumented migrants.
His comments also revived hard feelings from the mid-1990s aroused by former Gov. Pete Wilson's tough stand on illegal immigration and support for a ballot measure aimed at deterring it. Voters backed the measure and he rode it to a second term.
Despite their widespread employment of undocumented workers -- as field hands, gardeners, laborers, domestics and in other jobs -- Californians have chafed at their state serving as a magnet for illegal immigration.
A state border patrol, which would be a first, would cut the costs to taxpayers from an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants in California, Gilliard said: "We estimate it would to save $5 billion to $7 billion (annually). California currently spends $9 billion to $10 billion for services, or for incarceration costs, on illegal immigrants."
The new state police agency, allowed by 1996 federal law, would employ more than 2,000 officers at a cost of $300 million to $400 million annually, Gilliard said. "Because they gave the states the authority to do this, there is no reason California shouldn't do it on its own," he said.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor has not taken a stand on the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had described his remarks on the Minutemen as irresponsible, said the measure would be socially divisive and complicate law enforcement along the California-Mexico border.
"Border security is a federal issue and immigration is a federal issue," said Ranjana Natarajan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The last thing we need is more layers of bureaucracy ... Nothing shows this would improve the effectiveness of border policing."
I love the "Socially devisive" line. What is devisive is the fact that Mexico is allowing there undesirables to invade our country and drain our social services!
the May 5, 2005 04:30 PM ET
Printer Friendly Email Article Reprints RSS
By Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Saying the U.S. government has failed to secure the border with Mexico, California activists who helped recall former Gov. Gray Davis said on Thursday they would promote a ballot measure calling for the state to fund its own border patrol.
They unveiled the measure, the California Border Police Act, as the Minutemen citizens' group that patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico in April prepares for a similar effort this summer south of San Diego along California's border with Mexico.
"California has been trying to pressure the feds for 20 years to do a better job and they haven't," said Dave Gilliard, the measure's political strategist.
The campaign took its first major step on Wednesday by filing a draft of its measure with California's attorney general with the aim of placing it on the June 2006 ballot.
That step came amid last-minute preparations for Cinco de Mayo festivities. Mexican-Americans each year on May 5 commemorate an 1862 battle in Puebla, Mexico in which Mexican soldiers defeated invading French forces.
Cinco de Mayo is not an official holiday in Mexico or California, but it has become both a popular occasion and celebration of Mexican culture.
The timing of the measure's unveiling a day ahead of Cinco de Mayo was "purely coincidental," Gilliard said, noting he wanted to seize on the attention to illegal immigration generated in recent weeks by the Minutemen.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger raised the profile of the issue of illegal immigration by recently endorsing the Minutemen, raising the ire of Latino elected officials already disappointed by his opposition to granting drivers' licenses for undocumented migrants.
His comments also revived hard feelings from the mid-1990s aroused by former Gov. Pete Wilson's tough stand on illegal immigration and support for a ballot measure aimed at deterring it. Voters backed the measure and he rode it to a second term.
Despite their widespread employment of undocumented workers -- as field hands, gardeners, laborers, domestics and in other jobs -- Californians have chafed at their state serving as a magnet for illegal immigration.
A state border patrol, which would be a first, would cut the costs to taxpayers from an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants in California, Gilliard said: "We estimate it would to save $5 billion to $7 billion (annually). California currently spends $9 billion to $10 billion for services, or for incarceration costs, on illegal immigrants."
The new state police agency, allowed by 1996 federal law, would employ more than 2,000 officers at a cost of $300 million to $400 million annually, Gilliard said. "Because they gave the states the authority to do this, there is no reason California shouldn't do it on its own," he said.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor has not taken a stand on the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had described his remarks on the Minutemen as irresponsible, said the measure would be socially divisive and complicate law enforcement along the California-Mexico border.
"Border security is a federal issue and immigration is a federal issue," said Ranjana Natarajan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The last thing we need is more layers of bureaucracy ... Nothing shows this would improve the effectiveness of border policing."
I love the "Socially devisive" line. What is devisive is the fact that Mexico is allowing there undesirables to invade our country and drain our social services!
Great Letter to the Editor of the Modesto Bee
I have to hand it to the staff of The Bee — you are courageous! At a time when many major newspapers are seeing a significant loss in subscribers for trying to spin the news, you people continue to soldier on! I see you are still spinning the news by printing anti-Christian letters (there were three on April 28). You are still trying to convince your readers that Christians are bad and being colonized by Mexico is good.
PAT BIRD
Manteca
This appeared on 5-6-05. Maybe people are starting see through the socialist smoke screen.
PAT BIRD
Manteca
This appeared on 5-6-05. Maybe people are starting see through the socialist smoke screen.
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Gotta Love It
Gen. George Patton Jr., "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Douglas MacArthur.,
"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. "
In war there is no substitute for victory."
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. George S. Patton
Keep these words in mind while you read a paper or watch a news broadcast.
Douglas MacArthur.,
"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. "
In war there is no substitute for victory."
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. George S. Patton
Keep these words in mind while you read a paper or watch a news broadcast.
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Nice Constitution Vincrape'
Article 11. Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change his residence without necessity of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or any other similar requirement. The exercise of this right shall be subordinated to the powers of the judiciary, in cases of civil or criminal liability, and to those of the administrative authorities insofar as concerns the limitations imposed by the laws regarding emigration, immigration and public health of the CohnArticle.
This is directly from the Mexican constitution. Mexican's, per their constitution can cross the border. Now read this;Chapter IV
Mexican Citizens
Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic:
Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried;
Having an honest means of livelihood.
So if a Mexican does not have a legal job i.e. drug dealer, unemployed, you are not a citizen?
It is no wonder Vincrape' Fox encourages migration; it is illegal in the U.S. not Mexico!
When was the last time a doctor or engineer crossed the border? Apparently there are no more lawns to mow in Mexico!
This is directly from the Mexican constitution. Mexican's, per their constitution can cross the border. Now read this;Chapter IV
Mexican Citizens
Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic:
Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried;
Having an honest means of livelihood.
So if a Mexican does not have a legal job i.e. drug dealer, unemployed, you are not a citizen?
It is no wonder Vincrape' Fox encourages migration; it is illegal in the U.S. not Mexico!
When was the last time a doctor or engineer crossed the border? Apparently there are no more lawns to mow in Mexico!
Sunday, May 1, 2005
Some People Just Don't Get It!
I was speaking with an acquaintance the other night about illegal aliens entering the country. His first response was to describe the Minutemen as a bunch of " White racist rednecks." I had to remind him of the fact he was a legal immigrant from Africa. His family had sent him here to attend college. His father paid a great deal of money for the education he had received. His response is that illegal immigrants are needed for the manual labor jobs that "whites" refuse to do! Taking a deep breath and a large drink of my beer I told him that regardless of a man's skin, he will do any job if he his hungry enough. Cut off all entitlements and let us return to the days of The Grapes of Wrath. As I was engaged in this conversation a thought had struck me; This African immigrant blames the white man for our border woes. It is our fault we refuse to pick crops. It is Uncle Sam's fault that illegal aliens are sucking every social program dry. But by gosh it is America where everybody wants to send Jr. to college! The very country that welcomed this ingrate is the same one that he wants changed. Why did his father choose the U.S. and not Mexico, Chile, Canada... Any place but here? And here is the root of the problem... This African man does not see himself as an American. Instead he is an African living in America, and this country owes him something. America, thanks to the likes of ACLU, Hollywood and every other American socialist portrays America as "White Racist Rednecks."
Here is our wonderful Mr. Waxman's opinions from On The Issues which so plainly illustrates the "It is our fault mentality."
Encourage Immigration and Offer Amnesty POSITIONS
Strongly Support means you believe: Immigration restrictions are basically racist because they keep out Hispanics and other non-whites. We should reform US immigration laws and use them to increase our diversity and cultural tolerance. Social services should be offered to all residents of the United States regardless of immigration status. Illegal aliens should be offered amnesty if they prove themselves as productive members of society.
Support means you believe: The government should make few restrictions on immigration. If the number of immigrants is too high, establish an immigration fee and raise it until the number of immigrants is acceptable. Or change the immigration quotas by some other method.
Oppose means you believe: Maintain legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders - decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the US by deportation and by removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration.
This question is looking for your views on both legal and illegal immigration; whether we should open our borders or patrol them more tightly and lower the legal immigrant count. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:
Legal immigration should be increased
We spend enough on patrolling the Mexican border
Grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who have resided here for 5 yearsHow do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. So it's more important to give a general answer of support versus oppose, than to get the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question.
Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of free immigration: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
Support means you believe in practical reforms but not in treating illegal aliens as criminals.
Oppose means you believe in practical limitations like increased border security.
Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle that illegal aliens are criminals.
Diversity and cultural tolerance... Should instead read "perversity and cultural ignorance!
Here is our wonderful Mr. Waxman's opinions from On The Issues which so plainly illustrates the "It is our fault mentality."
Encourage Immigration and Offer Amnesty POSITIONS
Strongly Support means you believe: Immigration restrictions are basically racist because they keep out Hispanics and other non-whites. We should reform US immigration laws and use them to increase our diversity and cultural tolerance. Social services should be offered to all residents of the United States regardless of immigration status. Illegal aliens should be offered amnesty if they prove themselves as productive members of society.
Support means you believe: The government should make few restrictions on immigration. If the number of immigrants is too high, establish an immigration fee and raise it until the number of immigrants is acceptable. Or change the immigration quotas by some other method.
Oppose means you believe: Maintain legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders - decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the US by deportation and by removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration.
This question is looking for your views on both legal and illegal immigration; whether we should open our borders or patrol them more tightly and lower the legal immigrant count. However you answer the above question would be similar to your response to these statements:
Legal immigration should be increased
We spend enough on patrolling the Mexican border
Grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who have resided here for 5 yearsHow do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. So it's more important to give a general answer of support versus oppose, than to get the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question.
Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of free immigration: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
Support means you believe in practical reforms but not in treating illegal aliens as criminals.
Oppose means you believe in practical limitations like increased border security.
Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle that illegal aliens are criminals.
Diversity and cultural tolerance... Should instead read "perversity and cultural ignorance!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)