Illegal Protest

Apparently the National Council of La Raza’s self-proclaimed “Wave of Hate” Campaign has yet another branch coming now from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund who has filed a lawsuit with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which is part of the Organization of American States.  They are charging that the United States is failing to live up to the group’s declaration on human rights, known as the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.  The lawsuit cites that violence against Latinos rose 40 percent between 2003 and 2007.

Well I did some research and so far, between 2006 and 2007, using statistics from the FBI Crime Statistic web site - the increase in crimes against Hispanics which were considered bias hate crimes rose by FIVE - not 5% but a total of 5 more of these crimes occurred in 2007 compared to 2006.

I did some further research, and guess what - the percent of crimes against Hispanic, when the total Hispanic population is considered, actually WENT DOWN between 2006 and 2007 and here is how I got there:

Total Hispanic population in 2006      40 million  (1)

Total Hispanic population in 2007       45.5 million (1)

Total hate crimes against Hispanics in 2006         770  (2)

Total hate crimes against Hispanics in 2007         775  (3)

The percentage of crimes within the Hispanic population that can be attributed to hate crimes was .00193% in 2006 and in 2007 it was .00171%.  That’s a DECREASE!  Notice that also LESS THAN 1 PER CENT OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION IN BOTH 2006 AND 2007 HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF A HATE CRIME BECAUSE OF THEIR ETHNICITY.

Let’s compare that to - hmm.. maybe the Black population shall we?

Without bothering with the percentages except to note that the Black population has been now surpassed by the Hispanic population in this country and it’s around 40 million - let’s look at the numbers of hate crimes against blacks:

2006 Hate Crimes against Blacks                    3136

2007 Hate Crimes against Blacks                     3275

That percentage of hate crimes compared to the population is WAY higher than Hispanics are experiencing.

And I’d like to point out that the habit of obscuring statistics about Hispanics makes it very difficult to tally up these numbers because, in essence, often Hispanics are categorized as part of the WHITE race because they do not consider Hispanic or Latino to be a  RACE but an ETHNICITY.

Here’s some interesting statistics for you.  On the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list - 4 of the 10 are Hispanic -yet the Hispanic population is only 14.5 % of the total US population. So 40 PER CENT of the criminals on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list are Hispanic taking up a much larger share there than they do in the general population. What gives?   If you also are a frequent viewer of America’s Most Wanted, you might also find that most of the fugitves they chase these days are illegal aliens with Hispanic names.  Also true on the cops shows where they follow the police arresting fugitives. You will find most of the fugitives are Hispanics. Gee there a trend for ya PRLDEF.

Here’s an interesting link I found. The San Francisco DEA’s Most Wanted Fugitives list. Notice there is not ONE non-Hispanic name and face on that list?  Where do I file MY petition that MY GOVERNMENT IS NOT PROTECTING ME AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FROM THESE CRIMINAL HISPANICS?  In fact, go to the main page and see that click on ANY state you will see that in EVERY STATE the DEA fugitives are HISPANIC. What is wrong with this picture????  And if you really want to see how the White/Hispanic statistics are SO SKEWED just click on some of the offenders and it clearly states Place of Birth is MEXICO yet their race is WHITE. HUH? So next time you see WHITE crime statistics realize that a LARGE PORTION OF WHITE CRIME IS FROM ILLEGAL ALIEN HISPANICS WHO ARE LISTED AS WHITE.

So let’s take a look at this  Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man as it pertains to the protection and rights of the legal American citizen. And notice - all of these “rights” do not mention who is going to PAY for these services and things humans have a “right” to.

Right to life, liberty and personal security.
Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.

Right to equality before law.
Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.

Right to religious freedom and worship.
Article III. Every person has the right freely to profess a religious faith, and to manifest and practice it both in public and in private.

Right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination.
Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.

Right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life.
Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.

Right to a family and to protection thereof.
Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.

Right to protection for mothers and children.
Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.

Right to residence and movement.
Article VIII. Every person has the right to fix his residence within the territory of the state of which he is a national, to move about freely within such territory, and not to leave it except by his own will.

Right to inviolability of the home.
Article IX. Every person has the right to the inviolability of his home.

Right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence
Article X. Every person has the right to the inviolability and transmission of his correspondence.

Right to the preservation of health and to well-being.
Article XI. Every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.

Right to education.
Article XII. Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society.

The right to an education includes the right to equality of opportunity in every case, in accordance with natural talents, merit and the desire to utilize the resources that the state or the community is in a position to provide.

Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education.

Right to the benefits of culture.
Article XIII. Every person has the right to take part in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to participate in the benefits that result from intellectual progress, especially scientific discoveries.

He likewise has the right to the protection of his moral and material interests as regards his inventions or any literary, scientific or artistic works of which he is the author.

Right to work and to fair remuneration.
Article XIV. Every person has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation freely, insofar as existing conditions of employment permit.

Every person who works has the right to receive such remuneration as will, in proportion to his capacity and skill, assure him a standard of living suitable for himself and for his family.

Right to leisure time and to the use thereof.

On an unrelated topic - I notice this “Declaration of Rights” does not include the “right to marry”. Tell that to the Prop 8 haters.

H/T Immigration Watchdog for this article from

The Family Security Foundation    Contributing Editor John Armor

I don’t often write about law. It’s been one of my professions for 35 years, but I have to admit the subject is boring. I don’t often accuse anyone else of being “un-American” because there’s a lot of leeway for opinion in a free country. Today I drop both restrictions. The subject is Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and the ACLU.

The ACLU recently filed a petition for Hazleton to pay it $2.4 million in fees because ACLU lawyers persuaded a U.S. District judge to strike down a series of local ordinances. Those laws intended to make it difficult for illegal aliens to live and work in that town. A precipitating event for passage of the ordinances was the murder of a local resident by an illegal alien.

Update on that: the murderer was released and is to be deported. The witness, who gave the police the murder weapon and described a confession, was “accidentally” deported and will not return. So, the murderer skates. The ACLU publicly praised the dismissal of the murder charges.

The ACLU fee petition says of the case, “Hazleton has used this Court as its laboratory. Defendant’s experimentation over the past year comes at a price.”

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, noting that his City has a total annual budget of only $7.9 million, calls the petition “absurd.” He added, “It illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to the case. They had over 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom, with plenty of them doing nothing but running up the bill.Their goal was to bankrupt the city of Hazleton.”

I go further than that. I accuse the ACLU of trying to destroy the United States, piece by piece, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction. And, I accuse the federal judge in this case, James M. Munley, of being equally un-American in his ruling in the case I will, however, give the judge credit for being stupid, rather than malicious. Having made such charges, I’m obliged to back them up.

After stating our God-given rights, the Declaration of Independence recites our basic political rights, stating that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed. – That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….”

The ordinances of Hazleton were passed for the health and safety of town residents. They applied only within the town. In attacking those ordinances, the ACLU also attacked both parts of that statement from the Declaration. No surprise. But here, a federal judge joined in the attack.

He is not elected. And yet, he substituted his political views for those of the people, who had just reelected their mayor by causing him to win both primaries, Republican and Democrat. There was no doubt whatsoever where the “consent of the governed” lies. On the other point, the judge assumed that he had somehow obtained the power to overrule the people.

More than a few Supreme Court Justices have claimed and used the power to amend the Constitution, stealing that right from the American people. But what does the Constitution say about that?

The only power that a District Court has over a case like this is what Congress has granted to it. See Article I, Section 1, and Section 2, clause 2. Congress has not given federal courts the power to destroy local governments. If there is any doubt about that, Congress should strip courts of any pretense of such power.

See also Article V, the amendment provisions. Power to change the Constitution is reserved to the people, through two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, plus three-fourths of the state legislatures. Not a unanimous Supreme Court, much less a contentious one-vote majority of that Court, may legitimately change the Constitution.

Article VI, Section 4, contains a guarantee that most people skip right over, yet it’s clearly violated here. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government….” What did “Republican” mean, more than a century before it became the name of a political party? It meant a government in which people elected their representatives who act for them in writing laws. If the people disagreed with those laws, they could defeat those representatives and elect others in their stead.

Today, when people use the word “democracy,” they mean “republican form of government.” Remember that some parts of our governments aren’t “democratic.” Bureaucrats generally aren’t elected. Neither are courts.

That brings us to Judge Munley. He was not elected. He cannot be defeated if he writes bad laws. That is precisely why federal judges should not be in the business of writing laws at all. Their job, under the Constitution, is to obey and enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. In this decision, an unelected judge made political decisions, which will cause harm and perhaps death to citizens who sought the protection of the law. His is an un-American decision.

This case has already been appealed, as has a similar case from Farmers Branch, Texas. Regardless of the outcomes of both cases in the Courts of Appeal, they will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, probably consolidated for decision.

If there are at least five Justices of the Court who believe the Constitution should be obeyed, not toyed with, this decision will be reversed. Self-government will be restored to Hazleton and all towns and states like it. Lastly, a fat award of fees and costs, say $20 million or so, should be assessed against the ACLU for violating the constitutional rights of the people of Hazleton, and by extension, of all Americans.

Meanwhile, while he was President of the VA ACLU, he lobbied for open access to the Internet and used the education of CHILDREN as the base for his argument. What he REALLY meant to say was he was for open access to the Internet to educate his CHILD PORN HABIT!

Notice how you have not heard about this on CNN or FOX News or any other large news outlet. Doesn’t that clue you in to the agenda by our Mainstream Media?
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55883

CRIMENETDAILY
Child porn hearing set for former ACLU exec
Facing possible prison time for acting on group’s agenda
Posted: May 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A former youth league sports coach and executive of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has argued against any limits on Internet access in public libraries, is facing a hearing – and the possibility of prison – for having hard-core child pornography.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, as WND reported earlier, was arrested in February and was indicted earlier this month on allegations of having what a U.S. magistrate described as “the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography” she ever had seen.

Rust-Tierney, who was president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU until 2005 and served on the group’s board until the day he was arrested, now is scheduled to appear in a court hearing on June 1 at which local reports say he is expected to plead guilty to various charges.

Authorities have alleged he used his own credit card and his own e-mail address to access and purchase an estimated $1,000 in graphic and violent child pornography during 2005 and 2006, according to Virginia’s North Country Gazette.

(Story continues below)

Magistrate Theresa Buchanan said the material included an extended video featuring the sexual torture of children, accompanied by a song by the band called Nine Inch Nails.

He’s been indicted on a count of receiving child pornography and another count of possessing child pornography, and authorities say he could face a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years on each charge.

While serving the ACLU, he argued against any restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, claiming “individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library” so those facilities should provide “maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet.”

Court records indicate Rust-Tierney had subscribed to several websites featuring child pornography over a period of years, covering the same time he was serving as a youth sports league coach and arguing for an open Internet.

Twice during pretrial hearings judges had denied him bond, describing the material as some of the most sickening they’d ever seen. Authorities allege he used a computer located in his 10-year-old son’s bedroom for the transactions.

Rust-Tierney was a coach in Arlington’s Little League and had children who participated in Arlington’s flag football league, according to Arlington County Parks & Recreation spokesperson Susan Kalish. She said all the group’s coaches must go through annual background checks, and Rust-Tierney had passed all previous background checks.

Some of the children he coached had written letters of support. Several dozen people appeared at a hearing for him, urging the judge to release him from jail.

He and his lawyers have declined to respond to media requests for comment.

The federal indictment alleged he “knowingly received multiple computer files that contained photo and video depictions of minor teenage and prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

An anonymous chat room participant on the cannablog was distressed by the low profile in the national media over the case. When his arrested first was announced, authorities didn’t even mention either his ACLU or youth league coaching connections.

“This man was the PRESIDENT of the Virginia ACLU and while he was president, he lobbied to keep the Internet available to child pornographers via any port available, and WHILE he was president he was engaged in purchasing and subscribing to child (infant and toddler torture) pornography for his personal and sexual gratification. The ACLU. Pouring money into a machine that victimizes children. For years. And that the media is keeping this out of sight is okay with you? Wow,” he said.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly called it a “horrifying” case. And he noted that the two “biggest left-wing outfits in the country – the New York Times and NBC News – ignored the story entirely.” CBS News, CNN and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest, Fox said.

Several area broadcast stations and newspapers actually have begun to cover the case as it appears to be heading towards a conclusion.

“That Mr. Rust-Tierney, a leading proponent of unrestricted access to the Internet, has now been arrested for receiving and possessing graphic child pornography should serve as testimony to the injudicious and baleful outgrowth of the legal challenges launched by the ACLU questioning the constitutionality of important legislation that protects children from Internet exploitation and content harmful to minors,” said a statement released by spokeswoman Cris Clapp of Enough is Enough, an organization dedicated to protecting children from the dangers on the Internet.

“When Mr. Rust-Tierney argued before the Loudoun County Library Board that unrestricted access to the resources of the Internet was essential for our children’s ability to learn and communicate, and when groups like the ACLU contend that acceptable use policies alone are capable of protecting children online, they fail to acknowledge the tragic and devastating effects to children and families of both intentional and unintentional access to online pornography,” the statement said.

The investigation that resulted in Rust-Tierney’s arrest was conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as Arlington County police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.