Let People Break Laws Because: Lawbreakers

So much for hiding in the shadows. People who are breaking laws by coming or staying here illegally are again demanding we change how we do things to accommodate them. Look, pal, I welcome legal immigrants with open arms and a big smile and congratulations, but I still expect them to adapt to the Union, not have the USA adapt to them. We sure as heck shouldn't change a darn thing to make life any easier for someone who didn't follow the rules to begin with.

Kate Linthicum has the article at the Pink Transgendered Lady, which only allows you so many clicks per months before they want $. So keep that in mind if you are thinking about clicking through.

This is how the article is headlined:

Immigrants Rights Groups Urge Changes in Car Impound Policies
Activists persuaded the LAPD to amend its policy on unlicensed drivers, and the number of cars impounded last year fell 39%. They hope the Sheriff's Department and other police agencies follow suit.

An immigrant is someone who comes here and stays here legally. A foreigner who is here illegally is an illegal alien. Calling these people "Immigrants Rights Groups" is dishonest.

A 2011 state law requires police at drunk-driving checkpoints to give unlicensed drivers the chance to call someone with a license to take the car before it is towed.

They dropped the provision where the police were also required to offer them taxpayer-funded sex change operations.

But that law does not apply to routine traffic stops, and activists complain that unlicensed drivers across the county are losing their cars after being pulled over for minor infractions, such as making a wrong turn or driving without a seat belt. In many cases, the cars are impounded for 30 days at a fee of more than $1,000.

That's because they aren't supposed to be driving in the first place. What is the point of having a license if it doesn't allow you to do anything that someone without the license can do?

Activists say impound policies unfairly target immigrants here illegally, who cannot obtain licenses in California.

Yeah, you know those bank robbery laws unfairly target people who want money that isn't theirs.

At a news conference Wednesday held by a group called the Free Our Cars Coalition, Mexican immigrant Alma Castaneda said she and her husband have had their cars impounded five times for unlicensed driving. 

By "immigrant" the paper probably means illegal alien. In what other country would someone stand up at a press conference and admit to breaking federal law, and then complain that they were caught breaking state law five times?

That is how [whiny illegal aliens] persuaded the Los Angeles Police Department to make major changes to its impound policy, said Zach Hoover, a Baptist minister who leads an alliance of religious and community groups called LA Voice.

I won't hold my breath for the paper to run an editorial criticizing Hoover for trying to put religion into the law.

The new rules drew lawsuits from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers, and from a national group called Judicial Watch that said the policy is unfair to taxpayers. California State Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris issued an opinion that the LAPD's impound policies were legal.

What does the law matter to Harris? She encourages lawbreaking.

If it is so difficult to live here as an illegal alien, then tough. I understand why people prefer the USA, especially over Mexico. However, they're going to have the deal with our laws, at least until they get as much political clout as marriage neutering advocates, who can simply ignore laws. We need to protect everyone, not just make things easier for illegal aliens.

Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful

In July of 2008, the Pink Lady (known to some as the Los Angeles Times, tried to convince readers that Proposition 8 was doomed at the ballot box. Of course, it went on to be approved in November that year, adding the California Marriage Amendment to the state constitution.

The Los Angeles Times tried to convince us that since what they see as the "in-crowd" supports marriage neutering and that those of us who honor the bride+groom construct should give up. Staff writers Jessica Garrison and Dan Morain reported. [NOTE: They now have a paywall, so free clicks are limited.]

A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

Yet again, that was extremely sloppy language used. Proposition 8 RESTORED bride-groom marriage licensing to the State of California. "Gay marriage" was not banned (and neither were round squares). Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, could "marry" someone of the same sex in ceremonies, form legal partnerships, commit to each other, live with each other, etc. Passing Proposition 8 did not send the Gestapo (or, as one dispicable ad depicted, Mormon missionairies) into Metropolitan churches and homes and banquet halls to break up "gay marriages".

I'm Shocked! Shocked!

Who knew that we shouldn't trust everything that comes out of a university, nor everything reported by The Crossdressing Pink Lady? See what I'm talking about over at The Opine Editorials.

Bias in the Media, Bias in the Courts

I look at how the print edition of the Los Angeles Times covered the 9th Circus Court of Appeals decision on the California Marriage Amenmdent, a ruling that contains shocking errors... over at The Opine Editorials.

How 'Bout Dem Apples?

I know you'll be shocked by this, but Reuters continues to be biased in reporting about marriage neutering, and the Los Angeles Times is still obsessed. Read my analysis of their coverage of things in the State of Washington over at The Opine Editorials.

LA Times Attempts to Help the Occupy Whiners

It should come as no surprise that Big Labor is getting involved in the Whine and Do Nothing Productive Sessions... otherwise known as Occupy Wall Street or Occupy ____. Here's E. Scott Reckard's report in the Los Angeles Times.

Protesters spent their fourth night camping outside Los Angeles City Hall, disrupted a bankers conference at a Newport Beach yacht club and demonstrated outside a financial executive's Bel Air home.

And what does that accomplish? Imagine the howls and shrieks of "inciting violence" and "violation of privacy" if TEA Partiers showed up outside of someone’s house. Where's the New Tone of Civility?

Protests on the West Coast have drawn an assortment of activists, from college students

= grown people dependent on their parents and taxpayers

to anarchists

= potheads, essentially.

to ordinary Americans worried about the economy. They have no single organizer, and instead are made up of individual groups focused on what they see as the banking industry's role in the growing divide between America's rich and poor.

"The banks engineered the country's financial collapse and then profited from it," said Joe Briones, 29, a film major at L.A. City College who is helping to run the Occupy LA social media feed from the City Hall protests.

Let's assume the banks profited from it. If they did, it was only by the aid of a government that should have been more limited. There's the real problem – government needs to be limited and run per the instructions provided by the Constitution.

The bankers listened as protesters accused them of causing the economic meltdown by peddling bad loans,

Per federal government pressure. And what about the people who took out those loans?

accepting government bailouts and then doing little to compensate for the damage inflicted.

Evidence, please?

Robert Hawkes at 9:34 PM October 4, 2011:

"Corporate greed" brought us the light bulb, hybrid cars, the proliferation of the Internet, renewable energy sources, the decentralization of journalism as exemplified in this blog, and whatever device you're reading this on. American businesses are also the greatest benefactors to worldwide relief and other charitable organizations.

Of course, there have been abuses as well, such as the recent bailouts, and what is generally referred to as "corporate welfare."

Though I respect their right to peaceful protest, I find Occupy Wallstreet's blanket labeling of all corporations as "evil" and "greedy" to be disingenuous and misleading.

Thank you, Robert Hawkes.

Here's Michael Muskal's article.

Those who think that the ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement is just a traffic annoyance with nowhere to go should remember that the same was said at one time about protest movements around the world throughout history, including the tea party movement in the United States.

Yes, but these are just whiners. And with the SEUI providing the only semblance of organization, it just becomes another tool for protecting the entrenched government workers at the expense of others.

Here's Kate Linthicum's article about City of Los Angeles councilmembers going to get face time after their meeting.

Before leaving Tuesday, Garcetti told the protesters: "Stay as long as you need, we're here to support you." A spokeswoman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he plans to visit the encampment Wednesday.

He may be looking for a date.

maineman1 at 7:18 AM October 5, 2011:

Our "free market system" is bankrupt.

Our redistributionist government schemes are bankrupt.

We need to address the predatory capitalism that preys on the middle class and the poor.

What does that mean? Don't like what a company does? Don't buy their products or services, don't invest in them, and don't work for them.

Financial reform is vital to combat the effects of consolidation, conglomeration, "too big to fail," unfair labor practices and environmental predators.

So you are against efficiency and cooperation? Which unfair labor practices are you talking about – the ones where union members agree to compensation, and then claim they need more, taken by force through the government? What environmental predators?

US banks, investment firms, hedge funds and others must be regulated and conform to new US standards and ethics of market behavior.

They are regulated, and some of that regulation has done a lot to make the mess.

Income and profits above certain thresholds would be taxed heavily.

Why? Who decides what the right amount is?

Banks should act less like a casino; taking in the money from the rubes, and placing bets on bets.

So, do you protest casinos? The lottery?

They have taken federal money generated by US taxpayers and have invested in schemes that have stolen billions from those same taxpayers.

How did they get "federal money"? Through Big Government.

Here's the paper's editorial, pretending this is just like the TEA Party, only with ideology the Left supports.

We too find it hard to get especially worked up over a series of small demonstrations in a handful of cities, including Los Angeles, involving mostly disaffected people who have trouble expressing what it is they're against. But isn't that how the "tea party" started out?

No, it isn't. The TEA Party started to say we've been Taxed Enough Already and that the federal government shouldn't be throwing around money we don't have.

The political left has been searching for the last couple of years to find an answer to the tea party.

Impossible, because they support enlarging and centralizing government.

Limiting government and being productive citizens is the way to go. Nobody owes you a job with all of the benefits and pay level you want. What are you doing for your neighbor? What good or service are you providing in enough abundance to meet the needs of others in exchange for them providing goods and services that meet your needs?

The Latest on Marriage Neutering in California and North Carolina

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

The Los Angeles Times Supports Neutering Marriage

Shocking, I know. I look at their editorial over at The Opine Editorials.

SB 104: Card Check in California

Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board speaks the truth about the problem with "card check":

For years, workers have helped tilt the balance of power in fields and factory farms incrementally by organizing themselves into labor unions. The Times supports steps to make it easier for them to join forces and demand humane conditions and negotiate for reasonable pay.

The problem, though, with the "card check" bills that Democrats keep sending to the governor is that they empower unions, not union workers. There is a difference.

Since 1975, workers have been able to choose whether to organize, and with which union, by casting ballots in secret. SB 104, like earlier versions of the bill, would replace those secret-ballot elections with a method known as majority signup or "card check." That would allow union representatives to visit workers in their homes to ask for their signatures, a process that could easily lead to inappropriate pressure or threats.

Congratulations to the Los Angeles Times for getting this one right.

Big Labor is trying to force itself on more workers so that it will be able to collect more fees and dues money to legally "bribe" politicians and support or oppose ballot initiatives through deceptive ads, presentations, and literature. The union wields such power to – surprise – further empower and enrich union management. Unfortunately, too many unions have fallen into the organizational trap of being about serving their management and perpetuating itself rather than improving the service it claims to provide.

Today's Proposition 8 Update

The fun just keeps on going.

Los Angeles Times – Niche LGBTQQUAI Media?

I agree with the title of this Los Angeles Times editorial that "gay rights" are human rights. I believe that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to life, liberty, property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, etc. The devil is in the details of the editorial.

The editorial notes that South Africa is one of the few nations that have neutered their marriage laws and it has a constitution that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (things that I don't necessarily consider rights, depending on whether or not the application violates someone else's rights).

Gay groups flourish - soccer clubs and church organizations included - and middle-class gay men and women live relatively openly.

But the editorial goes on to cite that a cross-dressing homosexual woman was apparently raped and murdered, the implication that it had to be about her sexual orientation.

Two other openly gay women have been murdered in the township since 2008, and some gay men and women report having been raped by attackers who claimed to be teaching them a lesson.

Obviously, nobody should be raped, regardless of the reason.

A gay rights demonstration in Moscow was disrupted last month by counter-protesters, and Russian security forces detained people from both sides of the protest.

So two sides expressed their opinions. What is the problem with that? People should have the freedom of speech, even if they disagree with homosexuality advocates.

In Jamaica, homophobic lyrics in dancehall music have been blamed for violent attacks on gay people.

Were they playing Eminem? What does the Los Angeles Times think of social/cultural conservatives who say that music lyrics incite kids to fornication, dope smoking, and other destructive things?

On the other hand, some countries have progressed further faster. A decade ago, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, nine more have followed — and the U.S. was not one of them.

Neutering state marriage licenses against the will of those who issue the licenses is not a right nor progress.

I gather that I believe in more rights for homosexual individuals than the Los Angeles Times and many homosexual advocacy organizations, because I believe all individuals have certain rights that should not be usurped by the collective or by interest groups.

The paper also has an article by Paloma Esquivel covering the tired "woe is them" immigration aspect of the homosexuality advocacy movement.

They had fallen in love quickly and planned on marrying but soon learned that, unlike similar situations with straight couples, their relationship wouldn't help Oliva stay in the country.

Immigration policy is supposed to benefit the receiving country. The policy seeks to reunite (or keep united) married (bride+groom) couples because the United States have an interest in bride+groom couples that they don't have when it comes to other couples. Why should the nation's immigration policy try to keep same-sex couples united any more than it tries to keep platonic friends united? It's essentially another article about the evils of DOMA.