Monday, November 1, 2010

Restore Sanity or Keep Fear Alive?

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

So, I attended Stephen Colbert's March to Keep Fear Alive. Well, okay, by the time the event rolled around, Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity and Colbert's March to Keep Fear Alive had combined into the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear."

It was very crowded. I couldn't see the stage, and I only heard bits and pieces of what was said. But I'm still glad I was there.

The people in attendance seemed nice. Many were carrying humorous signs. Pushing and shoving was generally avoided (amazing, considering how packed it was), as was shouting and any other loud or obnoxious behavior. People were mostly polite and courteous.

Interpreting the Insanity


The news media keeps asking if this rally will have any effect on the upcoming elections. I've also seen the news media call some of the signs extremist to a scary extent (most were jokes you humorless tools). Obviously, the news media doesn't get it.

This rally wasn't meant to change the minds of the people attending, and it wasn't meant to convince the people of America to vote one way or another. The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was about showing the government and the news media that the average person is not an extremist nut.

The country's 24-hour, political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder.

The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the dangerous, unexpected flaming ants epidemic.

If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.
Jon Stewart.

March to Keep Fear Alive
I've seen journalists call this rally nothing but a comedy stunt and other journalists call it nothing but political. Anyone with an objective outlook would probably say it was a bit of both.

But this wasn't political in the way events are normally political. Usually, an event is defined by its party. This rally didn't care about party lines. It brought people of all beliefs together to say, "Yeah, we agree on some things and disagree on others, and that's okay."

The two sides are so extreme, the majority of Americans are unhappy with both parties. We can't relate with either of them anymore.

The majority of Americans work five days a week and always seem to be late to something. The day is never long enough and we don't have the time or the energy to show up at rallies and protests and have our voices heard. We don't see any value in screaming and name calling. We're moderates. And we're tired of the government catering to special interests. We're tired of the news media and the government focusing on extremists. We're tired of the fights—devoid of relevant information—between candidates.

The rally was about our sanity, yes. But more importantly, it was about restoring sanity to the system.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpreted it. And I think the news media should go by the rally-goers' interpretations, not vice versa. We know what we meant.

The System is on a Steady Course to Crash and Burn


The news is always talking about some poster child of insanity. How about the minister who was determined to burn the Quran? And then the people talking about how all Muslims are scary and evil? It would seem all Americans are crazy bigots. But that isn't reality. The news doesn't represent all Americans, just the loudest Americans.

It does not matter what was said or done here today, what matters is what is reported about what was said or done here today.
Jon Stewart.

By only focusing on the extremists, the news distorts the issues. Suddenly the government is catering to a small group of people that the majority of Americans don't agree with. But does anyone ask us? No. It's not like this is a democracy or anything. It's not like we voted any of these people into office to represent us.

We're all tired of it. But no one listens to us. That's the problem, and that's how the problem persists. It's a vicious cycle.

I'm Unhappy and I'd Rather Not Take it Anymore


I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear because I'm not a nutjob. I'm not on the far right or far left. I don't like screaming and shouting, I don't like negative campaigns, I don't like propaganda, and I don't like being lied to. I don't have the clout or money to get my opinions heard. I'm unhappy with Democrats and Republicans.

No More Giant Douche Turd Sandwich Politics

I went because I'm upset that South Park is true, and my only choices seem to be a "giant douche" and a "turd sandwich."

I went because Jon Stewart is funny.

I went because Stephen Colbert is hilarious.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

The Gay Marriage Debate


Friday, October 22, 2010

Joshua Komisarjevsky Calls Dr. Petit a Coward

Okay, I haven't written about what's been going on in the trial. What was there to say? It's a brutal crime? I can't imagine the pain Dr. William Petit feels? I agree with the jury's verdict? Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky both deserve to die?

All obvious. All been said before.

But this. Even if Komisarjevsk is just writing this crap because he knows it'll be used against him and he wants the death penalty, you just don't do this. He took everything from Dr. Petit, everything, and then he calls the man a "coward" in a document that's sure to be read in court.

Joshua Komisarjevsky, Infamous Fiction Author


In his writings, Komisarjevsky says, "Mr. Petit is a coward, he ran away when he felt his own life was threatened. Time and time again I gave him the chance to save his family."

He also claims Dr. Petit was "passive" towards saving his family. "If you don't want to defend your family, then take your chances with the criminal while police sit outside and follow protocol."

I don't know what Komisarjevsky thinks someone who's beaten nearly to death and tied up (even when Dr. Petit escaped he couldn't unbind his feet) can do, and I don't necessarily care. I think much of what Komisarjevsky writes is self-serving, penned in an attempt to reach some desired goal.

But don't spit in the face of the man whose life you destroyed. Komisarjevsky took everything Dr. Petit lived for but left the man alive. I hate to say this, and please don't take it the wrong way, but the crime would be a little less cruel if Dr. Petit hadn't survived; he could at least be with his family, then. He'd be at peace. Instead, he's living through this pain every day.

Dr. William Petit Shows Indefinable Strength


Ever since I heard about this crime, I thought Dr. Petit acted heroically. He was beaten with a baseball bat and lost between six and seven pints of blood. He was bound to a support pole by a rope around his chest and waist and his hands were bound with plastic zip ties, yet he amazingly managed to free himself and—with his ankles still tied—jumped, crawled, and finally rolled out of the basement and to his neighbors' house where he called for help.

It was heroic. That makes this whole tragedy all the worse. Dr. Petit's actions should have saved his family. Most people couldn't do what he did. He was beaten almost to death but still managed to escape to get help.

His actions are inspiring. We can all only hope that, if we are ever (god forbid) in such a situation, we can do what he did.

He deserves a medal for his heroism, he really does. Instead the world brutally murdered his family and burned his house, destroying his memories.

Helen Ubiñas, a Hartford Courant columnist who covered the trial, told CNN that the testimony and evidence made the trial "an incredibly grueling ordeal for the family and for the jury."

CNN asked Ubiñas if she was surprised by Petit's stoicism in court.

"I think that's the one thing that many of us have been asking. We've been in awe of not just Dr. Petit, who of course has shown tremendous strength and grace through all this, but the whole Hawke and Petit families, I think, have shown the strength that many of us just wonder [if] we would have if we were put in that same situation."

The Father Didn't 'Flee for his Life'


I don't think Dr. Petit escaped to save his own skin; he escaped to save his family.* I believe his only thoughts were of his loved ones. Rather than fearing for his own life, he feared for their lives. He showed bravery in trying to get help. And that he's still here three years after losing his wife and daughters shows how strong he truly is.

Bound at the ankles by hard, plastic "zip ties," disoriented from a severe head wound, William Petit "rolled' up the driveway of his neighbor, David Simcik. "Dave, Dave, Dave," he called.

Lying on his side, Petit banged on the garage door. When it opened, his neighbor did not recognize him beneath the blood and swelling.

"Dave, it's me, Bill. Call 9-1-1."

A plainclothes policeman appeared seemingly within seconds. Gun drawn he asked Petit, "Who's in the house?"

"The girls," Petit cried.

The policeman, dressed in a heavy, black SWAT uniform, yelled two more times, "Who's in the house?"

Twice more Petit cried, "The girls are in the house." Finally, the policeman told Petit to "stay down, you're a witness"—to which, Dr. Petit beseeched "the girls are in the house."
It Kept Coming Back To "The Girls". Katie Rohner, New Haven Independent.


I don't believe that Komisarjevsky wounded William Petit with his words. But even though Dr. Petit said, "I really don't want to dignify the ravings of a sociopath who appears to be a pathological liar as well," I think Komisarjevsky poured salt in wounds that already exist. I think it adds to doubts that Dr. Petit already struggles with.

Maybe three years and therapy have helped Dr. Petit, but I don't know by how much, and sitting through the grueling trial must make everything raw again.

I know Komisarjevsky is a psychopath and a liar, and nothing he says truly matters when compared with what he did. At the same time…

It would be difficult to convince me Dr. Petit doesn't suffer with survivor's guilt, struggling daily with thoughts of what he could have done differently.*

In his head, he did save his family, even if he doesn't survive. Countless times, countless ways, he saves them.

Who's the Real Coward Here?


Joshua Komisarjevsky beat a sleeping father with a baseball bat. He tied up the family. He stole from a hard-working family of four. He sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl. He took obscene photos of the girls with which he planned to blackmail the parents. He poured gasoline on Michaela and set the house on fire. He and Hayes killed three people and believed they were killing four.

Everything I just listed is the act of a coward.

Dr. Petit, on the other hand, is strong. He has sat through this harrowing trial, sacrificing his mental health to bring his family justice. He was brave, trying to save his wife and daughters. He may not have gotten the right outcome, but he didn't fail; the world failed him.

Dr. Petit acted heroically. I really hope he knows that.

Sources:

* I do not actually know Dr. Petit, his motives, or his thoughts. I don't claim to, either. And I don't want to put words in his mouth. I'm not trying to be offensive by making assumptions about him or his life. I'm just using my own thoughts on this as an example: what I would do or think in such an awful situation. But the experience he has lived through is so horrible I don't think anyone could truly imagine what it's like to be in his shoes. I apologize if I get it wrong.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

MI Asst. AG Andrew Shirvell is Obsessed with Homosexuality

I have referenced Andrew Shirvell's disturbing pattern of behavior before. Well, here are some more pieces of the pattern.

Andrew Shirvell Seeks Homosexual Men


Christopher Armstrong is not the first gay individual to be at the other end of Andrew Shirvell's (misguided) wrath.

On August 7, 2008, Andrew Shirvell responded to the news that Sean Kosofsky, former policy director for gay-rights nonprofit Triangle Foundation, is moving from Michigan to North Carolina:

Over the past decade, Kosofsky has been a zealous promoter of bizarre lifestyle choices here in Michigan, most notably by leading the "Triangle Foundation" — a Michigan clearinghouse that argues that homosexuals are entitled to special rights.

Although Kosofsky will no longer earn his living by indoctrinating children with his perversity, he’ll be instead advocating for their deaths on-demand via legalized abortion.

In fact, it's probably no coincidence that Kosofsky will be promoting abortion "rights" in North Carolina, a state with a very high Christian population. I guess if he can't recruit the children of God-fearing Americans to his bizarre lifestyle, he wants them dead.

Radical homosexuals have long populated the ranks of the pro-abortion movement since they despise "breeders," a.k.a. normal people.

There is a sick relationship between the pro-abortion rights' mantra and the radical homosexual agenda: both are intrinsically opposed to pro-creation.

The pro-abortion and radical homosexual movements are merely branches of the same rotten tree known as the Culture of Death. It is impossible to embrace one movement without embracing the other.

Gay conservatives don't have to wonder where they stand: Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell will gladly insult them, too.

This time, Shirvell’s homophobia was directed at Joe Sylvester, editor of Michigan Conservative Dossier, and Tyler Whitney, a gay Republican who is running for local office in the township of Bath.

On Facebook, Joe Sylvester suggested that it was possible to oppose abortion rights without opposing gay rights. Shirvell responded:

You'd probably still 'do' him [Kosofsky], right Joe? You people are all the same. Anyway, you're finished within GOP circles within this state. And you don't even have the family connections that keeps your "buddy" Tyler from sinking into total oblivion (although he will eventually).
Andrew Shirvell to Joe Sylvester on Facebook

I guess this is more of Andrew Shirvell's "adult-level criticism."

Joe Sylvester discussed the incident with The Michigan Messenger.

Sylvester told Michigan Messenger he found the exchange inappropriate.

"I had never heard of Mr Shirvell before I got that nasty message from him," Sylvester said in an e-mail interview with Michigan Messenger. "He seems to go out of his way to contact gay conservatives to insult and condemn them."

Joe Sylvester expressed concern about Shirvell’s ability to do his job: "I think that if something comes before him where he has to deal with a case that involves a gay or lesbian party, he doesn’t have the capability of being fair because he is very radical on it and downright insulting."


The Science of Homosexuality and Homophobia


So, on a completely unrelated note…

These scientific articles aren't necessarily new, but for one reason or another I think they deserve mentioning here:

Monday, October 4, 2010

Prosecutor Andrew Shirvell Confuses Stalking with Free Speech

Everyone seems to be hiding behind the First Amendment these days, like it shields them from all other allegations. The First Amendment covers freedom of speech, but nowhere does it say that all other transgressions are forgiven as long as they're done in the guise of "free speech."

It's pretty upsetting when the Michigan Assistant Attorney General, a prosecutor, doesn't understand the very laws he has pledged to uphold. How can Andrew Shirvell practice law if he doesn't even know the law?

What is Stalking?


Michigan state defines stalking as:
… a willful course of conduct[1] involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed[2], or molested, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.
Michigan Penal Code MCLA750.411 h
  1. In this definition, "willful course of conduct" refers to a pattern of behavior made up of a series of two or more separate and noncontinuous acts which share the same purpose.
  2. The term "harassed" is defined as repeated or continuing unconsented contact directed toward a victim resulting in emotional distress.

Under these laws, assailants could be charged with stalking for repeatedly:

  • Following or appearing within the sight of the targeted victim.
  • Approaching or confronting the targeted victim in a public or private place.
  • Appearing at the workplace or residence of the targeted victim.
  • Entering or remaining on the targeted victim's property.
  • Contacting the targeted victim by telephone.
  • Sending mail or electronic mail to the targeted victim.

Stalking (without aggravating circumstances) is punishable by up to one year imprisonment, or up to $1,000 in fines, or both.

This information is from a Michigan pamphlet on Anti-Stalking Laws that can be found on Michigan.gov: Stalking: Understand your rights [pdf]. Much of what's above is verbatim so as to avoid confusion.

Andrew Shirvell's Behavior Compared to a Stalker's


Following or appearing within the sight of the targeted victim.
  • Since April 2010, Shirvell has been following Christopher Armstrong around U-M's campus and Ann Arbor.
  • On several separate occasions, Shirvell followed Armstrong’s friends throughout Ann Arbor, hoping to come across Armstrong.
Approaching or confronting the targeted victim in a public or private place.
  • In May, Shirvell attended a counter-protest rally at the University of Michigan, heckled Armstrong after his speech, and followed Armstrong wherever he went.
  • In June, Shirvell talked to two of Armstrong's friends, Brad and Mical, outside of a nightclub. Shirvell told Mical he knew where she lived and threatened to show up at her house when she had a party in the next week or so.
  • In August, Shirvell went to a Michigan Student Assembly meeting, called Armstrong a racist, and demanded that he resign.
Appearing at the workplace or residence of the targeted victim.
  • Shirvell has been seen taking photographs outside Armstrong's house.
  • Andrew Shirvell posted flyers around the U-M campus, including the MSA Office door (where Armstrong works) and in other restricted areas of the campus.
  • On September 4, Shirvell showed up at 1:30 am at a house party Armstrong was holding.
  • On September 6, Armstrong asked for an escort from the University of Michigan’s Department of Public Safety after Shirvell showed up at Armstrong’s Ann Arbor home.
  • During a gay-support event that Armstrong helped put together, Shirvell engaged participants and defamed Armstrong's character. He stayed for the entirety of the event.
  • Later that same day, Shirvell showed up at another event Armstrong was working on. The Department of Public Safety asked him to leave the event since it was closed for U-M students. Later, Armstrong was informed that Shirvell showed up at his house again.
Contacting the targeted victim by telephone.
  • Shirvell called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's office twice over the summer after Armstrong got an internship there.
  • Shirvell continued to call Nancy Pelosi's office, on multiple occasions, but his calls were denied.
Sending mail or electronic mail to the targeted victim.
  • Shirvell created a Facebook group, "U of M Alumni and others Against Chris Armstrong and His Radical MSA Agenda." The group violated Facebook policies and was taken down.
  • Shirvell created a blog, "Chris Armstrong Watch," which contains the same libelous hate-speech as the defunct Facebook group.
  • Shirvell contacted one of Armstrong's friends via email to advertise his blog.

Shirvell also stalked Armstrong online. He watched Armstrong and Armstrong's friends and family on Facebook. He got access to Armstrong's information even after Armstrong made his Facebook page friends-only.

In addition, Shirvell obtained information that Armstrong only told his friends and never posted online.

Assistant AG Andrew Shirvell Acts Like a Stalker


Diane Brown, spokeswoman for the U-M Police, said Shirvell was issued a trespass warning on September 14. This means Shirvell is banned from the University of Michigan campus. Brown issued this trespass order because the U-M police had received a complaint "about him being a possible suspect in harassing or stalking behavior." Shirvell is appealing the order.

Chris Armstrong has submitted an application for a restraining order against Andrew Shirvell.

In his application, Armstrong says, "The actions that Mr. Shirvell has taken against me over the past 4 months have been incredibly distressing. His actions are concerning and make me feel unsure about my own safety." He goes on to say that it has "been incredibly hurtful and distressing to see his [Shirvell's] actions … His actions … have been an outright attack on my ability to live my life openly…."

Going by the information present in this post, the state of Michigan defines Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell's actions as stalking.

If Shirvell says he's not a stalker, I'd say he doesn't understand even simple laws and is unfit to serve as a prosecutor.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

MI Asst. AG Andrew Shirvell's Psychopath-Like Behavior

Yesterday I listed many of the characteristics of a psychopath. Today I will discuss Andrew Shirvell's behavior. I can't say that Shirvell is or isn't a psychopath or dangerous individual, but I think Michigan should be very concerned about his actions.

DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to know the reasons for Andrew Shirvell's behavior. I am not a medical professional. I cannot and am not making any diagnosis or assessment of any persons' mental or physical health. Reliance on any information provided by Logic Over Politics or other visitors to the site is solely at your own risk. The content is provided on an "as is" basis. Read at your own discretion.

Andrew Shirvell Exhibits a Distressing Pattern of Behavior


Some of Andrew Shirvell's inappropriate behavior includes
  • focusing on Christopher Armstrong since April 2010.
    • Armstrong is not currently campaigning.
    • Andrew Shirvell is not currently a student at U-M.
  • protesting outside Armstrong's house.
  • confronting Armstrong's friends and family.
  • calling Armstrong's employers to accuse him of racism.
  • following Christopher Armstrong throughout Ann Arbor.
  • following Armstrong's friends throughout Ann Arbor.
  • naming and criticizing Armstrong's friends and family.
    • Shirvell systematically attacks Chris Armstrong's family in a blog post titled "Chris Armstrong: The PRIVILEGED Pervert."
    • Shirvell claims one of Armstrong's friends is racist because his Facebook status said: "native american indian cultures may be the most painful class of all time[.]"
  • standing outside Armstrong's house taking photographs.
  • standing outside Armstrong's house videotaping him.
  • stalking Christopher Armstrong and Armstrong's friends online.
    • He monitors Armstrong's friends on Facebook.
    • Armstrong made his Facebook page private, but Shirvell still manages to gain access.
  • entering restricted areas on the U-M campus to post flyers.
  • editing photos of Armstrong to include Nazi swastikas, the rainbow flag, the word "RESIGN," etc.

Andrew Shirvell Distorts the Truth or Believes in a Twisted Fantasy


Shirvell has made extreme and possibly libelous allegations concerning Christopher Armstrong's private and intimate affairs. His accusations don't seem unbiased or objective; they are littered with hate speech and homophobic 'stereotypes' of the LGBT community.

Andrew Shirvell alleges Christopher Armstrong
  • is a "fierce advocate" and "recruiter" for "the cult that is homosexuality."
  • is "a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR."
  • is "Satan's representative on the student assembly."
  • engaged in "flagrant sexual promiscuity" with another male member of the student government.
  • sexually seduced and influenced "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student "morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda."
  • held a dorm room orgy. (See the amazing way Shirvell arrived at this analysis!)
  • has sex in churches and children's playgrounds.
  • hosted a "gay rush" party at the beginning of the academic term and is actively recruiting students to join the "homosexual lifestyle."
  • encourages underage drinking.
  • went back on a campaign promise to minority students.
  • is a proponent of a "racist, anti-Christian agenda."
  • is "promoting a satanic lifestyle, and … is a fierce advocate for it."
  • promotes "special rights for homosexuals at the cost of heterosexual students."
  • broke the law by engaging in underage binge-drinking when he attended a party he listed on his Facebook account.
    • Shirvell admitted he didn't actually see Armstrong at the party.
    • Armstrong wasn't in town the night of the party.
  • has a "NAZI-LIKE Hatred of the First Amendment."

Andrew Shirvell Sees Nothing Wrong with His Actions


Shirvell has never apologized for his actions or allegations. He defends himself, saying
  • "I'm a Christian citizen exercising my First Amendment rights."
  • he is a "Concerned Michigan Alumnus."
  • he is treating Armstrong like an adult with "adult-level criticism."
  • "I have no problem with the fact that Chris is a homosexual. I have a problem with the fact that he's advancing a radical homosexual agenda." (in response to accusations of homophobia)
  • "I have done NOTHING immoral OR illegal. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Armstrong and his fellow radical homosexual activists and 'allies.' As Isaiah rightly prophesied: 'Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…' (5:20)."
  • it's "nothing personal."
  • "Did he [Armstrong] think he was just going to get some free pass just because he's gay or whatever?"
  • "The real bigot here is Chris Armstrong. I don't have any hate in my -- in my body at all."
  • "Chris has never come out and denied anything. There's a reason why he isn't giving interviews, and that's because he can't defend what's on the blog."

That last statement suggests Shirvell interprets the given evidence to fit his perception of reality. That's a scary thought given his position as a public official.

Other patterns I personally see include reaching unreasonable conclusions with almost no connection to the facts presented, perceiving his own feelings of hatred and anger in others, and—when asked to explain his behavior—his responses focus on the actions of or his perception of others rather than truly answering the question.

The "radical homosexual agenda" Andrew Shirvell refers to is this: Armstrong has supported gender-neutral housing at the university for transgender students who haven't had sexual reassignment surgery.

Students were advocating for this before Armstrong was voted in as president of the MSA. Christopher Armstrong did not create this issue; he just supports it.

Besides extending gender-neutral housing, Armstrong has also campaigned to stop tuition hikes and mitigate underage drinking by keeping dining halls open later.

Assistant AG Andrew Shirvell's behavior needs to be dealt with, especially considering he may be breaking the law by harassing or stalking Christopher Armstrong.

What do you think of Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell's behavior?

Saturday, October 2, 2010

MI Asst. AG Andrew Shirvell: Psychopath?

After seeing Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell defend his actions on CNN, I was left feeling very uneasy. I tried to figure out what it was about him that was so disquieting. I am not using hyperbole here. Andrew Shirvell came off as a very disturbed individual, if not a psychopath.

DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to know the reasons for Andrew Shirvell's behavior. I am not a medical professional. I cannot and am not making any diagnosis or assessment of any persons' mental or physical health. Reliance on any information provided by Logic Over Politics or other visitors to the site is solely at your own risk. The content is provided on an "as is" basis. Read at your own discretion.

Anderson Cooper Interviews Andrew Shirvell


If you haven't seen it already, watch CNN's Official Interview of Andrew Shirvell.

Anderson Cooper and Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell

When I watch the interview, these are some of the things that stand out to me:
  • Shirvell's expression never changes. He's never emotive.
  • He tells Anderson Cooper "I sense a lot of anger in your voice." It suggests that Shirvell is unable to understand a wide range of emotions or he is actually referencing his own internal anger.
  • Shirvell stays in the same position through the interview. He barely moves.
  • His eyes look all around. He seems bored, totally unengaged in the conversation. His responses are robotic and repetitive.
  • A person must be very passionate or insanely obsessed to take actions like those Shirvell is taking in protesting Chris Armstrong. Shirvell displays no passion in this interview…

The Disturbing Behavior of a Psychopath


Psychopaths
  • gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior.
    • Antisocial behavior can be generally characterized as an overall lack of adherence to the social mores and standards that allow members of a society to coexist peaceably.
    • People exhibiting antisocial behavior are extremely selfish and self-centered.
  • do not feel shame, remorse, or guilt for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.
    • They appear to lack a conscience.
    • They are completely self-serving.
  • display a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth.
  • use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own needs.
  • have a limited range or depth of feelings ("shallow affect").
    • Genuine emotion has a tendency to be short lived.
    • Emotional displays are egocentric with an overall cold demeanor.
  • have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves.
    • They routinely disregard rules, social mores and laws, unmindful of putting themselves or others at risk.
    • They do not deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved, or injured as a result of their behavior.
  • lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness.
  • have a complete disregard for the feelings and rights of others.*

What Is Antisocial Behavior?


The term "antisocial behavior" is often used incorrectly.

Antisocial behavior may include
  • persistent lying or stealing.
  • apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others.
  • a tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others.
  • disregard for right and wrong.
  • irresponsible work behavior.
  • disregard for safety.*

* In these lists, I have left out any references to cruelty to animals, relationships, and promiscuity because I have no information about the details of Andrew Shirvell's private life. Unlike him, I have boundaries.

Tomorrow I will address Andrew Shirvell's behavior.

More Information:

The image used in this post was originally found at Switched.com.

Andrew Shirvell Breaks the Rules and Uses Power as a Bullying Tactic

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell and his boss, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, have both defended Shirvell's actions on the grounds that his actions outside of the office do not affect his work.

However, if Andrew Shirvell uses his position as Assistant Attorney General while protesting, that would be a different story, wouldn't it?

On CNN's AC360, Michigan Representative Alma Wheeler Smith said of Shirvell, "He uses his presence in the Attorney General's Office as a bullying tactic."

According to Wheeler, a student at U-M was in a counter-picket to one of the demonstrations that Andrew Shirvell was attending. They had a clash of opinions and Shirvell used his position as Assistant Attorney General with U-M to get the student dismissed from a course.

Wheeler goes on to say, "He should be dismissed from the Attorney General's Office. He's using the power of that office, he's using the representation of the office in his encounters in order to intimidate and win favor and points for his cause."

That sounds like an abuse of power.

Watch the October 2, 2010 episode of Anderson Cooper 360 for Cooper's interview with Alma Wheeler Smith.

If Shirvell used his power as Assistant AG while protesting, that means he acted as a representative of the Attorney General's Office at the time.

If Wheeler's account isn't mistaken, Asst. AG Andrew Shirvell may have a lot to answer for… Considering Shirvell may be using intimidation, harassment, and defamation and libel to promote his cause, I wonder if he just exposed the Attorney General's Office to a possible lawsuit…

Friday, October 1, 2010

Prosecutor Andrew Shirvell Supports Bullying Gay People

The Assistant Attorney General represents the state. Furthermore, prosecutors are supposed to fight for justice, protect the innocent, and make sure that everyone gets fair treatment under the law. This requires a certain amount of objectivity.

Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell
Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell doesn't seem to possess objectivity, common decency, or even common sense. Shirvell is a University of Michigan alum and has taken it upon himself to "protest" (his words) Christopher Armstrong, the first openly gay president of the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly).

Let it be known that Christopher Armstrong is not running for president of the MSA; he was already (overwhelmingly) voted in by U-M students. The students knew when they voted for him that he is gay. So, one really good question is… Who the hell is Shirvell trying to appeal to?

Anyway, I don't want to just provide the same information available on every blog and newscast. This is more about Shirvell's impeccable timing and how his "off-hours" activities really do affect his work.

Children are Committing Suicide Because of Bullying


Across the nation, kids are suffering. Some are committing suicide.

  • Tyler Clementi, 18, was secretly filmed having sex with another man. His roommate and another classmate broadcast these sexual encounters over the internet. The day after, Tyler Clementi jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge. [Full Story at Washington Post]
  • Seth Walsh, 13, committed suicide last week after being bullied for years for being gay. [Full Story at San Francisco Chronicle]
  • Asher Brown, 13, shot himself after being harassed at his middle school. His peers bullied him for being gay for at least 18 months. [Full Story at Houston Chronicle]
  • Billy Lucas, 15, hung himself after being bullied. Billy's friend said classmates called Billy "gay and tell [sic] him to go kill himself." [Full Story at WISHTV]
  • Raymond Chase, 19, an openly gay young man, hung himself in his dormitory on September 29. [Full Story at Now Public]

That's five deaths in the last three weeks alone. And those are just the ones we know about.

Right now, the nation needs to take action and make sure that bullying is not allowed to continue. LGBT youth, and any youth suffering at the hands of bullies, need our help.

So, while bullying is pushing gay youth to commit suicide, Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell is using his "free time" to bully a young, gay man…

Mike Cox Both Fights ands Employs Cyber-Bullies at the Same Time


The ironic part of this story is that Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is busy teaching students across the state about the dangers of internet predators and cyber-bullies.

"We want you to be safe on the Internet, and in particular, we want to protect you from Internet predators," Mike Cox says in his educational video.

When asked, Assistant AG Andrew Shirvell insisted that he does not meet the definition of a cyber-bully.

Meanwhile, cyber-bullying expert and Michigan State University instructor Glenn Stutzky said Shirvell's blog meets the definition of cyber-bullying. He goes on to say that Shirvell’s blog is the type of harassment he and others are trying to outlaw.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Prosition 8 - Discrimination vs Public Opinion

I've already expressed my opinion on same-sex marriage: there's nothing wrong with it. But my opinion isn't the issue.

The people of California are complaining that the majority spoke and Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker didn't listen, that the judge overturned a law that the majority of California wants and that's not fair.

Except, it is fair. That's what the judge (and the government in general) is there for.

The government's job is to uphold the rights of its citizens, including minorities. The majority of people used to be against treating blacks equally and allowing interracial marriage. But when the majority wants to take away the rights of a minority of citizens, that's when the government steps in and says, "No." That's one of the responsibilities of the American government: to ensure equality.

Usually, the majority wins. That's how democracy works. That's how officials are elected. That's how laws are chosen. But when the majority wants to impose its religious beliefs on others, when the majority wants to take away others' rights, that's when our elected officials step in.

That's why we have a government of people instead of a machine that just does whatever the majority demands. History has shown that the majority isn't always right.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Proposition 8 - The Government Screws Up Some More

Where did this idea that allowing same-sex couples to marry would destroy the institution of marriage come from? It's ridiculous. Allowing two people of the same gender to marry doesn't invalidate the marriage of a heterosexual couple.

If two people of the same gender love each other, they should be allowed to marry, and that marriage should be respected just like any other. All the time we see loveless marriages between men and women; I think those devalue marriage more than anything.

According to What is Prop 8?, there are other consequences to losing Proposition 8. I think the government is sticking its foot in this too far and needs to back off.

Schools should not be teaching children about marriage. Marriage, outside of the government stuff like taxes and health-care coverage, is something for parents to teach their children. And parents should always be allowed to excuse their children from sex education.

Religions shouldn't be forced to accept gay marriage if they don't want to. I don't agree with the Pope's bigoted anti-gay speeches, but that's Roman Catholicism. People can choose what religion they belong to, so anyone who disagrees with a religion's beliefs can go elsewhere for their spiritual needs.

The US is all about separating Church and State. That's a big deal here. So stepping in and telling religions they have to accept gay marriage is all kinds of wrong. If a Church doesn't want to host a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, then the couple can find somewhere else to get married.

In time, hopefully, religions will come to see that gay people aren't the end of the world. But forcing that to happen sooner rather than later is not the government's job.

Allowing couples, regardless of gender, to get married is the government's job. Allowing gays and heterosexuals access to tax credits, health care, and other Benefits of Marriage is important. Making sure banks and hospitals and insurance companies and employers don't discriminate against same-sex couples is the government's job. But the morality of marriage is the territory of religion, and it's something for parents, not schools, to teach their children.

As for a same-sex couple adopting children... I have one qualm about this issue. If, for example, two men adopt a girl, I think for the most part they could do a fine job of raising her. But when she starts having girl problems, when she hits puberty and has issues with her menstrual cycle, neither of the two people raising her have actual life experience to share with her. When two women adopt a boy, and he has problems with spontaneous erections or nocturnal emissions, those two women don't have life experience to share with him.

But I'm not in a homosexual relationship, I've never raised children, and so I don't know how a same-sex couple would or should handle such situations. That's just the one problem I see with having a child.

So, I think the government should legalize same-sex marriage, but I don't think it should step in where religion is concerned. I don't think schools should be including the morality of marriage, same-sex or otherwise, in their curriculums.

Wasn't the whole point of the United States of America to protect its people without taking away their freedom? Isn't freedom of religion one of America's valued rights? And isn't the issue of the morality of sex and marriage religious domain?

The government seems determined to either go too far or do nothing at all.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Losers in the BP Oil Spill

I kept meaning to write about the BP Oil incident, but I was more interested in watching the news and learning about what was going on. After 30 days, I was baffled by how oil could still be pumping out into the Gulf of Mexico. Then it was 60 days. Then 80 days. If you had told me on day 1 that it would take 86 days to fix that leak, I would've told you, "No way, our government isn't that incompetent."

I should have known better.

Now that oil has stopped gushing out, the media is moving away from the oil spill. I keep hearing the headline, "Where did all the oil go?" This suggests to people that the oil is all cleaned up and everything is okay, but the oil isn't cleaned up and everything is definitely not okay.

If you want to find oil, go to Louisiana's marshes. Once oil gets into the wetlands, it's there to stay. That's not good for people or the wildlife.

The other issue is employment. Lots of people are still out of jobs. The problem is exacerbated by the moratorium on deep-water drilling.

Do I think the moratorium is necessary? I don't know. I'm truly conflicted on this one. On the one hand, people need jobs, they need income, and they need the oil companies to not say, "Bah, it's not worth it" and take their business elsewhere. On the other hand, if another rig explodes and we end up with more oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, then we've just committed an egregious and foreseeable error that can be called 'making the same mistake twice.'

The problem is that this whole mess never should have gotten this far. We shouldn't have to choose between jobs and another possible oil spill. There were supposed to be all these roadblocks and fail safes. What happened to those?

Well, first there's BP. They should've been practicing "Safety Always." They weren't. Bad decisions were made by many people, from the 'keep on drilling' to the 'we turned the alarm off to prevent false alarms.' BP also lied about having a back-up plan in case of an emergency. Papers state that they're committed to saving the walruses in the Gulf. You know, the walruses that aren't there.

It's not just BP, either. Lots of oil companies have the same exact back-up plans as BP… word-for-word, walruses and everything. Shouldn't this have caught the MMS's eye?

This brings me to my second point: the MMS. We all know that big business takes shortcuts at the risk of employees and the environment. We know that oil is a dangerous business. That's why the we created the MMS. They're supposed to keep an eye on the oil companies, make sure they have worst-case scenario plans, make sure the scientific studies are completed, make sure all safety standards are adhered to. Did the MMS do any of that? Not really. Instead, they were friends with people in the oil companies. They couldn't police their friends! ...Isn't that like the definition of a conflict of interests?

So yeah, the government screwed up big time. And they try to divert attention away from that fact by holding interrogations where they ask questions they knew wouldn't be answered. They posture and they yell and they try to prove that they're actively doing something. If they really wanted to impress Americans, the senators would be out in the Gulf helping to clean up the spill. Watching them congregate in an air-conditioned room in DC to lecture BP's CEO is a disappointing display. Stop wasting time. Concentrate on cleaning up the spill first.

In some ways, the government screwed up more than BP. After all, the government realizes that the oil companies need to be closely monitored to prevent incidents like this. But they didn't follow through. 'Oh, you say it's unlikely an oil spill will occur in the Gulf? Go ahead and drill. We don't need scientific studies. We don't need proof.' Yeah, great policy.

So yes, the government made a mistake by not enforcing regulations. BP made a mistake by ignoring safety standards. And the government made another mistake through inaction: BP said, "Everything's okay," and the President said, "Oh, okay," and even when it was clear that nothing was okay the President still didn't act.

On day 62 of the Gulf oil spill (June 20), Louisiana designated a statewide date of prayer. Things were just getting worse and worse, and they wanted God's help with this crisis. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart responded:

Apparently, in Louisiana mortals only get sixty days to solve problems. After that, f—k it, let's call God. … You know, actually, the oil is under a mile of seawater and another two and a half miles of solid sediment earth, so I think God's done enough to prevent these spills.
Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

That's right, there were so many obstacles that should have prevented this from happening, no one should have to ask, "Sandbars or oil? Jobs or possible oil?" Because there are no good answers to these questions. At the end of every road is a dead end and a sign saying "You Lose."

We all lose.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Bush-era Memo Supports Arizona's New Law

In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration... "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

Read the entire article at The Washington Post: Memo from 2002 could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Flushing Taxpayer Money Down the Toilet and Into Mexico

Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that your tax dollars are taking care of illegal immigrants? People break the law, and American citizens are forced to foot the bill for all their benefits.

From a recent article, Cost of Illegal Immigration Rising Rapidly in Arizona, Study Finds:

FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.

From a 2007 article, $2.2 trillion illegal alien taxpayer sticker shock:

A household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million.

If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.

From a 2004 article, California's Illegal Aliens Cost Taxpayers Nearly $9 Billion A Year:

California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year, according to the report. Medical care for illegal immigrants and incarceration of those who have committed crimes are the next two largest expenses measured in the study.

From another good article, The High Cost of Cheap Labor:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

From a 2010 article, Mexico’s Calderon Scolds Arizona While Mooching from U.S. Taxpayers:

Remittances sent by Mexicans topped $15.5 billion in the first few months of this year, 20 percent higher than the amount sent during the same period the previous year, according to Mexico’s central bank, and this year’s annual figure is expected to hit a new record.

Savings scraped together by nannies, painters and others working abroad are now Mexico’s second-largest source of foreign revenue, after oil exports and ahead of tourism, according to analysts interviewed by the WSJ.

During a time when American citizens are struggling with unemployment and debt, the government continues to waste our money on things the majority of Americans are opposed to! Instead of using our tax dollars to secure the border, the US government uses our money to support illegal immigrants. It's emptying our pockets and drowning our schools.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Mexican President Trashes Arizona

I like this short article from examiner.com.

Arizona's willingness to start enforcing existing immigration laws while expressly forbidding racial profiling only threatens to create discrimination against Latinos as much as enforcing our murder laws threatens to create discrimination against blacks.

Profiling is illegal, regardless of the law you are enforcing, and Arizona's immigration law even goes out of its way to place an added emphasis on it. You don't just stop enforcing the law because a wildly disproportionate amount of one race is responsible for violating it.

Calderon's condescending lecture also included a demand that we reward this non-stop invasion of our country with full amnesty and endless taxpayer-funded handouts for illegal immigrants.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Los Angeles to Boycott Entire Country

Well, not yet. But it may come to that.

Yesterday I talked about Pennsylvania legislators discussing illegal immigration laws. Well, they're not alone. Oklahoma is also discussing new immigration laws.

Arizona last month adopted the nation's toughest measures against undocumented immigrants. Lawmakers in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri and Michigan quickly introduced copycat legislation.

Lawmakers in several other states that have already adjourned or are wrapping up legislative sessions -- Alabama, Texas, Utah, Idaho and Maryland -- have promised to push for measures similar to Arizona's when their legislators reconvene.

In Colorado, Republican Scott McInnis, who is leading Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper in the polls, has promised something similar to Arizona's law if he is elected.

I hope all these states pass new immigration laws. It would really make a statement about how pissed off Americans are at the Federal Government's refusal to deal with this issue.

I'd also like to see what Los Angeles would do if a bunch of states joined Arizona. Would LA boycott them all? Or would they admit they were wrong? Most likely, LA would come up with excuses as to why only Arizona needs to be boycotted.

These boycotts seem childish. And the amusing thing is, the American public doesn't even agree with boycotting Arizona.

A new Rasmussen poll shows most people across the country don't agree with the boycott.

The poll, released first to FOX News, shows that 14 percent of Americans think it's a good idea for other cities and states to boycott Arizona. 68 percent say it's not.

Will Americans support such a boycott? 40 percent say they would avoid doing business with a city or state boycotting Arizona. 43 percent say they would not.

"40 percent say they would avoid doing business with a city or state boycotting Arizona." Wow, is that irony or what!

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Pennsylvania Has Problems, Too

Pennsylvania legislators have been discussing measures to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Critics of the bill, such as Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, said immigration enforcement is a federal job, done by the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement agency. "State and local police are not charged with enforcing federal immigration legislation."

But Mr. Metcalfe said federal authorities have done a poor job of finding and deporting illegal immigrants and the state has the right to defend itself, as Arizona is doing.

It's difficult to know how many illegal immigrants are in Pennsylvania at any one time, but Mr. Metcalfe put the estimate at 140,000. He maintained they are costing state taxpayers at least $700 million a year in unnecessary costs for educating the children of illegal immigrants plus costs of welfare benefits, jail cells, health care, day care and food stamps.

Mr. Readshaw said he's glad that other legislators are finally "taking notice and taking a stand and working to cut back on the serious financial drain that illegal aliens cause to Pennsylvania taxpayers every year."
Pennsylvania legislators hope to mirror Arizona's immigration bill. Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau.

Then there's a post over at Scared Monkeys: Only in America do you get Judges who block laws against Illegal Activities … Federal judge James Munley blocks PA town crackdown on illegal immigrants

Take a good look at what this Federal judge did in blocking the city of Hazleton from enforcing a pair of ordinances targeting illegal immigrants. Key word here would be "illegal".

U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that landlords, tenants and businesses that cater to Hispanics faced "irreparable harm" from the laws and issued a temporary restraining order blocking their enforcement. (Yahoo News [iCyte])

So now we have "judicial activism" determining what illegal activity is ok and which is not. Why do we have laws at all? Which laws are ok to break and which one [sic] require jail time?

If you think illegal immigration is still illegal, check out this petition:

Enact Immigration Enforcement Laws In Pennsylvania


Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Stand with Arizona

Petitions don't always have an effect, but I'd rather sign a petition that does nothing than say, "Oh, it won't have an impact," and not sign a petition that could have made a difference.

So here, I urge you to check out this petition:

We Stand With Arizona, and Against Illegal Immigration


Stand With Arizona (and Against Illegal Immigration) on Facebook: We stand with Arizona! We stand against illegal immigration and the Federal government's refusal to secure the borders or enforce the law.

Monday, May 24, 2010

What's Wrong with America

What's Wrong with America - is that a question or a statement?

Make your own decision after reading this:

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch's established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I'm the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone's home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can't do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

It doesn't mention how much money Roger Barnett has been forced to spend to repair damages on his property, but I remember seeing the amount in some other article a while back and it was a LOT.

Only in America can an "ILLEGAL" sue for having their rights violated. Talk about your oxymorons. It was determined that their rights were not violated; however, that did not stop a jury from awarding them money. That is correct, an "illegal" was awarded money for entering the United States illegally? What every [sic] happened to property owners rights?
JUSTICE SERVED?, Scared Monkeys

The Scared Monkeys blog makes some good points and is an entertaining read.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Arizona is US's Kidnap Capital - Obama Approves

Yes, it's an inflammatory post title. But President Obama has repeatedly denounced Arizona's new immigration law.

What is Obama ultimately protecting?

He's protecting criminals. Drug runners. Mexican cartel. Rapists. Murders.

He's protecting the growing problem of kidnapping. Usually the victims are involved in criminal activities or are family members of those involved in criminal activities, but sometimes innocent people are mistakenly or purposefully targeted.

He's NOT protecting taxpayers. Arizona's taxpayers spend more than $2 billion a year on education and health care for illegal immigrants and their children. [Source]

He's protecting terrorists. Terrorists are crossing America's borders, coming through both Mexico and Canada.

To sum it up, President Obama, the man elected President by the American people, is protecting everyone EXCEPT American citizens.

For some reason, the illegals who break our laws are more important than the innocent people who are in this country legally and just want to live their lives in a safe environment.

To end on the note that I opened this post with, here's a little excerpt about America's Kidnap Capital:

In one… kidnapping, a 14-year-old girl from south Phoenix was mistakenly picked up on the street by a gun-toting snatch squad looking for the daughter of a known drug dealer….

"She happened to be standing outside in front of the home… they grabbed her in broad daylight… threw her in the vehicle and took off," said Roberts.

"Here is the perfect example of a young girl who has nothing to do with this, her family has nothing to do with this, she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Mexico Whines About Arizona's New Law

That's what it is: whining. I agree with Rep. Lamar Smith. He says Mexican officials have "crossed the line and are interfering in the internal affairs of the United States."

And what does President Obama do? He agrees with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. President Obama needs to stop pandering to everyone EXCEPT the people he swore to protect. He constantly criticizes America, and it's making the US look weak.

The people of America want tougher handling of illegal immigration, but President Obama seems to think he knows better than us. That's not how a democracy works. President Obama doesn't get to say, "Okay, America, I understand what you want. But I'm going to do the opposite."

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said, "We are spending millions of dollars to help Mexico fight the drug cartels that pose a threat to his government, and he doesn't seem to recognize our concerns. He ought to be apologizing to us instead of condemning us."

"Mexico wants people to come to the United States and to send their money home," Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, said. "They want to make their problems our problems — that's their foreign policy. President Calderon should spend more time focusing on problems in his own country instead of criticizing Arizona for doing what Mexican law requires its own to do."

This Fox News article talks about how "illegal immigrants in Mexico -- typically from Central America -- face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it."

But what about American citizens who are legally in Mexico? How are they treated? Considering how Mexican President Felipe Calderon demands that Arizona not discriminate against Mexicans, and how Mexico needs the money its illegal immigrants send back to Mexico, and how Mexico needs its tourism dollars, they must treat Americans like welcome guests in their country, right?

No. Recently, a Rutgers University graduate, Joseph "Zeke" Rucker, was vacationing in Cancun, Mexico when he was found with crushing head wounds. He's in a coma, now. Mexico seems to show little sympathy for Zeke's parents.

Zucker’s New Jersey–based parents strongly suspect foul play and random violence. But the American consulate told the family there will be no investigation, and Zeke’s parents say the Mexican police didn’t even bother to meet with them.

Mexican consulates on American soil are famous for vigorously intervening on behalf of their illegal-alien citizens — lobbying to get them driver’s licenses, bank accounts, and health care, for example, and rushing to defend illegal-alien border-crossers arrested in reckless- and drunk-driving cases.

The Mexican hospital that treated Zeke demanded up-front payment for all of the costs related to his care, surgery, and stay before allowing him to leave. Can you imagine the international uproar if a U.S. hospital demanded the same of Mexican citizens in its care?

And President Obama has the nerve to not only give credence to, but to totally agree with Calderon's objections to Arizona's new illegal immigration law? Things are give-and-take. America already gives Mexico way, way more than we get back, and Calderon is demanding more more more.

Why aren't American citizens absolutely outraged over this?