Conservative talk show host banned from U.K.

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

I have heard Michael Savage express many strong opinions, but I have never heard him advocate violence outside of legitimate warfare. For years his mantra has been the preservation of "borders, language, and culture", and has opposed those who desire the hostile overthrow of western culture.

It's ironic that the UK should single out such a talk show host and bar him from entry, in light of the fact that the UK has become increasingly a major producer of radical islamists who espouse violence... one of the very threats which Savage warns against.

Sad and worrisome. Freedom of non-violent speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. In the UK as well as in the USA, this cornerstone is being rapidly eroded by the forces of statism and those who determine that edgy political commentary at odds with state policy must be suppressed.

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case - Los Angeles Times

"The Supreme Court today took away one tool for prosecuting and deporting workers who are in this country illegally, ruling that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who knew they had stolen another person's Social Security number.

"The 9-0 decision overturns part of an Illinois man's conviction for using false documents.

"The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of 'aggravated identity theft' because he did not know he was using someone's Social Security number."

If any of the Supreme Court justices had had their identities stolen or "borrowed", their accounts raided, and their credit histories damaged as a result, I wonder if they would have ruled differently.

So, if I break into someone's house, find a pile of cash, and take it, it's not necessarily stealing, as long as I didn't know with certainty that the cash actually belonged to somebody?

Anyone who buys false identification -with or without a Social Security number- reasonably can be expected to realize that since the identifying information does not belong to himself, it quite possibly belongs to another real individual. It's reasonable to expect that buying such false documents should fall within the scope of laws prohibiting "identity theft".

The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, so it seems there was little controversy over the meaning of the law. Rather than blaming the court for a poor decision, it's probably more appropriate to blame the law for being badly written.

Perhaps identity theft laws should be expanded to prohibit any deliberate use Social Security numbers, account numbers, names, etc., that do not belong to the individual presenting them.

2,000 join immigrant rights march

Only 2,000 join immigrant rights march - Chicago Tribune

Do You leave Your home unsecured so that any trespasser can simply barge into Your home and take up residence? Suppose a stranger not only breaks into Your home, but then begins to insist You pay for his education, medical care, and more? Suppose he demands the same status, rights, and benefits of the home life enjoyed by You and Your family members?

No, if strangers attempt to break into Your home and claim the property and rights of Your family members, You call upon the police to enforce existing law, and to help restore Your legitimate rights and security... unless You want Your home and property to disappear.

I welcome LEGAL immigrants to this country. They are human beings with dignity and deserve humane treatment. I wish them success. But those who break into our country illegally do not have a right to demand citizenship or the rights of citizens.

It's not fair to offer illegal aliens special treatment not afforded to those in foreign countries who have worked and waited their turn to obtain legal entry into this country.

The borders need to be secured, and our immigration policies should be humane, even generous, as well as just, practical, ...and enforced.

U.S. government response to swine flu threat: lax and worrisome

US reaction to swine flu more muted than elsewhere - Breitbart

"EL PASO, Texas (AP) - U.S. airports and border agents waved people through Monday with little or no additional screening for Mexico's deadly swine flu - a far more muted reaction than the extreme caution elsewhere around the world... But the American reaction to swine flu, which has killed up to 149 people in Mexico and on Monday led the World Health Organization to raise its alert level, was mostly limited to steps that hospitals, schools and mask-wearing individuals took on their own."

In many countries passengers arriving from Mexico or the U.S. are being actively screened for fever or other symptoms. But in the U.S. people arriving from Mexico are being waved through "with little or no additional screening". Why such is the Department of Homeland Security so lax about preventing an influx of swine flu infection from the source of the infection: Mexico?

Janet Napolitano blames Canada as source of 9/11 terrorists

Border comments spark diplomatic kerfuffle - CTV.ca

What? After the Department of Homeland Security issued its recent memo regarding right-wing extremists, I assumed that the 9/11 terrorists were all American, home-schooling, pro-life, Christian soccer moms. I guess this means that these home-schooling soccer moms actually were Canadian.

The Canadian news site, National Post, raises a very relevant question: "Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job?"