ALABAMA'S TOUGH NEW ANTI-ILLEGAL ALIEN LAW -- GIT 'ER DONE!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 13, 2011


  Allan Wall - NewsWithViews.com / September 7, 2011

"We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country. I campaigned for the toughest immigration laws, and I'm proud of the Legislature for working tirelessly to create the strongest immigration bill in the country."

That’s what Alabama Governor Robert Bentley said on June 9th, 2011, upon the signing of the Yellowhammer State’s new immigration law, HR 56. The law is considered the nation’s strictest anti-illegal immigration measure.

The law was scheduled to take effect September 1st, but guess what? It’s been blocked in court by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn. Hopefully it will be upheld.

In the meantime, how about a look at the law to see what the hoopla is all about.

It’s worth pointing out that HR 56 was passed by a Republican-controlled legislature. (It’s the first time Republicans have controlled both House and Senate in 136 years). And it was signed by a Republican governor.

See what Republicans can do at the state level when they have the will to do it?

So what’s in Alabama’s new law ?

1. If anyone gets stopped by law enforcement , can’t produce documentation, and is suspected of being illegal, the police can detain him. In fact, the police are required to detain him.
2. Anybody who knowingly transports, harbors or rents property to an illegal alien is guilty of a crime
3. Businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens are penalized.
4. Businesses are required to use E-Verify for the hiring of new employees.
5. Public schools are required to determine citizenship status of all students.
6. It’s a felony for an illegal alien to register to vote.
7. Illegal aliens can’t attend college.
8. And any contract with an illegal alien is itself illegal!

Unsurprisingly, the law has attracted a lot of hysteria.

"This law is an outrageous throw-back to the pre-Civil Rights era,” said Cecilia Wang of the ACLU.

Did you ever notice how they always bring up that “pre-Civil Rights era” when they want to deflect attention from what is going on in our nation today?

The public school part, even though it doesn’t require any students to get expelled, is a target of criticism.

And there are predictable complaints that the law could cause a “labor shortage” in agriculture and construction. How predictable.

Gene Armstrong, mayor of the community of Allgood puts that in perspective:

"We managed in the past without illegal immigrants to pick the tomatoes here, and I haven't heard anyone say that if we sent them all home nobody would be left to do that work. When you have 9 percent unemployment, I think that some people who might not have wanted those jobs previously might reconsider."

HR 56 has not yet officially taken effect, but there is evidence that it is already scaring illegals away from Alabama. At least that’s what Reuters said in a sob story article entitled Tough Alabama Immigration Law Convinces Some to Move (Monique Fields, Reuters, July 14th, 2011).

The article starts out with an anecdote about an illegal alien couple (from Argentina) who have already left:

“Nicolas Hernandez said goodbye to his parents just days after Alabama lawmakers passed what is being described as the country's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration. His mother and father, undocumented workers at a farm near Birmingham, decided not to chance getting ensnared by the new law and returned to their home country of Argentina.”

The Hernandez family, interestingly, had entered legally years ago on a 3-year medical visa for Nicolas. When that visa expired they just stayed in the country illegally. Now, the parents are going back to Argentina but Nicolas is staying.

After relating the Hernandez family story, Monique Fields waxes poetic about the effect of HR 56:

“How many others have decided to leave Alabama for other states or to return to their home countries before the new law takes effect on September 1 is unclear. But legal and illegal immigrants have flocked to the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama requesting legal help, including parents who might need to return to their native countries and leave a child behind in the United States.”

They might “need” to “leave a child behind”? Why don’t they take their children with them?

Then there are the personal interests:

“Social worker and Spanish translator Jennifer Owen said her livelihood is in jeopardy, and she will be among those who leave the state if the law stands.”

The drafters of the new law, however, are standing firm.

"‘For illegal immigrants to now be leaving the state shows they know Alabama is serious about enforcing its laws,’ said Todd Stacy, a spokesman for Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard.”

They had better stand firm, because the new law was besieged by lawsuits.

Quoth Micky Hammon, Alabama House Majority leader:

"These far-left, liberal groups have filed (for) an injunction because those who live here illegally and break our laws with their simple presence are packing up and leaving Alabama. That was the intent of the bill in the first place, to protect our borders and our jobs."

These courageous leaders in Alabama are fighting for our country, for all of us. They are real patriots.

On August 1st, the Obama Administration, predictably, sued the state of Alabama to stop the new law from taking effect.

The Mexican government is happy about the Obama lawsuit. In fact, on the same day (they watch these matters closely) the SRE (Mexican foreign ministry) released a statement applauding the Obama administration:

“The Government of Mexico…welcomes the decision of the United States Federal Government to take legal action in order to prevent the entry into force of Alabama’s HB 56. The law criminalizes immigration and could lead to the selective application of the law by local authorities.”

“Selective application”? What the Mexican government opposes is the application, period, of U.S. immigration law.

“The Government of Mexico acknowledges the sovereign right of all countries to enact laws and implement public policies in their own territory.”

So what’s the problem?

“At the same time, it reiterates its unwavering commitment to protect, by all available means, the rights and dignity of Mexicans abroad, especially in the case of laws that could lead to the violation of the civil and human rights of our nationals.”

Uh, if these people are illegal aliens, they have no right to be here.

Anyway, the lawsuits began to pile on, and so Mexico got into the act by filing a Friend of the Court brief. Not only that, but Mexico invited 15 other Latin American nations to join it! The other nations are Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Brazil. Some of those countries send a lot of illegal aliens to the U.S., and some don’t, but I guess it’s just the principle of the thing,

Latin American solidarity or something.

The lawyer representing these 16 nations is Birmingham attorney Edward Still, who says these 16 countries “want to have one immigration law and not 50.”

In the first place, our immigration law is none of their business. In the second place, we do have one immigration law, it’s just that our own government doesn’t want to enforce it!

Here’s what the Mexican foreign ministry had to say about the brief:

“ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs that the Government of Mexico filed today a Friend of the Court Brief (Amicus Curiae) before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in the lawsuit filed by several national and local civil society organizations to challenge the constitutionality of House Bill 56 (Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act)….”

“…Some of its provisions would criminalize immigration and could lead to the selective application of the law.[Any law could be selectively enforced. The solution here, of course, is to detain all the illegal aliens in Alabama. Would the Mexican government like that?] Its enforcement could adversely affect the civil rights of Mexican nationals living in Alabama or visiting that state. [If they’re legal what’s the problem?] HB 56 also contains provisions that require elementary and secondary schools to determine the immigration status of children and their parents upon enrollment as criteria to refer them to certain school programs, which could lead to potential cases of discrimination based on national origin and ethnicity, that could affect Mexicans and U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.”

Notice that last part about “U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.” After all, Mexico claims jurisdiction over them also.

The statement contains this threat, which you can count on to carry out:

“The Government of Mexico will continue to make use of all available means and channels in order to firmly and immediately respond to any violation of the fundamental rights of Mexicans, regardless of their immigration status.”

The Montgomery Advertiser reported on August 8th that “About three dozen plaintiffs, including Long, sued to block the law, saying it violates the federal government's supremacy over immigration law and will lead to racial profiling, among other criticisms. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Immigration Law Center are representing the plaintiffs in the suit.”

Our country is under invasion, and our government is aiding the invaders. But the valiant efforts of patriots in states such as Alabama and Arizona give us hope. They fight for us all.

What about the politicians in your state? Could you convince them to enact similar legislation? Just imagine if, every couple of months, another state passed similar legislation. Imagine the momentum,the publicity, the education of the public. Right now, the states are where you find the real action defending our country.

And one more thing. What about all these Republican presidential wannabees wandering about our nation? What do they think about the Alabama law? Would any candidate go on record as supporting it? Is there at least one candidate who would go to Alabama and openly support that state? Would any candidate call on Judge Blackburn to uphold the HR 56 law?

Maybe not.

© 2011 Allan Wall - All Rights Reserved

9/12 Footnote: Equal Opportunity? How about equal sweat? Where are the black arms?

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 12, 2011

To see the full story, go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/11/the-impact-of-912-how-for_n_957419.html?1315774023

But to see the true irony of the situation, and the point I wish to make, this picture is worth 1,000 words:

9/11 CHARITIES: HOW YOU CAN HELP

Equal Opportunity? How about equal sweat? Where are the black arms? A 9/12 Footnote.

Cheney predicts Israel will attack a 'Nuclear' Iran -- Poof? Also his comments on Obama, Pelosi.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 11, 2011

 By Ronald Kessler

   Newsmax   

Former Vice President Dick Cheney sat down with Newsmax Chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler for this powerful interview where the two discussed terrorism's threat to America, Israel, the Obama administration's policies and Cheney's new memoir.

Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if necessary to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon, former Vice President Dick Cheney tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

“I think they would,” Cheney said when asked about the possibility. “I think Iran represents an existential threat, and they'll do whatever they have to do to guarantee their survival and their security.”

When asked if his opinion was based on discussions with Israeli leaders, Cheney responded, “I can’t attribute it to any one particular Israeli leader. I wouldn’t want to do that.” But he said, “I’ve had a number of conversations with a lot of Israeli officials, and I think they correctly perceive Iran as a basic threat.”

The book "In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir," will hit the New York Times non-fiction hardcover bestseller list next Sunday in the No. 1 position.


Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has accused Cheney of taking “cheap shots” by saying in his book that he learned that Powell was opposed to the war in Iraq yet “never once in any meeting did I hear him voice objection.”

In asking about that, I told him that for my book “A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush,” the White House arranged for me to interview Cabinet officers and their staffs. When I interviewed Powell and his immediate staff, “I couldn’t believe what they told me,” I said to Cheney. “It was like walking into DNC Headquarters, literally.”

Asked if he was aware of how aggressively Powell’s staff sought to undermine the Bush administration and whether he told Bush about it, Cheney said he was aware of the policy differences but needs to maintain the confidentiality of many of his discussions with Bush.

“I had good reason why I wrote what I did,” Cheney said.

Given that the press portrayed the administration’s program to intercept terrorist communications as “spying on innocent Americans,” I asked Cheney if the administration could have explained in a general way why the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was necessary to thwart attacks by al-Qaida.

Cheney said Bush did eventually give a few speeches mentioning results from the program, but he said, “We still had the basic fundamental problems [of] running what are inherently secret or classified programs, and you don’t want to tell the enemy how it is that you are reading their mail.”

Cheney said he convened a meeting of the top nine members of Congress and asked them if the administration should continue the surveillance program. “They said absolutely, yes,” Cheney said. “They were unanimous. Nancy Pelosi was there, Jay Rockefeller was there.”

Following up with them, Cheney said he asked if the White House should ask Congress for more legislative authority to conduct the program.

“They were unanimous that we should not on the grounds that if we did that, we would reveal to our enemy what it was that we were doing and how we were doing it,” Cheney said.

On another contentious issue, as speaker of the House, Pelosi later claimed she had not been informed of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, adding that the CIA routinely lies to Congress. She then conceded she had been told about the program but claimed she was powerless to stop it.

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. subsequently launched an investigation of CIA officers who had carried out enhanced interrogation, even though career Justice Department officials had decided they had not violated any criminal laws. Holder admitted he had not read the memos of career officials explaining why they declined prosecution.

Asked about the effect on the CIA, Cheney said, “I think it was potentially devastating.”

In addition, Cheney said, the Obama administration “threatened to go after the attorneys in the Justice Department who had given us the legal opinions that we were operating under. It was a terrible thing to do.”

Two days after Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, then CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed to NBC’s Brian Williams that the CIA obtained some of the intelligence that pinpointed bin Laden’s hiding place from enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding.

While the Obama administration has been aggressively killing terrorists with drone aircraft, it has basically shut down the program to interrogate foreign terrorist detainees. After shutting it down, “They said that they were going to set up a new one, but I haven’t seen any evidence yet that they have ever done that,” Cheney said.

Cheney said he was not aware of the fact that after his capture, Saddam Hussein admitted to FBI agent George Piro that while he was bluffing about having weapons of mass destruction, he planned to resume his WMD program in about a year, including developing a nuclear weapon. As first disclosed in my book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack,” Piro spent 7 months debriefing Saddam. Few news outlets ran a story about Saddam’s admission.

Asked about Obama’s speech on job creation, Cheney said, “We've got a huge problem in terms of the need to get the economy back on the road to recovery. With a zero job creation from the last month, we’re in big trouble. I’m not at all certain that he has figured out what the problem is.”

As I interviewed Cheney, demonstrators outside his office carried signs calling him a war criminal and a torturer. I asked the former vice president about that and about very liberal Democrats as well as some very conservative Republicans who oppose measures like the Patriot Act that provide the FBI with tools for uncovering terrorist plots.

“I’m not surprised that there are people who disagree with what we did. That’s the nature of the business,” Cheney said. But he worries about some who say the administration overreacted to the 9/11 attack. The danger is that people become less tolerant of policies that have kept the country safe since 9/11.

“Something like the 10th anniversary is a reminder for everybody of what 9/11 cost us and how painful it was for us as a nation to go through that, but it also is a reminder that the threat is still there and that we still got people who want to do us harm.”

To ignore that and to say waging a war on terror is “kind of a nasty business” or “it’s too tough” is to risk another devastating attack, Cheney said.

“I still worry more than anything else really about the possibility of a group of terrorists acquiring really deadly capabilities,” Cheney said. “When we got hit on 9/11 there were 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters. The next time around I worry they may have a nuclear device or biological agent of some kind and would be in a position to inflict far greater damage and loss of lives than anything we experienced on 9/11. I think that’s still a very real threat.”

Get Dick Cheney's New Book with Free Offer, Click Here Now.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. He is a New York Times best-selling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA. His latest, "The Secrets of the FBI," has just been published. 
 

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/cheney-israel-iran-nuclear/2011/09/11/id/410517?s=al&promo_code=D068-1

Ground Zero: In the Cross of Christ I Glory -- Towering O'er the Wrecks of Time

New Hanover tempest: “Brian you are a commissioner, not der fuhrer,” says Jason Thompson in explosive email to courageous GOP outsider Brian Berger.

Source of story headline:  http://www.wwaytv3.com/2011/09/01/berger-reacts-to-controversy 

Bigoted remark by combative Thompson is sign of boiling resentment New Hanover commissioners feel toward first-term colleague Brian Berger. 

By Verne Strickland / September 10, 2011

WHAT KIND OF MADMAN IS THIS?

Brian Berger statement on his philosophy in his run for office in 2008.

 

As a candidate for the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners in 2008, Brian Berger received approximately 20,000 votes, advocating policies to prevent future tax increases, spur private sector job growth, protect property rights and the environment, and strengthen ethical standards, accountability and openness in local government. He has been a consistent advocate for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and ending the "culture of corruption" in Southeastern North Carolina. 

Berger has spent years advocating for limited government, accountability, transparency and ethics. He has pushed innovative and time-tested solutions for long-term job creation, lower taxes and fighting the growing problems of crime in our community. 

Berger has stood up against the unethical behavior of local elected officials, Republicans and Democrats, by opposing "business as usual," the corruption and wasteful spending that takes money out of your wallet and squeezes families trying to stay afloat in today's economy.

 ***********

Forgive me, but there’s something about the spectacle of this feisty little leprechaun Brian Berger driving his brutish, brash “colleagues” nuts that just flat tickles the hell out of me. 

Bravo. I know that this will irritate some no end, but I’ve been successfully irritating types I don’t like for years – radical left-wing Democrats, Muslim jihadists, communists, socialists, atheists, cynical anti-American Europeans, over-zealous unionists, illegal aliens, drug traffickers, career welfare leeches, Mormons with more than six wives, and Barack Obama. 

But let’s bring it back closer to home – our beloved Cape Fear region. Just a few heartfelt observations: 

The three stooges of the New Hanover Board of Commissioners may be big, and they may be bold, but they are bringing dishonor to themselves, and to the county where they claim residency, in their crusade to bring down Brian Berger.

If the level of embarrassment visited on our citizens is a reason for retiring from the field of battle, then the stooges should be the first to clear out.

Let’s face it – this Berger dude is tough. He stands his ground, and he has ground to stand on. They can grouse all they like, but they can’t throw him out, and he’s made it clear that he’s not going to knuckle under. Stalemate.

Brian has friends. He has enemies. He has admirers. He has detractors – vicious, hurtful detractors. He’s on a lonely quest. But I think there’s a lot to love with this guy. He shows courage, he doesn’t quit.

Under similar circumstances I would’ve hidden under a rock. But not Commissioner Berger. Folks, this dude is a rock!

Now, look --  I know that Jonathan Barfield hasn’t cut himself with a razor (you seen that lush growth on his face? He doesn’t even own a razor!), and that Ted Davis hasn’t ripped the handle off somebody’s car (he can’t open a beer bottle with a twist-off top) and that Jason Thompson hasn’t spent a night in the slammer, and that Rick Catlin is not taking unemployment pay-outs from the feds. At least that’s what they claim.

But, fellas – how about cutting the guy a little slack?

The picture of a big, burly phalanx of stern brutes standing should-to-shoulder, albeit very uneasily, for the cameras, tells it all. Three Goliaths glowering down at one David.

From the outset of his tenure, Berger was a marked man. He said in advance that he would not be a member of the NH Good Ole Boys’ Club. And boy was he ever right.

He criticized the tactics and ethics of the incumbents, who evidence no clue that they have ever read Robert’s Rules of Order – or even seen the movie. Berger called them on that.

The newcomer to the hallowed halls of the county power machine berated his brethren for fiscal irresponsibility and lack of transparency, among other things.

What’s not to like?

While Berger pleads guilty to a penchant for being late – which can justly be categorized as rude and unprofessional – if you put a stopwatch on these meetings – I think you might be impressed by the lulls in the action, and the cute, frivolous banter, that waste time and taxpayer dollars.

One of Berger’s early complaints was that he was culled out of the action -- the vital flow of official information by the excessively incumbent serving commissioners. He has been ignored and made to feel irrelevant. Fair and reasonable accusations, I submit.

In board meetings, Berger has been for the most part quiet and respectful. Outside the board room, his behavior has not been quite so circumspect. And this has been amply and even excessively covered by shock jock attack-style journalists.

 "This stonewalling and secrecy and attempt to filter information is NOT ACCEPTABLE," Berger wrote. "THE ACTIONS OF STAFF AND CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS HAS BEEN AN AFFRONT TO OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABLILITY."

County Commissioner Jason Thompson wrote to Brian, "This is ridiculous. Brian you are a commissioner not der fuhrer. Your email shows you do not understand a manager/commissioner form o govt (sic)."

Berger responded via email stating that he found Thompson's comments "offensive and inappropriate".
 
One online expression I thought quite relevant was this:

When the Titan Project was getting incentives and being approved by the county commission, Catlin was nowhere to be seen or heard. Only recently did this become an issue he took a stand on. Lately, on non-attainment he has been doing more grandstanding, so I think Berger is correct to point out this is an issue for all of us. 

Berger may not be as slick as Catlin but he is far more correct on asking these questions and not allowing Catlin to ignore his concerns or those of others in NHC with these non-responsive answers. Catlin is handling this matter poorly and Berger is right to ask questions and demand answers in a timely fashion. Maybe if we had fewer Catlins we would not have issues like the CFPUA and R3. Given Barfield's trying to take over schools, when it comes to unprofessional who is he kidding?

***********

The landscape is littered with instances of tabloid “journalism” sensationalizing Berger’s plight. This is deplorable. But local television anchor Bob Townsend did the right thing. Surely you know all about that. A tabloid muckraker on the Star-News took care of that by releasing text of a private email exchange between Townsend and Berger.

And Townsend didn’t intend to gather any attaboys for his compassion toward Berger. Very noble, I thought, in these callous times. It may cost him. But it shouldn’t.

In closing, this is Brian Berger’s personal statement as he conducted his campaign for office as a New Hanover County Commissioner: 

Actions matter. Accountability matters. In this election, you have a choice to continue with an agenda of high taxes, wasteful spending and misguided priorities represented by these four gentlemen. We're overtaxed, but these gentlemen don't think we're taxed enough, they need more of our money to spend. The environment and education have been disregarded, but these concerns only matter to our local officials when its election time.

I am asking you to join me in reforming New Hanover County government. That means low taxation, fighting wasteful spending, prioritizing public safety, education, infrastructure and the environment.

Actions matter. Withdrawing the $4.2 million giveaway to Titan Cement. Fighting Forced Annexation and Eminent Domain with the same energy these gentlemen put into lobbying for the homebuilders and billboard owners. Putting resources into fighting crime, gangs and planning for infrastructure and education that these gentlemen have a record of neglecting. Those are my priorities, and if they are yours too, send a powerful message by voting for Brian Berger and taking back YOUR government.

VS: SO I ASK YOU AGAIN – WHO IS THIS MADMAN? WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF HIM!

Wilmington's Ilario Pantano to participate in 10th Anniversary 9/11 commemorations at Ground Zero.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster /  September 9, 2011

Pantano Will Be A Featured Speaker at 9/11 Freedom Rally

Wilmington, NC:  Ilario Pantano, Conservative Republican Candidate for North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, announced today that he will be participating in National September 11th commemorations at Ground Zero this weekend including the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s 2nd annual Freedom Rally in Raleigh on Sunday afternoon.

“It is a real honor to be able to take part in these commemorations, to honor the memories of those who perished on 9/11 and those who survived but whose lives were forever changed, and to give my reflections on the impact of 9/11 on my life and on our nation,” Pantano said.

“I look forward to personally meeting the 9/11 first responders who will be attending this rally.  It is shameful that they along with clergy members and family members of 9/11 victims have been barred from the official ceremonies on Sunday morning. As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of that horrific day we must never forget what happened and we must remain vigilant and do our very best to make sure an attack of this magnitude never occurs again.”

On Sunday afternoon, Pantano will address AFDI’s Freedom Rally, organized by Pamela Geller.  The rally begins at 3pm at the corner of Park and Broadway and Pantano will speak at approximately 4:15pm. While they are barred and/or not invited to the official 9/11 ceremonies clergy members, 9/11 first responders, and 9/11 family members will be welcome at the Freedom Rally and they are encouraged to attend.

Members of the clergy will be delivering the invocation at the rally, and first responders will be addressing the rally attendees.  Pantano addressed the inaugural Freedom Rally on 9/11/ 2010.  Between 30,000 and 40,000 people attended the inaugural rally and an even larger crowd is expected to attend this year.

Pantano has a very unique and personal 9/11 story.  At the time of the attacks, Pantano had recently started a media consulting business in New York. On his way to a meeting in Manhattan, he witnessed the Twin Towers burning in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Friends and colleagues of Pantano’s were killed in the attacks. A building where Pantano had worked, 4 World Trade Center, was destroyed. 

Pantano rushed to a recruiter’s office and began the lengthy process of returning to service in the Marines, this time as an officer (Pantano had previously served as an enlisted Marine during the Gulf War). Upon graduation of Infantry Officer’s Course, 2nd Lt Pantano and his family were assigned to Camp Lejeune North Carolina, where he took command of an Infantry Platoon with the 2nd Battalion of the 2nd Marine Regiment, the WARLORDS.

Pantano would later deploy to Iraq where he would lead his men into combat in Fallujah (2004) during some of the toughest fighting of the war. During combat operations, Pantano was charged with murder for killing terrorists, but was later exonerated of all charges.

Pantano later became a Sheriff’s Deputy in North Carolina and wrote a book about his Experiences, “Warlord”, published by Threshold Editions of Simon & Schuster.  Threshold recently published Vice President Dick Cheney’s book, “In my Time” and is re-releasing Pantano’s book this fall.

                                                                          ###

Video of Pantano’s speech can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3VBH-6K-Y&feature=player_embedded.

Our mailing address is:
Ilario Pantano

PO Box 11280

Wilmington, NC 28404

NC Democrats claim gay marriage ban could hurt business recruitment. (Oh, I really don't think so.)

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 7, 2011

By Barry Smith M2Mpolitics.com

Posted September 6, 2011 - 6:48 PM

 RALEIGH – House Democratic leaders and a couple of business representatives decried the potential effects of a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

They said that now is not the time, given the current economic climate, to be considering such a ban, adding that it could have a detrimental effect on luring business to North Carolina.

“We have in North Carolina at the president time many problems – the economy exacerbated by a terrible hurricane that has hit our coast, in particular the Northeast and flooding among areas in the East,” said Rep. Joe Hackney, D-Orange, the House minority leader. “We have a sluggish economy which we ought to be focused on reviving.”

The N.C. General Assembly is scheduled to return to Raleigh next week, primarily to consider proposed amendments to the N.C. Constitution. The most contentious amendment is one that would define marriage between a man and a woman as the only domestic union recognized in the state.

Andrew Spainhour, an attorney for Replacements Limited in Guilford County, said the proposed amendment could end up affecting domestic partner benefits that Replacement Limited and many Fortune 500 companies offer their employees.

“To those who say this won’t hurt business, we say put yourselves in the shoes of someone trying to entice an LGBT professional or business leader or educator or some other member of a creative class to come to North Carolina, a state considering an anti-gay amendment in the year 2011,” Spainhour said. “We’re incredulous frankly that we can’t all agree that that’s a tough sell.” LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

 He said that such a constitutional amendment could have unintended consequences.

“I am not in a position to take on faith that domestic partner benefits will not be impacted,” Spainhour said. “Doing no harm is generally the right answer and that is certainly the case here.”

Anthony Pugliese, senior vice president of the American Institute for Certified Public Accountants said that finding a welcoming, accommodating environment for their work force was a major factor in his organization deciding to relocate from the New York tri-state area to Durham.

“Our decision would have been significantly altered, been swayed, it would have been reconsidered had this amendment been in place at the time we were making the decision,” Pugliese said.

Rep. Grier Martin, D-Wake, said the amendment could send the wrong message to people in the military who are stationed in North Carolina.

Martin noted that the military’s controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is set to expire soon. “You’re going to have many, many openly gay serving members of the military in North Carolina,” Martin said.

Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, said that an unintended consequence of such an amendment could affect North Carolina’s domestic violence laws. She said that in Ohio, some domestic violence laws related to unmarried heterosexual couples were affected once that state adopted a similar amendment.

http://www.m2mpolitics.com/news/hurt-1943-marriage-ban.html

See archived 'News' Stories »