Is it time to pack up the tent?

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

I've said this before, and I'll say it again now:

The tools are at your disposal to organize an event down there. The event committee is still, and always has been open to those who want to get involved. If you're not happy with the pace and location of the events that we do organize, the event committee is the place to start.

What we don't have, but maybe we should, is a mutiny committee. If you'd like us to start one where you can organize the overthrow of the current chain of command, I have no problem with that. Or perhaps you'd like a demolishing committee instead, since the title of your thread here is more akin to a dismantling of the SOS effort.
You know we're very accomodating on things like this, so just let us know which way you want to go.

I'm not sure those are the best courses of action. Let's follow a third plan:

Why don't you continue with the same conduct you've been practicing for the past year? This way, when things are exactly the same in three, six or nine months from now, and yet another person asks why we haven't staged an event for fill in the blank, you can tell him/her:

A. The event committee is open, it's always been open.
B. There's just a lot of apathy out there right now, I'm seeing it everywhere and not just in immigration ...
C. We're doing pretty well for an organization people threw under the bus and tried to strangle!
D. We're here to poke, prod, encourage and assist ...
E. We can't force anyone to organize something. I can lead a horse to water ...
F. Well, we just had an election season go by, people have been pretty worried about this economy and that's keeping them busy ...

That way, when pressed on the subject, you won't have to invent new irrelevant and inaccurate excuses, you can utilize the old reliable ones that have been field tested.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

I'm not sure those are the best courses of action. Let's follow a third plan:

Why don't you continue with the same conduct you've been practicing for the past year? This way, when things are exactly the same in three, six or nine months from now, and yet another person asks why we haven't staged an event for fill in the blank, you can tell him/her:

A. The event committee is open, it's always been open.
B. There's just a lot of apathy out there right now, I'm seeing it everywhere and not just in immigration ...
C. We're doing pretty well for an organization people threw under the bus and tried to strangle!
D. We're here to poke, prod, encourage and assist ...
E. We can't force anyone to organize something. I can lead a horse to water ...
F. Well, we just had an election season go by, people have been pretty worried about this economy and that's keeping them busy ...

That way, when pressed on the subject, you won't have to invent new irrelevant and inaccurate excuses, you can utilize the old reliable ones that have been field tested.

When the event committee did organize, you did nothing but criticize the main person engaged in organizing. You berated her, belittled her, condescended, antagonized, impugned, and even torpedoed her in the full view of the rest of the committee. Is it any wonder that the others would be reluctant to take the initiative after witnessing that bit of savage, unwarranted, and undeserving action?
And now you'd have me stand before the remaining crew, with the executioner still sword in hand, and ask "alright, who's next?"
Hell no! That's not me. I get out and provide example instead. I'm not afraid of you either. I don't care which side of the immigration issue you're on; The treatment is still the same. And that's why we don't curtail or silence you. We're not going to take the nightingale approach, and that of several other organizations/websites that have censored you and others for perceived or real infractions. What we are going to do is let the record speak for you. So it's up to you how you want to be remembered.

As for the event committe, it is still open. We still want action, and we still welcome participation. You can apply yourself, or complain about how others don't. The former has at least a chance of success. The latter has a pre-ordained outcome. I choose the chance of success. I beg others to do the same

[ilbegone]

Respectfully to all parties here:

Has Sam and the staff at Derailamnesty.com organized and fielded an event?

Is Sam himself willing to organize and field an event in SoCal?

What is so important about titles of organizations as opposed to personal initiative?

Not baiting, sincere question.

[PochoPatriot]

Both parties have something to gain from illegal migration. The only difference is that one wants "immigrant" clout in voting numbers exchanged for "social" freebies and the other wants a non voting slave class exchanged for business political favor.

This is the key to the entire problem with illegal immigration. Until someone (Gov. Brewer of Arizona, for instance) stands up for the people and against the special interest groups that dominate both parties NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, will happen to change the status quo.

[Rim05]

My own idea about our future is, we can no longer take just the illegal immigration approach. Illegal Immigration is mostly caused by our elected officials allowing it to happen.
For those who can, I would say, attend City Council meetings, Those who have children in school, go to everything about your child's school. LAUSD is out of control.
Let us not forget about the Courts, the judges are making many anti American decisions. At one time I started noting the names of our liberal judges but, alas, I don't know where it is now.
When it is time to vote we should hit the court judges hard.
There are many things we can do as individuals besides attending events but it is very important to show the organizer your support by attending events that you can attend. That organizer will really appreciate your attendance.

[Patriotic Army Mom]

That is so true Rimo! Many of our people are doing just that and getting great results.

[ilbegone]

Let us not forget about the Courts, the judges are making many anti American decisions. At one time I started noting the names of our liberal judges but, alas, I don't know where it is now.
When it is time to vote we should hit the court judges hard.

Immigration judges.

They act in a manner similar to judges in "infraction" cases, they also act as the jury, and, as I remember, they deny over 60% of removal cases based on such reasoning as "the defendant is in the process of legalization" - after violating immigration law to get here as well as anything else that attracted ICE attention to the defendant.

We have to find a way to eject these charlatans from their benches and prevent law obstructionists from being installed in the first place.

As a note, they are appointed by the US Attorney General of the Justice department, the same people who are suing Arizona for doing what the feds refuse to do.

[ilbegone]

Here is something I found which might lead in a direction:

The Third Circuit court summoned a deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, Jonathan Cohn, to its Jan. 9 hearing of appeals by a Pakistani journalist and a nephew of an ousted Gambian president. Both had been denied asylum by Ferlise.

On the same day, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced a review of immigration judges across the country following allegations of widespread incompetence and bias in their ranks.

In a tape of the proceedings obtained by The Inquirer, the federal judges expressed alarm at Ferlise's treatment of asylum-seekers in cases dating to 1999. They questioned Cohn about the process for reviewing and rebuking immigration judges.

Cohn replied that Gonzales was aware of concerns about Ferlise, and said privacy issues prevented him from commenting further. But, he added,
"whenever there is a judicial finding of misconduct, there's automatically an inquiry by the Office of Professional Responsibility."

A lawsuit, inquiry by the Attorney General, or inquiry by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

[ilbegone]

Some of it is a circle - the Office of Professional Responsibility is also a part of the Justice department.

How do we seperately divorce the Office of Professional Responsibility and the appointment of immigration judges from the Justice department in such a way as to avoid conflict of interest?

It seems that the Attorney General appoints judges, oversees prosecution in the name of the government, oversees defense in suits against the government, and oversees the unit that investigates misconduct by both Federal Judges and Federal Attorneys.