Corey Stewart sent out an email this afternoon claiming that the BOCS actually strengthened the illegal immigration resolution during last night's meeting and pointed to an article in today's Washington Times to back up his version of events.

The only problem with Stewart's version of events is that every other media outlet is backing up the version of events as I recall them, specifically that the resolution was altered so that officers on the street were no longer directed to check the immigration status of anyone who was not arrested. Officers are no longer required to check status if they suspect (have probable cause to suspect) that someone they stop for a minor offense might be here illegally. Although this is left up to the "discretion" of the officer it is pretty clear that based on legal concerns expressed by both the police department and the County Attorney we can expect that few, if any, officers will chose to do so since the BOCS has not shown that they are willing to go to bat for officers if such a decision leads to a lawsuit.

The revision to the policy is better for the county as a whole. It says that all suspects that have actually been arrested will have their immigration status checked. This means that everyone arrested will be treated the same and that officers are not vulnerable to lawsuits based on claims of discrimination because they have no discretion in the matter.

Did anyone lose in last night's vote? I guess it depends on your outlook on the matter. Corey Stewart and Greg Letieq are forced to spin the hell out of what happened in order for it to look like what happened isn't a softening of the policy (Pr. William Softens Policy on Immigration Status Checks) but they are sticking with their guns on claiming that this change actually strengthens the resolution. Frankly I don't care if they want to strut around claiming victory so long as our police officers on the street no longer worry about having to waste large amounts of their time and effort on enforcing Federal immigration law.

Corey Stewart did some back sliding this evening... the "Rule of Law" resolution has been modified to be less aggressive then it had been regarding the ability of officers to check immigration based on probable cause. From what I can gather based on Stewart's poor explanation of the change (and spin so as to try and cover his butt from the ensuing attacks by HSM and company) police will only be checking immigration status of those people who are actually arrested and detained. In other words, folks stopped for basic traffic violations who would not otherwise be arrested and detained by police will not have their immigration status checked by the police.

It seems that the votes were there to overturn the portion of the resolution pertaining to probably cause and that a back room deal was reached to remove that aspect of the resolution in order to reach a compromise tax rate of 97 cents.

So, how do HSM members feel about Stewart back sliding on the "Rule of Law" resolution in order to get a compromise tax rate?

The comments on BVBL right now are hysterical. There is howling going on about how the BOCS gutted the resolution. I guess that is one sign of how HSM and company feel about what happened. Think that they will be lining up at the next BOCS meeting thank Stewart and Stirrup for being tough on illegal immigration?

Vivian Paige kindly pointed out the following post on The official blog of the Virginia House of Delegates GOP Caucus: Tim Kaine needs to clean up his mess!!!!!

The post includes, at the bottom, a drawing I made of Tim Kaine back in early 2007 that was posted on this blog. The problem with the usage here is that the VA GOP Caucus are using this image without permission or proper attribution (as clearly spelled out on this site) and so are in violation of copyright law.

I find it striking that the official blog of Republican Delegates (law makers) would have so little problem in violating laws.

Update: The blog in question has posted a new image (a cheap parody of the orginal they stole from this site) in response to my displeasure with their theft.

As to some of the questions of fair use here are my responses. First, I am not a lawyer however as someone who attended art school and does from time to time sell my work I have made an effort to familiarize myself with the law regarding copyright and fair use. In regards to the political cartoons that I drew I am not concerned with a monetary value as I did not produce them in order to make money and have never placed a financial value on them. My blog however does clearly state on every page that:

No part of Craig's Musings maybe used without the express written consent of Craig Vitter unless its usage is properly attributed to Craig Vitter and Craig's Musings. Proper attribution should include a link to the entry from which material has been quoted/copied.

The VA GOP Caucus took the image, and contrary to some assertions, posted said image on their site without alteration to illustrate a point. Although it still had my copyright mark on the image that is not the definition of fair use nor could it be considered a parody because of the lack of alteration. I would most likely have a case to take the Caucus to court over the theft however such a suit would be pointless as I would not be in a position to collect monetary damages because I put no monetary value on the image and would be unlikely to argue that its illegal use caused me any real harm (worthy of financial damages at least). The best I could hope for would be an injunction requiring that the Caucus stop using the image.

Regardless, the reason the "theft" bothers me so much in this case is that the "theft" was pointless. If the Caucus had simply bothered to write in the post that they got the image from my blog and provided a link to the source of the original material I would have been 100% fine with its use most likely even if I don't agree with the Caucus on the point that they were attempting to make.

When I say the Pledge of Allegiance these are the words I recite:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

According to TownHall.com columnist Mark Medved that makes me the sort of person who should never be elected President of the United States of America (Americans Are Right To Resist An Atheist As President).

Mark Medved makes some patently absurd arguments against an atheist being president including this particularly awesome gem:

Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones.

Medved says that having an atheist in office would make state occasions hollow and full of hypocrisy. Take the pledge of allegiance for example. How could the President say the Pledge of Allegiance if he (or she) didn’t believe in god? I would suggest that they could quite simply follow my example and recite the pledge the way it was recited prior to 1954 when the works “under god” replaced the word “indivisible”.

Medved also argues that to be an atheist is to “show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority”. As Doug over at Below the Beltway wrote so succinctly in response, “According to Michael Medved, there is one acceptable form of bigotry, the bigotry against those who don’t believe in a god”.

Let’s make something abundantly clear, while the average atheist may not understand how someone can be a theist, you are unlikely to be accosted by an atheist trying to convert you to their point of view. Atheists don’t go door to door attempting to disabuse theists of their faiths. At worse, publicly active atheists might attempt to protect themselves from being assaulted by right-wing efforts to move this nation towards theocracy (something Medved clearly supports).

Although I am myself an atheist, I respect the fact that there are people who believe in god (or gods) and have deeply held religious beliefs even if I do not understand the why or how of those beliefs (I was raised within a Lutheran church and am familiar with that tradition). That said, the older I get the more I find it difficult to sit back and bite my tongue as people mindlessly spew their hatred of all things that do not fall within their neat little religious view of the world. I am especially tired of the Christian right in this country who howl at all supposed attacks on Christianity but have no problem turning around and attacking anyone with beliefs different from their own.

Medved, for his part, does make a lame attempt at not completely dismissing atheists in his final paragraph:

“The truth is that atheism remains a vibrant intellectual tradition and a healthy competitor in the marketplace of ideas – far less popular than our mainstream religions, but still capable of challenging those faiths and adding a bracing element to our national conversation. In the fierce competition among religious outlooks (some 40% of Americans embrace a denomination other than the one in which they began) no one wants to silence or extirpate atheism but big majorities rightly resist the idea of giving that non-faith official status and a powerful platform by placing an openly-advertised atheist in the White House.”

In other words atheism is fascinating but let’s not encourage anyone else to question their faith by giving an atheist a position of power!

Seriously, does anyone believe that an atheist, if elected to the highest office in the land, would use their term trying to disabuse citizens of their faith? Or that Islamic radicals would hate us (Americans) more if we had an atheist in the White House?

Finally, word today in the Washington Examiner that cooler, more thoughtful heads might prevail in Prince William County (Prince William supervisors reconsidering police crackdown). Republican Supervisor Nohe and Democratic Supervisor Principi spoke before the Greater Prince William Manassas Chamber of Commerce and Principi was quoted as saying:

"The illegal-immigration policy is an 800-pound gorilla that is following us around in everything we do," Supervisor Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge, said. "It's time to put the gorilla back in the cage."

Amen to that.

For his part Corey Stewart responded by saying:

"It might be an 800-pound gorilla, but it's a good gorilla."

The good news here, and it is not really surprising to people who have followed the budget debates ongoing within the BOCS, is that there are a number of supervisors that waking up to the fact that cost of police portion of the resolution are far greater than anticipated and continuing to grow. ICE is unable to keep up with our requests and has asked PWC nicely to keep the referrals to the worst of the worst (in line with their original plan of 40 referrals per month).

I support fully the county efforts within the ADC to identify and remove dangerous illegal aliens from our community. Hauling people down to the ADC for broken tail lights however is a recipe for disaster.

Bravo to Mr. Nohe and Mr. Principi for having the strength of character to say so publicly.

Dear Board of County Supervisors Members;

I am writing to each of you to express my frustration over the board’s inability to come to a resolution of the Silver Lake issue during last night’s meeting. The issue of what to do with Silver Lake has been before the board for quite some time now and during this time the board has heard on multiple occasions from the three parties with interest in the property as well as the citizens of Prince William County. Citizens of this county should have had every expectation that its elected representatives would have been fully briefed on all three options and been prepared to come to a decision that reflected the best interest of the county. The failure to act last night reflects poorly on the board’s ability to parse complex issues, form a consensus, and act on the matters before it in a timely matter. 

However, what I find even more distasteful then the board’s lack of leadership and consensus (not limited to the issue of Silver Lake), is the fact that several members of the board are prepared to deed Silver Lake to the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy. While I believe that Supervisor Stirrup expressed the sentiment quite elegantly last night, I think that there is one crucial point that bears repeating: Silver Lake was proffered by Toll Brothers to the citizens of Prince William County. This means that Silver Lake belongs to all of the citizens of Prince William County and not merely to one small, vocal constituency. 

Deeding Silver Lake to BRMC, regardless of the high minded ideals behind their plans for the property, would remove the ability for the citizens of the county to have their say into the manner in which the property is managed. Once the deed has been conveyed to the BRMC that’s it, BRMC is in charge. If the citizens or the BOCS takes issue with the manner in which the property is being managed by the BRMC what recourse will the citizens have short of costly litigation?

I have great respect for what BRMC has accomplished with the lands that they currently manage and believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have nothing but the best of intentions for Silver Lake. That said, BRMC is a private organization with a limited membership and no inherent reason once the land has been deeded to them to listen to the will of the people of Prince William County who are the rightful owners of the land. This is a very real concern that the board needs to consider given the fact that the BRMC demonstrated during the proposal process a very real unwillingness to discuss alternatives to their proposed usage for the property with the PWCPA. 

The citizens of Prince William County have, time and time again, told the BOCS that they want more park and open spaces. In 2006 over 70% of voters approved the park bond in a concrete demonstration of their desire. While there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the county is facing dire financial problems, any board member willing to deed Silver Lake to a private organization in an attempt to save tax payer dollars is, in effect, abdicating the responsibilities and leadership role for which they were elected to  the BOCS in the first place. It is the board’s responsibility to ensure that Silver Lake is held and managed in perpetuity for all citizens of Prince William County and to make the tough financial decisions with the county’s budget to ensure that this happens.

Regards,
Craig Vitter

This evening Corey Stewart is bending over backwards to break board rules to benefit the Prince William County Conservation Alliance and the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy. First Stewart extended the PWCCA's representatives time during Citizen's Time. Then Stewart extended the BRMC's speakers time not once but twice during the 5 minute presentation on what to do with Silver Lake where neither the PWCPA or NVRPA got more than five minutes.

The issue of what to do with Silver Lake is before the Board of County Supervisors right now and it looks as if the Board is going to approve one of two of the following opptions:

• Give Silver Lake's acerage over to the Prince William County Park authority or
• Deed Silver Lake to the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy to develop as passive recreation space (i.e. hiking as opposed to soccer, baseball, and football fields)

The BRMC proposal does have some advantages (depending on your viewpoint) including the fact that should they receive the deed to the land another land owner has promised to deed an additional 268 acres of land to be added to the Silver Lake property. BRMC promises to maintain the land for passive only uses, and BRMC will raise all funds used to open the park via private donations (no direct cost to taxpayers). One possible negative in some eyes is that the fact that the BRMC will most likely end up charging an entrance fee although their proposal is vague on what the fee might be. From reading through their proposal before the board I believe that some of this vagueness stems from the fact that their private sources of funding have not been fully fleshed out.

The PWCPA is unlikely to charge residents a fee for entering Silver Lake however they also don't have any money in the budget right now to develop Silver Lake... once they do have the money the PWCPA is most likely going to develop the 213 acres of Silver Lake with active recreation in mind.

From what I have heard and seen (not withstanding a core group of folks solidly behind the BRMC proposal) it strikes me that most of the citizens in the county think of active recreation when the think of parks and open spaces. It isn't that these citizens have anything against passive recreation facilities, rather that they want to see the county's funds going towards facilities that have picnic shelters, play grounds, ball fields, etc.

I think that the county needs more of both. What do you think?