Bush Administration Seeks Appeals Court Ruling Allowing Mexican Cargo Trucks in Country

Thursday, August 30, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO – The Bush administration urged a federal appeals court Thursday to let Mexican cargo trucks cross the border and freely travel anywhere in the country, arguing that to do otherwise could strain diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico.

The Teamsters Union on Wednesday asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the program, which could go into effect as early as Saturday.

The union argues that the administration plan, which would let as many as 100 registered Mexican trucks deliver their cargo anywhere in the country for the next year as part of a “demonstration program,” would endanger public highways because safety issues have not been resolved.

But in its filing Thursday, government lawyers said the trucks enrolled in the program meet U.S. trucking regulations and the program is a necessary part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Participating Mexican carriers must comply with all legal requirements governing operations of domestically owned carriers, and in some cases stricter requirements,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler.

One hundred Mexican trucking companies will have unlimited, unregulated and unfettered security clearance access to U.S. roads to haul international cargo as part of a year-long pilot program, according to the Department of Transportation . In return, 100 U.S. trucking companies will be allowed to operate in Mexico at an undetermined time in the future.

Truckers using the high-speed border crossing procedures also will be given access to electronically-cleared RFID programs, a special driver registration for the speedy crossings, and access to B-1 visas, qualifying them to deliver Mexican cargoes in the United States and to pick up U.S. cargoes for delivery to Mexico, officials reported.

Mexican trucks carrying loads of consumer goods into the United States under a test program could be across the border in as little as 15 seconds, according to government officials setting up the procedures.

• • The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has primary responsibility for setting the safety requirements for certifying Mexican trucking companies to participate in the program.
  • The Department of Homeland Security has primary responsibility for the national security aspects of allowing certified Mexican trucking companies to run their long-haul rigs throughout the United States.
  • Within DHS, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has primary responsibility for managing key border crossing electronic systems that will be utilized in the Mexican truck program.

Despite overwhelming congressional and general opposition, the Bush administration is determined to start allowing thousands of Mexican trucks to cross over the U.S. Mexico border without going through a border checks starting this Saturday. The Bush administration has said it will ignore Congress and instead rely on the Mexican government to ensure the safety of Mexican trucks that will be hurling down U.S. highways starting on Labor Day weekend- one of the busiest travel holidays of the year.

The Teamsters Union and the Sierra Club have filed a lawsuit to seek an injunction in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration over the plan. Calling for congressional hearings, Teamsters General President Jimmy Hoffa has compared the plan to the “Dubai Ports debacle,” charging President Bush is “playing a game of Russian roulette on America’s highways.”

What is the point of having a border fence or any other type of border patrol program if this trucking program is allowed to go forward in it’s present configuration? Why deal with crossing of the Rio Grande, deadly desert heat and those pesky border patrol agents when all you have to do is payoff a trucker, a trucking company or a Mexican official, then store your contraband in the back of a semi-truck and be across the border in 15 seconds or less without scrutiny.

Mexico is a country that is rampant with corruption with payoffs being business as usual. Most transactions are accomplished via payoff-especially when dealing with the Mexican government. Can Bush be so haplessly naive as to think there is not a reasonable probability that Mexican trucks crossing the U.S. Mexico border, unchecked, will not be carrying drugs, illegal alien, terrorist, al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction or any other type of contraband that could fit in the back of a semi-trailer. This is just another misstep in a long string of national security breaches he has blindly advocated through his ineptness with border security.

The program probably could have merits if restructured. Have all trucks go through the same border security protocol that any other vehicle would go through. All trucks must pass the same inspections that all U.S. carriers must pass to be on U.S. highways. Mexican trucks should pay the same taxes that U.S. carriers pay for road maintenance. All Mexican trucks and drivers need to have a current form of U.S. insurance and be bonded. Demand the Mexican government to stop advocating and promoting the influx of illegal aliens into the U.S. before the program starts. Each and every Mexican truck passing back into Mexico should have a full load of illegal immigrants being returned back to Mexico to get clearance to cross.

To preface the ensuing New Your Post article below, here are a few quotes from Hillary Clinton concerning the use of terrorism in politics:

From the Washington Post: “Terrorism shouldn’t be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight.”

From the Albany Times-Union: “The Bush administration had used the war on terror as a “political tool” to frighten Americans into submission.”

From the United Auto Workers legislative policy conference in Washington: “Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt who had nothing to fear but fear itself, this crowd is, ‘All we got is fear and we’re going to keep playing the fear card.’ ”

(more…)

Caucuses have evolved from informal and few to pervasive and formally recognized syndicates within the legislative branch advocating very specific and narrow agendas. Permanent congressional caucuses have become the antithesis of democracy operating outside the confines of a narrowly sculpted constitutional mandate of legislative structure.

Caucuses have been the bane of Congress and the nation as a whole since colonial times. They have always had a distasteful presence connected to them. Caucuses have always had an undemocratic back room politics atmosphere about them. John Adams summed up the early caucuses with this statement:

“The Caucas Clubb meets at certain Times in the Garret of Tom Daws…There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip [a potent mixture of beer, rum, and sugar] …and Selectmen, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town.”

There is nothing specific in the Constitution addressing congressional committees or the sub-committees that they inherently sprout, other than the power for Congress to establish its processes for enacting laws is mandated. The Constitution authorizes the House and Senate to establish rules establishing the processes under which laws are introduced, considered, debated and voted on. As the U.S. expanded so did the need for the investigating and research arms of congress and thus grew the need for committees to facilitate this process.

The United States Congress was originally crafted as a formal and structured parliamentary process. All processes of the Congress should be recognized by federal law. Caucuses have evolved into perpetual fixtures in Congress and have gained official recognition as part of the legislation process with ensuing offices and budgets. This is outside the archetypal structure of Congress. Caucuses were and still remain back room divisive politics regardless of their exposure and mainstream acceptance. It is conceivable that from time to time there could arise a need for an ad hoc caucus with a sunset clause, but never a permanently legitimized raced based caucus.

In the 1950′s, there were four Congressional caucuses. Today there are about 200, most of which are dedicated solely to particular countries, regions, races, ethnicities, specific issues and special interests. A more vast and divisive group within the confines of the legislative branch could not be assembled.

Two of the most recognizable and prominent race based caucuses in the Congress are the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. They are comprised of African- American members of Congress and Hispanic members of Congress respectively. Their sole purpose is to further the agenda of their respective races rather than the agenda of the American people as a whole and the nation. If there is an ethnicity, race or foreign country, there is a caucus for it in Congress. To demonstrate the breadth of the caucuses that have infested the Congress, there is a caucus on Swaziland; there is a caucus on Indonesia; there is a caucus on Uganda just to name a few. How well served is this nation by a Congress that not only created 200 of these caucuses but recognizes them as a legitimate branch of the legislature?

The effect that race based caucuses have on the nation has been the expansion and promotion of racism. Race based caucuses in the Congress work the same way trickle down economics works except it is racism, rather than money, that is trickling down. It would be fair to state that the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus operate within the confines of a racism description.

It is not the elected job of any congressman or caucus to waste taxpayer money and time in office to promote one race or ethnic group over another. A congressman’s job is to represent all of their American constituency, not a select ethnic few.

An affirmation of the Congressional Black Caucus’s racist attitude:

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he’s a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

“I think they’re real happy I’m not going to join,” said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in. You need to be invited.”

Even though Cohen’s constituency is predominantly black, and even though the bylaws of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) do not prohibit non-blacks from joining, the Caucus remains exclusively black, as it has done since its founding in 1969.

A white Tennessee lawmaker lamenting his exclusion from the state’s Black Legislative Caucus claimed Tuesday the group was less accommodating than even the Ku Klux Klan.

“My understanding is that the KKK doesn’t even ban members by race,” said Rep. Stacey Campfield, adding that the KKK “has less racist bylaws” than the black lawmakers’ group.

To segregate yourself from the general census of the Congress into a caucus based on race is racism. To operate in the Congress with the sole purpose of advancing an agenda of a race withing the U.S. is not the purpose of a representative.

The hypocrisy of a Congress to legitimize a divisive race based caucus while purporting to be the champions of equality, striving to eliminate racism and continuing to pass laws that address racism in the U.S. is ludicrous. If the end goal is to eliminate racism it will never be achieved as long as race based caucuses are legitimized within the Congress.

Not only do these caucuses beget racism in the broader sense, they support the Black Entertainment Television; the Black Miss America Contest; the Black Lawyer’ Association; Black Magazines, Black History Month, etc. Each one of these are self induced segregation and racist.

What type of outrage would a Congressional White Caucus create? What about a White Entertainment Television station? What if the Miss America Contest did not allow black contestants, and was exclusively white? What if there were a White Lawyer’s Association? A White History Month? The hypocrisy of Black History Month is that it only extols the virtues and positive attributes of Blacks and their contribution and events. This is a prejudiced view of history. Yet when U.S. history in general is discussed or taught, it teaches prominent events irregardless of virtues or atrocities if political correctness does not interfere with the truth. The hypocrisy is that there could never be a White anything irregardless of the history of this nation. It would be racist.

Is it any wonder that Black and Hispanic Americans born in the U.S. have a disproportionately high poverty and crime rate yet multitudes of non-English speaking legal immigrants from all over the world come to America and thrive? Many U.S. Blacks and Hispanics accept the anti-capitalistic, anti-self supportive, racist ideas of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz and the counterproductive rhetoric of the New Black Panthers and the NAACP. If you are continually being assailed with anti-assimilation propaganda on a daily basis and allow a group of politicians to think for you then you will think like a socialist and subsequently be poor and dependent like a socialist. If you can break from this cycle and think as a capitalist does and take advantage of the limitless opportunities of this country rather than believe you are a special slice of the population, then you will thrive like a capitalist. If you support racist leaders and think as they do then you will never be unbound from the chains of racism.

There is assumptive racism built into the Democrat party. If the Democrats are to assume that they have a lock on the Black and Hispanic vote, that is nothing short of racism. They assume the Black and Hispanic voters need the Democrats in office so they can survive and they also assume that Black and Hispanic voters either have no interest or are incapable of assimilating and enjoying the fruits of capitalistic society. Howard Dean expressed this point very well in a speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,” Dean asked to laughter. “Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

For a Black or Hispanic voter to pull the lever for the Democrat running for office irregardless of who it is, is a self fulfilling prophecy. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.

As long as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Malik Zulu Shabazz, the NAACP, the New Black Panthers, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, La Raza and LULAC are allowed to perpetuate racism and be the de facto representatives of their races, then racism will never be eradicated. Until Blacks and Hispanics realize that racism is an industry and profit center to the afore mentioned leaders and organizations or a means to be elected by politicians they will never escape this racist vortex.

.

Hillary Clinton is calling for the head of democratically elected Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. This Marxist lapdog is oblivious to the fundamentals of the democratic process. She obviously has D.C. politics confused with democracy. If her methodology of the workings of the democratic process’s application in Iraq were applied in the U.S., 80% of the U.S. Congress would be replaced for “being nonfunctional and unable to produce a political settlement.” She had this to say about Maliki:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – White House front runner Hillary Clinton called for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Wednesday afternoon, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in the embattled leader.

“The Iraqi government’s failures have reinforced the widely held view that the Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement, because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders,” the New York senator said in a statement given exclusively to CNN’s Jessica Yellin.

Clinton went on to say she, “hope[s] that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks.”

Clinton is under fire from some of her Democrat Presidential rivals and is being hammered by the left wing bloggersphere for admitting the surge is working, but she also stated that there is “not a military solution in Iraq.” Her statements came during the same week that the surge’s troop deployment reached 100%.

The surge has made documented progress even though it has been operating at less than 100% until this week. The progress of the surge can only expand going forward. More of Clinton’s inane and robotic rhetoric:

“Progress will only come from political reconciliation and compromise from the Iraqis themselves,” she said in the statement. “Given that reality, the President’s escalation strategy is not succeeding.”

The mathematical irrelevance of her comments by the numbers:

Prime Minister al-Maliki’s approval rating hovers at 50%.

A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq. This survey had a margin of error of 1 1/2%.

Representative Clyburn, the third-highest ranking House Democrat, summed up the Democrat’s true attitude concerning the war in Iraq with this statement: “it would be a real big problem for Democrats if progress is made in Iraq.” Not a problem for the insurgents–just the Democrats.

If the U.S. had a program similar to the foreign exchange student program, perhaps we could swap Maliki for Clinton. She could then implement the socialist state she wants so badly with a country that virtually has a politically clean slate. Maliki could get a good look of what the democratic process looks like when a politically motivated Congressional cesspool has a strangle hold on it.

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Hillary_Clinton_Want_al_Malaki_s_Head]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – A Mexican woman whose fight against deportation from the United States became a cause celebre for pro-immigration activists was deported without her son, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said on Monday.Mexican citizen Elvira Arellano, 32, had claimed sanctuary in a Chicago church for a year with her 8-year-old U.S.-born son before being arrested and deported in Los Angeles on Sunday. According to ICE officials, after being arrested in downtown Los Angeles, Arellano, was taken to the border crossing at San Ysidro, Calif., where she was turned over to Mexican immigration officials.The agency said that Arellano’s son, who is a U.S. citizen, was left with her traveling companions, at her request.

Funny thing about this story is it does not mention that she has been deported before and illegally crossed back over the border or that she was convicted of Social Security fraud and skipped her deportation hearing for committing a crime, thus becoming a fugitive from the law. Also not mentioned by the main stream media is why she is claiming sanctuary in the U.S. without the fear of persecution if she returns to Mexico. That is usually how it works.

One of her implausible quotes:

“From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want,” she said in Spanish. “I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight.”

Now the operative phrase here is “my country, Mexico.” Also she is either making her statements in uncomprehendable English or speaking Spanish.

I am at a complete loss for what the meaning of this statement is from a protester at a rally for Elvira:

“Her voice will not be silenced,” said Lilia Paredes. “She will, from Mexico, from that border, give and continue to fight for the just cause of the Latinos.”

Does this mean she is going to petition the Mexican government for the just cause of Latinos? Does it mean she is going to continue her advocacy of breaking U.S. laws while in Mexico? I thought that was the Mexican government’s job. Is she going to hole up in the U.S. Embassy claiming sanctuary while in Mexico?

She has a full plate now that she is back where she belongs, in Mexico.Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago and unindicted for harboring a criminal and obstructing justice, where Arellano has been holed up had these statements:

Arellano is staying with a friend in Tijuana, Coleman said. He said she had brought to light her struggle, and for that, “she has won a victory.”

“She’ll be organizing on the Mexican side of the border while we’re organizing in the (United) States,” Coleman said Monday. “She’ll be talking to organizations throughout Mexico and congressmen in Mexico City.”

This is about as inane as what has been oozing out of Elvira’s mouth. Stating that she had “won a victory” is akin to the Japanese threatening to bring the U.S. to it’s knees the day after Little Boy and Fat Man kissed the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And what are the congressmen in Mexico City going to do for her?

If Elvira had spent as much effort to learn English and taken the proper channels to gain legal entry into the U.S. as she put into sneaking around and breaking laws theses past 10 years, she could be cleaning planes with a legitimate Social Security number as we speak.

The first time I was made aware of Hilliary Clinton’s magical powers of making things invisible was 5 months into the Clinton administration. Hilliary Clinton made 7 long time travel office employees invisible and disappear. She waved her wand, and the White House Travel Office was filled with her friends and cronies. When the scheme came to light, she made the original 7 reappear and made her friends in the travel office invisible and disappear.

Her Travelgate magic act was investigated by the FBI, the Justice Department, the White House, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel. In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her. Hillary Clinton has a very magical history of making evidence against her invisible and disappear.

Clinton in the past two weeks has listed who the Bush administration has made invisible. The invisible are:

Families without health care and single moms trying to find affordable child care are being treated as though they’re invisible to Bush – and so are soldiers who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you are a hard working single parent who can’t afford health insurance or a small business owner who worries about energy costs or a student who can’t afford to continue college, you are invisible to this Administration.

You are invisible to the oil companies earning record profits while you pay more at the pump.

You are invisible to the companies who outsource your job, or lay you off or end the promise of your pension. For six long years, President Bush and the Washington Republicans have looked right through you.

More than 46 million people living without health insurance. More than 90,000 people living in trailers after Hurricane Katrina. 13 million children living in poverty. For six long years, they have all been invisible.

Well, they’re not invisible to us. They’re not invisible to me. And when we retake the White House, they will no longer be invisible to the President of the United States.

Thats a whole lot of invisible. Not to be out done by Bush, Clinton wanted to get back into the invisible business.

Along comes Kathy Hood. She went to the Clinton campaign website that offered supporters the ability set up their own blogs on the website. She wanted to write about how she was offended by comments Hillary had made about single mothers being made invisible by Bush and portraying them as beggars with their hands outstretched, begging for government assistance because they are incapable of making it on their own. She posted her comments on her blog and it was made invisible. She posted her comments again and they were made invisible again. Both times the Clinton website made them invisible. Then her entire blog page was deleted. And as the postings became invisible so did Kathy Hood as far as Hillary was concerned.

Hood stated, no one is “entitled” to free health care. “We’re supposed to be responsible and provide for ourselves,” she told World News Daily. “She really insulted me and offended me [talking] about single moms being invisible.” Here is what she wrote on her blog before it was deleted:

“It seems to me that you Hillary Dear need a lesson in Civics 101. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of just what is and is not in Section 8 of The U.S. Constitution….

“Congress has the power to:

1. Lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to PAY DEBTS and provide for the common defense and general welfare.
2. To borrow money on the credit of the U.S.
3. To establish uniform rules of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of bankruptcies.
4. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, fix the standards of weights and measures.
5. Provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coins of the U.S.
6. To establish post office and post roads.
7. To promote the progress of science and USEFUL arts.
8. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.
9. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, make rules concerning captures on land and water.
10. To raise and SUPPORT armies.
11. To provide and maintain a navy.
12. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
13. To provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
14. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia…

“Now Hillary Dear, with that said, would you mind telling me exactly where it states that U.S. citizens are entitled to FREE HEALTH CARE provided by Government????? You can’t because it does not exist. Nor does the food stamp program, or the welfare program, section 8 reduced housing, school lunch programs, Medicaid, Medicare, prescription assistance, etc.

“If you want to push a socialist agenda then I suggest you go to a country that is Socialist. As the ‘smartest woman in the world’ you should already know that our great nation is a capitalist nation, … founded on the concept of SELF-RESPONSIBILITY. That is how you made so much money. It is not my job or responsibility to prop up the lazy, the ignorant, or anybody that makes bad choices for themselves…,” Hood wrote.

“For the record, I am a single mother that raised three children by myself, without the aid of welfare of any kind, and only earning $19,500 per year. Your current commercial running in my state of Iowa is an insult to me when you state that single mothers are ‘invisible’ to the Bush administration. Single mothers are not victims of anything. Those [who] want to make it in this world like I did work hard for what we have. Those who don’t want anything in life are the ones that choose the nanny state that you are trying to usher through. If I can do it, so can everyone else,” she said.

“Why don’t you try telling people to get off of their butts and get a job, an education, and start supporting themselves. That is where they will find success, not from a government handout. This is America, not France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium or any of the other socialist countries that you seem to love more than your own,” Hood wrote.

After Kathy Hood and her musings were made invisible, other posts that fawned over Hillary miraculously escaped being made invisible. There was a comment on her second post stating: “WHY DON’T YOU GO TO YOUR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE’S SITE INSTEAD OF SPENDING TIME HERE???? This site is for HILLARY SUPPORTER’S!!!!

For those of you who don’t understand liberal speak, it translates into this: Don’t try posting any of that outdated constitutional mumbo jumbo on here, we don’t believe in it and aren’t going to take it. We just need you to need the government’s money so you will need us. You know you can’t make it without us.

The Constitution to a liberal is like kryptonite to Superman.

Posted to Politics | Comments (4) | Email This Post |

If Michael Chertoff vs. Elvira Arellano were a cage match in an octagon, Chertoff would be a crumpled heap on the floor. It has not been a close match. She has been kicking and taunting his politically correct butt for over a year.

Who is Elvira Arellano? She is a fugitive from the law living in the Aldaberto United Methodist Church in Chicago. She and her son have been holed up there for one year this month. She has taunted the authorities to try to arrest her:

“This is the house of God,” Arellano said Wednesday. “What man would enter the house of God to arrest me?”

Elvira is not your garden variety illegal alien. She has entered this country twice illegally. She was deported after she entered the first time. She entered again in 1997. She skipped her deportation hearing making her a felony fugitive from justice. She was arrested in 2002 working at O’Hare International Airport cleaning planes. She was working there with a false Social Security number. This is an illegal alien who crossed the U.S. Mexico border, obtained a false Social Security number and was able to work in a secure area of an international airport with unfettered access to planes. What a dream situation for an Al Qaeda operative.

Elvira has used every page in the illegal alien play book to stay here. She had an anchor baby. She used the sick baby ruse to gain sympathy from supporters. The child suffers from ADHD. What child doesn’t today. She has dragged her son into the church and this mess with her.

She plans to leave her sanctuary next month to participate in an illegal alien march in Washington D.C. She had this comment about leaving the church to go to the march:

“If [immigration authorities] want to arrest me over there, in front of Congress, in front of the White House or in front of the Senate, and deport me in front of all those people that make the changes in the law, it’s fine,” Arellano, 32, told the newspaper while inside the Aldaberto United Methodist Church on Division Street. “But I’m not going to stay quiet, nor wait for them to come to arrest me and deport me. I have to fight and this is part of the fight.”

I.C.E., under the control of Department of Homeland No-Security which is under the control of Chertoff, has the authority to arrest anyone in violation of immigration law anywhere and anytime in the U.S.

“Those who willfully violate U.S. immigration laws face the consequences of their actions,” states an I.C.E. spokesperson. “We carry out enforcement actions at politically correct appropriate times and places.”

Chertoff should take a page from the Elliot Ness play book and be the first one through the church’s door and personally arrest her, and pose for a photo op while walking out the doors with her in handcuffs. Since this church has declared itself a haunt for felons, I.C.E should be at the doors every Sunday morning making arrests. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

This church is not a House of God. I don’t know what heretical theology they espouse, but I would challenge anyone to produce a verse in the Bible where a church is encouraged to harbor fugitives and encourage breaking the law. They lost their “House of God” status when they decided to become a robbers roost for criminals. This church is aiding and abetting criminals and obstructing justice. This church should also have it’s tax-exempt status revoked and be taxed retroactively back to the day they started harboring felons. If you harbor criminals you are a criminal.

I don’t want my money going to a church that harbors criminals. How is my money going to all the churches? They don’t pay taxes. If they are not paying taxes, someone is paying their share of the taxes.

Elvira should be treated like an American citizen first, then treated like an illegal alien second. First she should be arrested and tried in a court of law the same as any U.S. citizen that used a fake social security number to get a job with security clearance at an airport. Then not show up for their court date and subsequently become a fugitive from the law. She should be tried for these crimes first and if convicted serve her prison sentence. She should then be treated like an illegal alien and deported.

The illegal alien advocates are relentlessly wringing their hands about the anchor babies of illegals. Her child should get the same treatment that any single mother that is a citizen of the U.S. that commits a felony gets. The mother goes to prison and the child goes to a family member, if they are a legal citizen, or to foster care. No more no less than a red blooded U.S. citizen would receive. This quagmire concerning anchor babies is the chief reason that Plyler v Doe should be revisited by the current constructionist court to correct the inane decision that an activist court burdened this country with concerning the 14th amendment.

I am adamantly opposed to anything that would infringe on a church losing its tax exempt status. I disagree that a church should lose it’s tax exempt status for endorsing certain politicians or politics. But this church is flagrantly breaking the law. If any church so much hints as to what political candidate they would endorse, they would have the ACLU crying to the IRS to yank their tax exempt status.

Where do you draw the line on sanctuary? Murderers, pedophiles, bank robbers and any one who is not in the mood to be arrested for their criminal activities can hole up in church for as long as they want.

Posted to Immigration | Comments (1) | Email This Post |

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.–Winston Churchill

The threats to our national security in the order of the threat level:

1. George Bush’s lack of immigration enforcement since 9-11. His immigration plan would be the equivalent of putting bars on all the windows in the front of your house, adding three additional deadbolts to the front door, installing a state of the art alarm, placing armed guards in the front of the house and at the same time you leave the back door wide open and place signs in the front yard saying” come around back the door is open.” We were attacked on our soil by people who should not have been here. The absolute first thing would have been to shut down the borders and run anyone coming into this country from a middle eastern background under the microscope and find any and everyone not supposed to be here i.e. the 600,000 criminal illegals from around the world with expired visas, crimes, etc. that are still unaccounted for. Engaging in a war with a country that posed no direct threat to this country without addressing our borders and illegal infiltration is nothing short of ignorant. If a group of caucasians bombed a holy site in an Arabic country you could expect nothing less than the tables being turned. And justifiably so. It is the only effective way to stop it in it’s tracks.
2. Michael Chertoff and the Office of Home Land Security. This weed is allegedly in charge of enforcing the laws that are on the books with regards to immigration and national security. Rather than focusing on building the border fence that has been mandated and funded, he has spent his time parading around the country as a politician and lobbyist trying to sell Bush’s snake oil immigration plan. His department is also responsible for the idiotic screening process at the airports. A 75 year old nun in a wheelchair is just as likely to be searched as a person who would fit the profile of someone who would be the most likely to commit an act of terrorism. You know who I am talking about. Keep in mind that not all Muslims are terrorist, but nearly all terrorist are Muslims. This should be tattooed on Chertoff’s forehead in an inverted fashion so he sees it every time he looks in the mirror. Michael Chertoff and the Homeland Security Agency would be better served consulting with odds makers in Vegas on who would be a more likely candidate as a terrorist, a nun or a person of Middle Eastern ancestry chanting Allah rather than bowing to political correctness for their inane procedures. In Vegas the house always comes out ahead.
3. Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department who is in the pocket of the Mexican government when it comes to prosecuting Border Agents vis a vis illegal aliens and drug smugglers. And for allowing the Mexican government to be involved in any capacity in the cases and witnesses being investigated on the U.S. side of the border.
4. The Democrat controlled Congress has not passed any law or policy to weaken our national security-yet. They have tried but their efforts have so far been benign. They have been chipping away at the intelligence gathering procedures at Guantanamo Bay. The Democrats and their left wing loons are still wringing their hands over the tactics used to coerce intelligence from the prisoners there concerning national intelligence. If one of their children or spouses were captured and held hostage with threats of being beheaded and they had one hour alone with someone who knew the location of the hostage and they had anything at their disposal to get the information, what would they do? That should be the standard for extracting information.
5. Al Qaeda comes in at fifth because even though they would attack us on our soil again, they are not a direct threat unless they are here. The misguided policies that have been in place since 9-11 and the political correctness that is driving our national security policy is the only avenue they need to execute an attack. They are here and the only thing keeping more from coming into this country is Chertoff and his Home Land Security Department. The Bush administration can expand F.I.S.A. all you want and listen to whatever they want but until all threats are eradicated from our back yard and their entrance into the U.S. is cut off, you can expect nothing less than another attack here.

The only person who has spoken the truth about the gapping holes in our national security is Tom Tancredo and he has been assailed from the left and the right for his views. His views are factual and void of political correctness. Tancredo recently received harsh criticism for the following statement about bombing Mecca:

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.

Just the fact that the inept State Department made these comments gives credence to what Tancredo said. Tancredo made a statement to this effect. Tom Tancredo has identified the enemy while Bush has never identified the enemy. You have to identify your enemy to defeat it. You can’t win if you don’t know who you are fighting. Bush keeps harping about the war on terror. Terror is not an enemy. Terror and terrorism are tactics. Terrorism is the weapon of choice that our enemy chooses to fight with. Our enemy is Islam. Is it all of Islam? No. Bush continues to call it a small faction of Islam’s radical wing that is the root of the problem. Let’s look at the small radical wing by the numbers. There are approximately 1.5 million Muslims in the U.S. and 1.4 billion worldwide.
A poll conducted by Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy, 13% of all Muslims in the U. S. said that bombing of Civilians is justifiable in defense of Islam. Since there are 1.5 million Muslims in the U. S. that translates into 195,000 Muslims in the U.S. that agree with the bombing of civilians. In Europe the number is 25%. There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and that translates into 350 million who agree that bombing of civilians in defense of Islam is justifiable. Do those numbers equate a radical fringe? That is 50 million more Muslims who agree with the bombing of civilians than live in the U.S. Since we have been emasculated by political correctness, we are unable to identify our enemy and take the appropriate actions to defend our national security against it.

Tancredo also received criticism and death threats that caused him to cancel a speech in Miami for this comment:

“Look at what has happened to Miami. It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you’re in the United States of America. You would certainly say you’re in a Third World country,” Tancredo said.

Governor Bush, who replicates his brother’s ignorance on immigration and political correctness, had this to say in response in to Tancredo:

Tancredo’s comments were “disappointing” and “naive.”

“Miami is a wonderful city filled with diversity and heritage that we choose to celebrate, not insult.”

Tancredo responded with this:

“I certainly understand and appreciate your need and desire to create the illusion of Miami as a multi ethnic ‘All American’ city” “I can also appreciate that Miami’s schools graduate many outstanding students and that the cultural and ethnic diversity of the city offers many advantages to its residents.

“However, it is neither naive nor insulting to call attention to a real problem that cannot be easily dismissed through politically correct happy talk.”

Consider the immigration policy we have with the Cubans. It reads like a board game by Milton Bradley. Cubans who do not reach the shore (i.e. dry land), are interdicted and returned to Cuba. Cubans who successfully reach the shore are inspected for entry by DHS and generally permitted to stay and adjust under the Cuban Adjustment Act the following year. To show the idiocy of these policies, there was a case where a group of Cubans landed on a pier and were being returned to Cuba but filed a lawsuit. There was the splitting of hairs of whether a pier was considered dry land or not.

There are second generation people living in Miami who don’t speak English. They don’t have to. You can live in Miami, work in Miami, shop in Miami and live a complete life in Miami and never utter a word of English. Here is a result of that:

A South Florida man who is being evicted from his place of business because he speaks no Spanish – just English – says he will move out, as he’s suddenly become the focus of national debates over illegal immigration and property rights.

“I guess I don’t serve the ‘Spanish need,’ whatever that means,” McKenna told the Stuart News in a story published Sunday. Since then, the saga has been prominently featured on websites including WND and the Drudge Report, and now McKenna is making the rounds on the television-news circuit, both on Florida stations as well as national shows such as CNN’s “Glenn Beck.”

Islam, terrorism and immigration are not mutually exclusive and here is the documented tie in that Tancredo warns about:

Rep. Ed Royce, ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs terrorism and nonproliferation subcommittee, said the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) document – first reported yesterday by The Washington Times – highlights how vulnerable the nation is when fighting the war on terrorism.

“I’ll be asking the terrorism subcommittee to hold a hearing on the DEA report’s disturbing findings,” said Mr. Royce of California. “A flood of name changes from Arabic to Hispanic and the reported linking of drug cartels on the Texas border with Middle East terrorism need to be thoroughly investigated.”

Likewise, Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican, said the DEA document revealed startling evidence that Islamic radicals are camouflaging themselves as Hispanics while conducting business with violent drug-trafficking organizations.

I have been ringing the bell about this serious threat of Islamic individuals changing their surnames to Hispanic surnames for three to four years,” Mr. Culberson said. “Unfortunately, Homeland Security’s highest priority is to hide the truth from Congress and the public. I just hope we’re not closing the barn door after terrorists have already made their way in.”

The 2005 DEA report outlines several incidents in which multiple Middle Eastern drug-trafficking and terrorist cells in the U.S. are funding terrorism networks overseas with the aid of Mexican cartels. These sleeper cells use established Mexican cartels with highly sophisticated trafficking routes to move narcotics – and other contraband – in and out of the United States, the report said.

Of the estimated 500,00 illegal aliens who cross our border each year how many of them would it take to bring in a WMD and destroy a city? Just a couple of them or .00001% of them. What would Vegas think about those odds?

Posted to Immigration | Comments (1) | Email This Post |

If you are under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart. And if you’re over 30 and still a liberal, you have no brains. –Winston Churchill

If you were under the impression that Howard Dean was the head of the Democratic National Committee you are mistaken, the Daily Kos and radical left wing bloggers have been running that party for the past couple of years.

The Daily Kos had its second Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago last week. The leading Democrat presidential candidates where there to give speeches to their sycophants. During her speech, Clinton responding to accusations from Barack Obama and John Edwards about her donations from lobbyist had this to say in defense of the myriad lobbyist she is associated with: “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real dollars Americans, they actually do.” The statement was received with boos.

To further put into perspective the culture at the Kos convention that Clinton, Obama and Edwards embrace, during the discussion panel of “The Military and Progressives”, a soldier stood to say the surge in Iraq was working and was cut off by the moderator. When the panel tried to respond to him, they were told to stand down and the panel was shut down and the moderator walked off. Keep in mind this group of people run the Democrat party and the presidential front runners approve of their actions and embrace them.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards, by their continued pandering to their minions at the Kos convention, can only be assumed they approve of the silencing of the soldier.

During this past year Clinton and Obama have compared themselves to JFK. Clinton recently made these statements comparing her gender to his Catholicism:

“He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, ‘America will never elect a Catholic as president.’ “But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better,” she said. “They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

Obama made a similar statement comparing himself to JFK by using his race and Catholicism.

If you could morph the current Democrat ideology, rhetoric, campaign platforms, supporters and political track record into a person and were able to somehow introduce that person to JFK, he not only would not recognize them but would start screaming for Joseph McCarthy. The Democratic party of today would not only be unrecognizable by JFK, they would be an exact replica of the Marxist/socialist he hated.

To contrast the difference of today’s Democrats and liberals to the Democrats and liberals during Kennedy’s era, roll back the clock 50 years to 1946. Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy are elected to the Senate. Joseph McCarthy was already a long time friend of the Kennedy clan, was a godfather to one of their children and dated two of JFK’s sisters. I will point out a few highlights of Kennedy’s personal and political career and it is obvious the contrast it creates when compared to Clinton, Obama and Edwards and the Democrat party:

• After being elected to the Senate in 1946, Kennedy and Nixon formed a long lasting friendship. Both were Navy men who had served in the South Pacific.

• JFK was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps. Medal and Purple Heart in WWII,

• JFK, who served in the Senate with McCarthy from 1953 until the latter’s death in 1957, never attacked McCarthy.

• JFK’s feelings became abundantly clear towards McCarthy during a reunion banquet at Harvard. When an after-dinner speaker remarked that he was proud Harvard had never graduated an Alger Hiss and even prouder that it had never produced a Joe McCarthy, JFK exploded in anger. Rising at his seat, he shouted, “How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!” The other diners lapsed into shocked silence, and JFK departed without hearing the rest of the program.

• JFK’s massive tax cuts can only be compared to Harding, Coolidge during 1920′s and Reagan’s during 1980′s. This led to the economic boom in the 1960′s. Kennedy’s tax cuts benefited the upper and upper middle classes. JFK stated, “the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth and reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking.” The tax revenue from the top 1%, the top 5%, and top 20% surged as a result of income growth from the tax cuts. Tax revenue from the rich increased from almost 12% in 1963, to 15% by 1966.”It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates”.

• “…I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. …the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

• “Ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.”

• Kennedy’s repugnance for FDR’s New Deal was strong. Kennedy had written in his diary,” Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but rather through the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibilities.”

• JFK disagreed with the aggressive activism of Martin Luther King and the Congress concerning racial equality, and wanted that the Civil Rights organizations to act with more restraint. JFK also felt that the “momentum for civil rights and integration had to be kept at a gradual pace, lest a situation of unrest and backlash erupt all over the south.”

• Both he and his brother, RFK, would agree with J. Edgar Hoover that King needed to be wiretapped because at least one of his advisers had suspected communist ties, and both JFK and RFK had met with King urging the civil rights leader to drop those men from his group. King refused.

This demonstrates the colossal gulf separating JFK the man and politician from the Democrat presidential front runners and the party in general. JFK and RFK had far more in common with today’s Republicans than any Democrat alive today. JFK was a tough Cold War leader. He was a devout patriot. JFK earned his combat medals, unlike John Kerry.

For any Democrat presidential candidate to invoke the name of JFK or make a comparison of themselves to him is nothing short of an abomination. Today’s Left spews the same Marxist’s rhetoric JFK despised. As a presidential comparison , John F. Kennedy had more in common with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the Republican party than with any Democrat presidential front runner today.

Bottom of Form

Posted to Politics | Comments (4) | Email This Post |

MINNEAPOLIS – The entire span of an interstate bridge broke into sections and collapsed into the Mississippi River during evening bumper-to-bumper traffic Wednesday, sending vehicles, concrete and twisted metal crashing into the water.

Hometown newspaper The Star-Tribune reported that nine people had been confirmed dead, 60 had been taken to hospitals and at least 20 remained missing early Thursday. The Associated Press put the number dead at seven so far.

Less than 24 hours after the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis and while the search is continuing for survivors, the Democrats have already politicized this tragedy.

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opened the Thursday session of the Senate, he warned that the bridge disaster was a “wake-up call” regarding infrastructure investment across the country.

Later, Reid and other Democratic leaders went a step further, bashing Republicans for failing to pass a water resources and development act, known as WRDA on Capitol Hill, for seven years, saying that the bill was essential to investing in American infrastructure.

It is an unadulterated abomination that the Democrats would use this tragedy for political gain before all the the victims are accounted for–much less buried. This shows, with certitude, the lack of morality these democratic interlopers have.

How far do you think the 20 billion dollars the Democrats used to buy the votes to pass the Iraq war spending bill, with a withdrawal date, would go towards repairing infrastructure? How far would Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa) $150,000,000 in earmarked programs he attached to the 2008 military spending bill would go? How far would Rep. Bill Young’s (R-Fla.) $117,000,000 go towards infrastructure? Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), not wanting to be left out of the pork projects race, got her 11 projects valued at $37.3 million in the mix. Harry Reid had $36 million in the fiscal 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. There are 1337 earmarks attached to this bill making both side are just as guilty.

Bush has had a busy past couple of year causing catastrophes. He was blamed by the far left for causing hurricane Katrina by not signing the Kyoto Protocol. If he had signed it he would have shifted the blame back to God for causing the natural disaster. He is also responsible for the aftermath of Katrina by strategically blowing up the levies to divert the flood away from the rich part of New Orleans to the 9th ward area and causing the flooding of the black part of town.

He also caused the Indiana University Dentistry School’s cheating scandal in which nine students were kicked out of school and 16 were suspended and 21 more were reprimanded. 46 students out of a student body of 95 were involved in the cheating — more than half.

Here’s what Dr. Anne Koerber, associate professor of dentistry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, an expert in dental education had to say:

When you have persons in high places who clearly lie about what’s happening with weapons of mass destruction… I think the general public gets the idea that anything that makes money is what’s right.”

This has nothing to do with Bush, but shines a light on the dimwitted thought process of the left. In 1989, after the San Francisco earthquake, an interstate highway bridge collapsed and killed hundreds. It was blamed on Republicans and their tax cuts, not the earthquake. The Democrats let God, and his natural disasters, off the hook on this on too. Here is an excerpt between Pat Buchanan and Michael Kinsley from CNN’s Crossfire:

Michael Kinsley: “If they had spent the money, which they are now planning to spend to fix the Bay Bridge, beforehand, which they didn’t, in part because of Proposition 13 and other Republican budget-cutting programs, that bridge wouldn’t have collapsed, there would be people alive today.”
Pat Buchanan: “The California budget is about two and a half times what it was in 1978. What are you talking about?…Why don’t you blame it on Reagan? That would be consistent.”
Kinsley: “I’m blaming it on Reagan, you, and all the other cheap Republicans who don’t understand the good things government does.”
– Exchange on CNN’s Crossfire, October 18, 1989.

The left is blaming the bridge collapse in Minneapolis on Bush is just modus operandi for these windbags. It is apparent to that no matter what catastrophe or where it occurs, it is George Bush’s fault or at least a Republican’s.

Posted to Politics | Comments (2) | Email This Post |