There are myriad differences that differentiate and separate countries, nations, and societies. The adherence to the rule of law is one of the primary instruments that protects nations from the subjugation of anarchy, and ultimately a vacuum devoid of civility. Also antithetical to the rule of law is the rule of man. There are various examples of nations led by the rule of men rather than the rule of law: Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein. A society must have laws that are obeyed by everyone, spanning from the leader to the lowliest citizen. Under the rule of law, a society can prevail; without adherence to the rule of law, anarchy will prevail.

Searching for the categorically correct words to best characterize Barack Obama and his lawless performance as President of these United States is a simple venture, actually. By simply using the calculus of the aggregate of the preponderance of the prevarications caused by the pathological infirmity that prohibits Obama from telling the truth, even under the most benign circumstances, and the blatant and malevolent disregard of the foundational principles of this country, the United States Constitution, and the rule of law, several characterizations come to mind. With an abundance of empirical and substantive evidence from his rhetoric, actions, and policies, “racketeer,” “scofflaw,” and “malefactor” are the most generous and humane descriptions available. For Barack Obama, when compared to the first president of this country, “indecent” is a well-suited characterization as well.

Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that what he cannot accomplish legally, he will circumvent with mechanisms of subterfuge. This has been Obama’s default modus operandi if he cannot have his way. Obama has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, an active federal law, has decided to enforce the Cap and Trade Act, which is not a law, as it has never been approved by Congress, and has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the fundamentals of this non-existent law. These laws were either created or repealed by the Executive Branch by calculated lawlessness and empirical fiat. Obama has implemented the Dream Act via the same dictatorial mechanics. The Dream Act is not a law and should not be enacted by Obama’s criminal savoir-faire. There are myriad federal immigration laws that Obama is legally compelled to enforce, yet he has by executive order ratified the Dream Act, and circumvented and disregarded existing legitimate laws.

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act) was first proposed in the legislation during the 107th Congress in 2001-2003, tried again in the 108th Congress in 2003-2005, tried again in the 109th Congress in 2005-2007, tried again in the 110th Congress in 2007-2009, and tried again in the 112th Congress in 2011-2013. It was never in the remotest danger of passing.

For ten years this preposterous act has been defeated. There is one reason the DREAM Act has been so persistently pushed by each Congress: is it is pregnant with progressive politics, ideology, and is a quantifiable vote purchasing mechanism for the Left.

The fundamentals of the DREAM Act for illegal aliens are thus:

• Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e., 15 and younger)
• Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill
• Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e., college/university)
• Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application
• Have registered with the Selective Service if male
• Must have good moral character

The first two provisions listed would be problematic to ascertain their validity, which would cause dubiety and void the next three provisions, but it is the very last and fractionally subjective provision that is a self-fulfilling prophecy for bad character: discounting an anemic defense of moral relativism, possessing a “good moral character” and breaking the law by living in this country unlawfully, using fake documents to gain employment and access to public services, is mutually exclusive of a “good moral character.”

Obama cryptically tried to cloak his passing the DREAM Act, in direct violation of the rule of law, and with lawless abandon, by executive fiat on a Friday afternoon news dump.

There is something eerily familiar between Obama’s directive to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the DREAM Act.

The dictator-esque directive that usurped the rule of law and rewrote the rules of deporting an illegal alien now considers…

• The circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States
• Whether they are in high school or college
• Whether they have served or are serving in the military
• Particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child
• The person’s pursuit of education
• Whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military

Barack Obama has given prosecutorial discretion to I.C.E. agents to determine whether or not to deport an illegal alien. The only provision missing from the detained is a sworn affidavit attesting that he/she will vote for the Democratic Party if ever granted citizenship.

Perspective: This is the equivalent of a mayor of Anycity, U.S.A. granting the municipal police department the ability to determine if they want to arrest a perpetrator committing felony A, B, or C. They could be required to ask them a few innocuous questions about high school diplomas, whether their dad served in the military, how long they have lived here, and lastly, ask them if they are of good moral character, then release them back into society at their discretion. Complete prosecutorial discretion in the field, which under U.S. law is reserved for prosecuting attorneys, violates the very core of the rule of law.

Prosecutorial discretion is also mathematically incoherent. Roughly 7,500 people cross our borders each day. The Border Patrol has 20 sectors, with 9 on the southern borders. If they could stop and interrogate just these 7,500 illegals per day, that would be 7,500 hundred prosecutorial discretion decisions made each day primarily in just 9 sectors for an agency with approximately 20,000 agents covering the entire country. This does not take into consideration the approximate 20,000,000 living here illegally. Obama’s executive order is not only breaching the rule of law, but dismisses the mathematical and logical fact that any form of immigration law is completely inconsequential without securing the borders first.

To complement Obama’s confidence-game with the rule of law, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin brings a refreshing and moronic take on the Constitution. Durbin said the following during a speech at a congressional hearing to a room, apparently full of youthful illegal aliens, after asking the young scofflaws to stand if they were undocumented: “When I look around this room, I see America’s future, our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our congressmen, our senators, and maybe our president.”

Unfortunately for the under-uneducated Durbin, and the rest of the educationally challenged liberals in Congress, the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, states, No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4, states, The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are serious criminal offenses, and should naturally be cause for impeachment, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not criminal offenses, nor do they exist anywhere in the U.S. criminal code. This impeachable political offense was intended to keep those of higher office morally in line. These “high crimes and misdemeanors” can only be committed by an occupant of a high office and position in the government. Abusing one’s power and violating one’s oath of office is the epitome of high crime.

Perjury was the proven charge against Bill Clinton by the House of Representatives that caused his impeachment. But periurus or perjury had a much broader meaning than its current meaning of lying under oath, as did Clinton. When the founders wrote the Constitution, perjury meant also a violation of one’s oath of office.

From the 1890 An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis: periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. This definition of perjury during the founding era would be cause for impeachment, especially if chronic, as it is directly related to those of higher office and status, who have an obligation to uphold the oath they took. Barack Obama does not need to be sworn in to commit perjury, as he took the oath of the presidency: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

High crimes and misdemeanors is an extraordinarily vast and ambiguous dominion ruled by obvious breeches. This may seem a daunting, burdensome, and unattainable task for a 21st century U.S. President, and this extraordinary standard may seem archaic and incomprehensible, but the moral, honorable, and dignified manner of the founders’ conduct and substance set the standard, and it was their moral and principled foundations that set the measure for the “high crimes and misdemeanors clause.” Barack Obama is bound by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and be honorable and truthful in his conduct, and most importantly, to respect and abide by the rule of law. Barack Obama’s responsibility, as defined by the Constitution, is to execute this country’s laws, not adjudicate the laws he disagrees with from the Oval Office.

If the Congress faithfully abided by the Constitution’s meaning and intent of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause, Barack Obama would have been bounced out of the White House a long time ago, and sent back to Chicago’s iniquitous political abyss.

The greatness of this country, and the core of its exceptionalism, is adhering to the rule of law. Almost the entirety of this country’s shortcomings, failures, setbacks, digressions, and transgressions can be attributed to two things: violating the rule of law, and twisting and forcing meanings from the Constitution that do not exist.

The remedy would be to follow the rule of law: Congress faithfully writes the laws within the parameters of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, the Executive Branch signs or vetoes the laws presented by Congress, and dutifully executes the laws, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the laws.

The crime:

Humberto Leal was brought to the U.S. illegally in 1975 at the age of two. He had presented himself as an American citizen his entire life. In 1994, he raped and killed 16-year-old Adria Sauceda. She was found naked by authorities. Leal had sexually violated her with a 15-inch long stick with a screw at the end. The stick was used while she was alive. Leal then bashed in her skull with a 40-pound rock twice the size of her head, then fled, leaving the bloody and broken stick inside her. Leal confessed before he was formally arrested.

This isn’t Texas’ first rodeo with executing illegal aliens for killing its citizens, and having to deal with a meddlesome President, the International Court of Justice, or a foreign country attempting to obstruct the Texas judicial system. The spurious attempts by the International Court of Justice and a U.S. President have been repeatedly repelled by the Supreme Court from interfering with a state carrying out its criminal process over an impotent and extraneous treaty.

The International Court of Justice derives its jurisdiction from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963. Disputes “shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” according to the Vienna Convention. The International Court of Justice is the judicial arm of one of the most unethical, corrupt, and knavish organizations in the world, the United Nations. Liberals and progressives would prefer nothing more than to transfer our judicial sovereignty to the U.N. and in a judicial capacity, be under the control of an organization pregnant with nefarious third world countries that dominate the U.N. The consequences would be innumerable. Our federal and state laws would be subjected and subordinated to the malignant ideology that infects the U.N. and its various tentacles, including the International Court of Justice.

The “compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” was tested against the United States with the case The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America. The court held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua’s harbors. The court awarded judgment against the U.S. and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua. The United States objected, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that the court is a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.” The court countered that the United States was subject to its jurisdiction. Then Ronald Reagan took action. The United States then announced that it had “decided not to participate in further proceedings in this case.” Then, on January 18, 1985, the United States withdrew from the International Court of Justice with these parting words: “the court lacks jurisdiction and competence.” And in 2005, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol, neutering the International Court of Justice of jurisdiction in consular cases.

The issue is that Humberto Leal was never given the chance to speak with a Mexican consul. The police never asked if he wanted to speak with one. But, perhaps the arresting officers were afraid or forbidden to ask if he is a Mexican national. If he looks Mexican, and they ask, they are racists. This would be, in the world of liberals, progressives, the U.N., etc., racial profiling and not only illegal, but offensive. This is the foundation of every lawsuit filed by Mexico and Barack Obama against states, such as Arizona’s immigration laws giving law enforcement the ability to ascertain someone’s legal status. To follow the illogical logic of Mexico and the liberals, asking if one is a Mexican national is racist and considered profiling, and not asking by virtue of law, and thus denying a Mexican national the right to speak with the Mexican consulate, is a violation of international law. This is very apropos for liberal logic.

Barack Obama, being severely constitutionally challenged, and in the habit of abhorring states’ rights, decided to intervene in Texas’ criminal law and the pending execution of Humberto Leal by sending his Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. to join Leal’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The plea before the court was as bizarre, unorthodox, and sophomoric as Barack Obama’s leadership adroitness. Obama’s Justice Department did not ask for a legal ruling, did not present a constitutional claim, but requested that the court stay the execution of Humberto Leal until Congress could actually pass a law that would presumably give them legal justification to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court. Congress has failed to pass the legislation twice, and the prospect of Congress handing over a substantial piece of our judicial sovereignty to the U.N. is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

The Supreme Court unceremoniously rejected the case in a per curiam 5-4 decision.

The majority opinion of the court regarding Obama’s kooky request:

Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be. We decline to follow the United States’ suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based on hypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has any prospect of success. The United States studiously refuses to argue that Leal was prejudiced by the Vienna Convention violation. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President, “presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.

The foundation of Barack Obama’s Justice Department’s argument was thus: hey, perhaps sometime in the future, maybe around January 2012, or maybe even before, heck who knows, Congress might pass legislation, that it has refused to pass twice before, that would give us “future jurisdiction to review the judgment in a proceeding.” But even though we haven’t really thought about the fact that if this legislation passed, it probably would not have any effect on his conviction anyway since the violation did not prejudice the verdict, we feel we should waste the court’s time with possible laws of the future we may want to argue, sort of the same principle with law as with cryonic science and medicine, let’s just freeze it until there is a plausible remedy, then resurrect it.

Leal’s attorney, Sandra Babcock, argued that with the assistance of a Mexican consul, her client could prove his innocence. Even if protocol had been followed and Leal had been in contact with the Mexican consulate, he had already incriminated himself before being arrested and read his Miranda Rights, and the consulate could not have made, as in Mexico, the evidence that convicted Leal disappear. The Supreme Court made clear that speaking with a Mexican consul would not have stopped his being convicted, and the Justice Department never broached that argument. Humberto Leal’s due process was never questioned, nor the evidence against him, and he was afforded every legal remedy available after his conviction, including 16 years of appeals and legal wrangling. One Federal District Court judge called it “one of the most procedurally convoluted and complex habeas corpus proceedings” he ever reviewed.

Preceding the appeal to the Supreme Court, the court had ruled on two very similar cases. Medellín v. Texas was a United Supreme Court Case regarding Texas’ pending execution of José Ernesto Medellín. Medellín took part in the gang rape and murder of two Texas girls, a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old. President George Bush wanted to enforce a decision by the International Court of Justice that found the conviction of Medellín had violated his rights. Justice Roberts wrote for the court, “Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon in 2006 weighed strongly on the Medellín case because the State of Oregon did not have to exclude evidence in violation of the Vienna Convention.

As in the plead to the Supreme Court regarding foreign policy consequences, if Leal’s execution was not stayed, the Obama administration, in its continuance of fear mongering, fears other nations may retaliate against U.S. citizens by denying their rights to an American consul in retaliation if Texas is allowed to follow its laws. The same argument was employed with Sanchez-Llama v. Oregon in 2006 by the Bush administration, and again with Medellín v. Texas in 2008. Not one retaliatory act by a foreign government has been committed against an American citizen as the result of either state executing its laws. In a statement that is as detached from reality as Obama’s Supreme Court plea, Ricardo Alday from the Mexican Embassy stated, “Another execution of a Mexican national in direct violation of international law would undoubtedly affect public opinion in Mexico, undermining support for a constructive and forward-leaning bilateral relationship.” Perhaps it will have such an impact on public opinion in Mexico that the citizens of Mexico will abstain from sneaking across the border in to the U.S. Perhaps, also, Mr. Alday is unaware of the travel warning issued April 22, 2011 by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, stating, “The Department of State has issued this Travel Warning to inform U.S. citizens traveling to and living in Mexico about the security situation in Mexico….the security situation poses serious risks for U.S. citizens…” et cetera. Clarified: Go to Mexico and the probability of being kidnapped and losing your head are relatively high.

Illegal aliens, their apologists, and the liberals who believe that illegals deserve the right to be treated the same as United States citizens just got their wish. Humberto Leal was treated explicitly as any United States citizen would have been treated who was convicted of murder, sentenced to death, and exhausted his appeals.

Humberto Leal confessed before his arrest, and just before he died. His last words were, “I have hurt a lot of people. Let this be final and be done. I take the full blame for this. I am sorry and forgive me, I am truly sorry.” He then blurted, “Viva Mexico!” But Texas’ justice had the last words: “Don’t Mess With Texas” and “Viva Texas!”

Though hailed as the face of immigration reform, a poster child for immigration reform she is not. Auntie Zeituni is the quintessential archetype of not enforcing this country’s current immigration and welfare systems.

Auntie Zeituni is as egotistical as her nephew Barack Obama, and is actually the poster child of the freeloading and ungrateful gift that keeps on taking. The insolence and incivility of this fugitive is as breathtakingly stunning as it is injurious to the very fabric of the rule of law that is the sustenance for civilized commonwealth.

Regarding this country’s immigration, the only thing wrong with the system in place is the irremediable damage of decades of unwillingness to adequately fund it, the blatant refusal to enforce it, and the preposterous assumption of its harmlessness by the Left. Every president and Congress since Lyndon Johnson shares culpability for the current conglomeration of the 15-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. The Left needs the expedited conversion from illegal to citizen for votes, and the Right needs them regardless of their citizenship status for cheap labor.

Auntie Zeituni has emerged from the penumbra of a fugitive’s existence with newly endowed asylum and an interview with WBZ-TV’s Jonathan Elias.

The backdrop:

Barack Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, visited the United States from Kenya in 2000, overstayed her visa, and never left. According to Auntie Zeituni, she was shortly thereafter administered welfare and public housing by the state of Massachusetts. She requested political asylum in 2002 because of the violence in Kenya (which is a slippery slope considering if violence were the only criteria for political asylum, then our illegal immigration problem would be solved post haste, as every single citizen of Mexico would qualify for political asylum in the U.S.). Immigration Judge Leonard Shapiro ordered her deported in 2004. Applying the skills of a seasoned freeloading fugitive, Auntie Zeituni ignored the deportation order. She was invited to and attended Obama’s inauguration in 2008. The case was re-heard in 2009, but postponed for a year. The very judge who ordered her deported in 2002, U.S. Immigration Judge Leonard Shapiro, granted her asylum in May of 2010.

What is intriguing about Shapiro’s volte-face is his reasoning for granting asylum. He stated that the publicity “…exposed her to heightened threats of persecution in her native Kenya…and exposed her to great risk.” Influence from a messianic merry-andrew? A legitimate reason for the case being sealed has yet to surface. Could she become the target of a kidnapping for ransom in her native Kenya if deported? Not likely, considering Obama broadcasted her existence in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father. It is nonsensical that her current media exposure would lead to possibly being kidnapped or persecution in Kenya, as Obama has 100′s of relatives in Kenya that are, as is Obama, treated like celebrities and actively seek publicity.

Highlights of the interview with clarifying translations:

• Auntie Zeituni pronounces that the U.S. has an obligation to criminals: “If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen.” Auntie Zeituni seems to be confused about the difference between visiting a country, immigrating to a country, and committing crimes against a country. But she is actually saying that she understands the mindset of the Democratic Party, and far too many of the Republican Party, and know that they have her back.
• When queried about receiving public housing while thousands were still waiting: “I didn’t take any advantage of the system. The system took advantage of me. I didn’t ask for it; they gave it to me. Ask your system. I didn’t create it or vote for it. Go and ask your system.” What she is actually saying is that a parasitic entity cannot be constrained by international borders.
• How Auntie Zeituni describes the American dream: “To me America’s dream became America’s worst nightmare.” It is unclear if she is describing the state of union two years after her nephew was elected president, or if she is re-defining the American dream from freedom and the promise of prosperity for those who work hard to achieve it, to the wholesale pilfering of the American taxpayer’s prosperity for the benefit of the criminally languid.
• Auntie Zeituni describing the advantages of living here despite the nightmare: “It’s a great country. It’s nice to live here. You can do whatever you want when you live here.” Auntie Zeituni is actually very astute as to the mindset of the Left.
• Auntie Zeituni describing her gratitude when Elias stated this country has “…given you so much”: “So. It’s a free country under God.” Auntie Zeituni is working with a skewed concept of the term “free.” She is living off the fat of taxpayers with the compensation she receives from various welfare departments–which can be acquired by arming yourself with the intention of doing absolutely nothing to receive this manna from Uncle Sam–not with what can be acquired from God, salvation, which is not so free. Starting with Exodus through the Gospels, the price of salvation is high. It is not for the theistic penny-pincher.
• Auntie Zeituni responds to why American taxpayers should be burdened with her needs: “This country is owned by almighty God. You people who preach Jesus Christ almighty God and the rest of it, you are here to help people, help the poor, help other countries and help women. That’s what the United States is supposed to do. And you have to give me my right light, every person’s right.” Auntie means is that she is lockstep with the Left of this country. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence spell out what this country is “supposed to do,” so she must interpret it to her benefit. The Constitution means whatever the Left says it means for political expediency, or in Auntie’s case, a free ride.
• Auntie Zeituni on carrying crosses: “I carry my own cross.” What she means is she is actually too lazy to carry her own cross, and the American taxpayers are following her in procession carrying her cross, her rent, her income, and her medical bills.
• Auntie Zeituni on how she afforded one of the nation’s top immigration attorneys: “When you believe in Jesus Christ and almighty God, my help comes from heaven.” What Obama has here in his Auntie is an untapped resource for the mortgage crisis and the ability to stop foreclosures–heaven. The problem is this: Just this past week, Obama purposely cut the Creator out of the Declaration of Independence, so no manna from heaven for the mortgage crisis created by the Democratic Party as long as Obama continues to delete the Creator from our founding documents.

The apologetic rallying cry from the left is this: “Illegals do the work no one else will do.”

Colin Powell, the card carrying Republican with an antipodal disposition to conservative values, said, “We have millions and millions of illegal immigrants in our country, undocumented individuals, who are working, who are doing things we need done in this country. They’re all over at my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs. And I’m sure you’ve seen them at your house.”

They may be all over at Colin Powell’s house, but one person who will most assuredly not be found at his house doing the essential work that no one else will do is Barack Obama’s Auntie Zeituni. These are the facts: Auntie Zeituni has not, will not, and never intended to perform the work no one else will do, or even the work someone else will do, since conning her way into this country. She has been supported by the American taxpayer since attaching her parasitic claws into her host, America.

It is not surprising that Auntie Zeituni displays such a rapacious indignation towards this country, as it aligns with the same contempt for this country that Barack Obama has brandished since his egocentric contemplations have been on record. This is a genetically indistinguishable duo, whose DNA apparently carries the not so uncommon gene for entitlement, arrogance, and wanton contempt. Obama and his aunt exist on such a striking parallel, that an interesting abstraction would be if their backgrounds were reversed, we could quite possibly have our first black female president, while some irrelevant chain smoking prevaricating fugitive lives off the dole in Boston, still blaming everyone else for his predicament.

Now of course I did not actually read the bill with my own eyes; what I did was follow the examples displayed by the erudite leaders of this country, delegating my scholarship to the press, magazines, blogs, and the general word on the street. If our president, Barack Obama, can sign a 2700 hundred page health care bill based on anecdotal propaganda gathered by various people possessing incorruptible decadence, and if Eric Holder can delineate the Arizona immigration law and issue apocalyptic prophecies in infinitesimal degrees without ever reading the bill and instead relying on hearsay, and if Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, can claim that “That’s not the kind of law I would have signed… I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law,” without reading one page of the 10 page bill by relying on a jejunely calculated postulation based on intelligence gathered from La Raza pamphlets, The National Enquirer, and The View, then I hereby proclaim myself a renowned expert on the Arizona immigration law by intellectual proxy.

Based on my indolently gathered intelligence, I must proclaim solidarity with the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, West Hollywood, and Oakland, all from the wistfully insolvent state of California. But an honorary position among these patriotic enclaves is warranted for the Phoenix Suns.

Since I have not actually read the immigration bill in question, I thought we could read it together, staring at the demonic scrawlings with our collective jaws agape. I plugged the following words into Google: immigration law, racial profiling, oppressive states, and discrimination. The following treatise is the fruit of my sleuthing. Notice how in the first sentence, the state is compelling all municipalities within the state to cooperate with federal immigration law, and forcing all law enforcement agents to check legal status by questioning immigrants and demanding to see their papers.

The reprobate:

(a) Every law enforcement agency shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

This must be one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation on the books in any state of this union. Not one consecrated city has the option of giving sanctuary to pre-citizens without penalty. The nerve of Arizona… wait a second… what is this… this is not the Arizona immigration bill. Listen: I must ask the reader to strike from the record any prejudicial and malignant thoughts this bill may have caused them to formulate against California, as this is section 834b of the California Penal Code forcing all municipalities to comply within the state of California. Obviously a stenographic error in transcribing, causing the first sentence to not reflect the words “in California” preceding the word “shall” in the first sentence.

Anyway, our crusade is still salvageable. I will refrain from personal investigation, and rely on my original methodology, which is recommended by our leaders in D.C., depending on other people’s opinions for my own. With serendipity reigning down upon us this past week, one of the true leaders of a wonderful empire that just so happens to abut Arizona, no less, was touring the White House and our esteemed Congress, and addressing this very subject. What a sad state of affairs to which we have succumbed when the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, has to risk flying across Arizona’s borders to scold and educate the populace of America regarding the atrocious Arizona immigration bill. This Mexican President, this captain of righteousness, has shepherded his beloved country of Mexico down a path of peace and prosperity, which is starting to pay huge dividends by curbing the random decapitations, kidnappings, drug smuggling, human smuggling, abject violence, and general anarchy and mayhem, by noting that there was a 5 1/2 minute period in the month of December when not one of the above mentioned exportable commodities happened. Now I shall let President Calderon explain the Arizona law in plain and simple Spanish.

Calderon flew into the United States last week, being under diplomatic parasol, technically making his lack of documents a non-issue, but he did, and prudently so, refuse to land in Arizona for refueling purposes, nonetheless. There were a few snags with the Democratic Party’s warm acceptation of his diatribe against the United States as his translator’s rendition was as discombobulated as the diction of a Middle School English teacher in Tucson. Regardless of the incoherency of the speech at times, there was always a rousing standing ovation lauded by the Democrats. The Mexican Embassy had to clear up a few poorly translated remarks by Calderon. Example of the poor translation: “Despite their enormous strain on the economy and society of the United States, millions of immigrants are shadowy, and at times, like in the land seized from Mexico, the state of Arizona, are forced into patterns of dissemination.” The transcript from the Mexican Embassy: “Despite their enormous contribution to the economy and society of the United States, millions of immigrants still live in the shadows, and at times, like in Arizona, even face patterns of discrimination.” Calderon said the law “ignores reality,” while adamantly pronouncing that the billions of dollars that illegal aliens cost the U.S. each year, the crimes they cause, the drugs smuggled into the U.S. across the border, the kidnappings in the U.S. by Mexican pre-citizens, the violence on the border, and the smuggling of humans across the border, were unrealistic products of the right-wing propaganda machine.

I was so inspired by Calderon’s scolding of the anti-pre-Americans that I have located the immigration law of El Diablo currently in force in Arizona. I used the same key words in Google as before: immigration law, racial profiling, oppressive states, and discrimination, but added the great country of Mexico and Calderon. Google disgorged that Arizona immigration law dictates immigrants should:

have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records;
and contributors to the general well-being of the nation;
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

This is not a law, this is citizenship genocide; this would not only eradicate all pre-citizens from within the confines of Arizona’s boundaries, but if adhered to in the strictest manner, would eliminate the entire Democratic Party within that state, and if ever adopted nationally, would set this country back, politically, all the way to the ratification of the Constitution. How can the state of Arizona force all the pre-citizens to… hold on a second, not again… there must be some sort of mistake with this Google. This appears to be the immigration law of Mexico. Again, strike this from the record, extinguish whatever ill thoughts are burning in your mind until I can get this sorted. There has to be a perfectly good explanation. Hold your faith, as it does not excuse Arizona, we all know they did something horribly wrong with immigration. I, along with Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and the entire Democratic Party, just know something is amiss in Arizona; we are just not exactly sure what it is yet, but it is most definitely much worse than anything California and Mexico have done. And I can promise that once one of us finally reads this bill, we will find some way to bring their contumelious and oppressive immigration law to light. Bear with us.

How about this: “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection… assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S.” No, no, no. That’s from the United States immigration law Section 1304(e).

Eureka! I have procured the iniquitous document.

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

A. No official or Agency Of This State Or a County, City, Town or Other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification.

E. In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:

1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

Resolute readers do charge forth with our crusade against the state of Arizona, as the plenitude of evidence against Arizona has been manifested by my stalwart enterprise. Unfortunately, I have yet to read the snippet above, as I have become infirmed with physical exhaustion and mental lethargy as a result of this production. If anyone can peruse the above Arizona law and locate the obvious mandate for racial profiling, discrimination, and the various other pernicious verbiage, please note it and pass it on to me so I can be informed.

Nothing quite aggregates the inerudite fog that the Obama administration, the Democratic led Congress, and the heterogeneous disposition that various states and cities wander around in, than the above quote. And the Attorney General of this “nation of cowards,” epitomized the Obama administration last week when asked by the House Judiciary Committee if he had read the new 10 page Arizona immigration law. Holder, after spending weeks denouncing, criticizing, and demonizing the law because it “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling,” was “unfortunate,” and because he questioned whether the law was unconstitutional, answered,

I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Compounding the Obama administration’s superficial ineptness, the queen of our security, custodian of our southern border, and former Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, took as strong a stance against the Arizona law as did Holder:

That’s not the kind of law I would have signed… I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in. When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation.

Napolitano would have you believe that most of the law enforcement agencies of Arizona changed their minds in less than a year regarding immigration enforcement. And incidentally, Napolitano did admit that her statements regarding the Arizona immigration law were formulated without reading the 10 page law. She never read it, and rest assured that Obama never read it, and rest assured that…, etc., etc.

Pitted against reality in an epic battle in which it long ago decidedly submitted to defeat, the City of Los Angeles has persuaded the Los Angeles Lakers to withdraw from the NBA finals against the Phoenix Suns unless their home games are moved to Austin, San Francisco, Mogadishu, or any other bureaucracy that harbors a vapid disdain towards the rule of law in favor of moral and cerebral ineptness. The Phoenix Suns have also decided to boycott the city of Phoenix and the state of Arizona; refusing to play any more games within the Great State, they will only wear jerseys inscribed with Los Suns, and concur that Mogadishu should be their surrogate home city.

Of course it would be preposterous to believe that the Lakers would boycott the NBA finals, or that Phoenix would move to another city over a law passed through a democratic process in Arizona. These modern day Leftists lack the five essential ingredients necessary to bring their vacuous threats to absolute fruition: standards, morals, perseverance, character, and the innate ability to transform an abstract political philosophy into a transcendental sociopolitical governmental foundation, the United States Constitution, as did a group of leaders in 1776. They may pick and choose a contract here and there to break in violation of contract law, boycott a few travel plans to Arizona, but when matters of momentous significance are on the line, they will unceremoniously assume the submissive position that afflicts all invertebrates.

The NBA Players Association has entered, at their own peril, the arena of national politics by labeling the Arizona immigration law “disturbing.” Remember, this is a game, a game of basketball, a sport. As with all professional sports, basketball is watched and supported by Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, Upper-Class, Middle-Class, Lower-Class, blacks, whites, and all ethnicities. The NBA Players Association and the Phoenix Suns are provoking commercial genocide.

Basketball, or as it was originally called, Basket Ball, was the creation of James Naismith in 1891 for one purpose: “The game of basketball was the result of a challenge from a teacher to his student to pique the interest of an incorrigible class during the usually dull winter months.” A perfunctory perusal of any sports page of the past ten years or so will attest to the fact that the “incorrigible class” has come full circle and is now the players, owners, league, and Players Association.

In the game of one-upmanship of aborted cognizance, San Francisco is impossible to beat, but the Los Angeles City Council never goes down without a fight, and with regard to the boycotting of Arizona, Los Angeles may have achieved a tie. Possibly, but the jury is still out.

What I find ironic is that the majority of city council members, governors, civic leaders, and politicians who have reacted to the immigration law in Arizona with rabid revulsion, all seem to have surnames of a south of the border persuasion. It does seem quite coincidental that certain similarities exist in the surnames of enemy nations or a similar genre of enemies that wish to usurp the American way of life. Just a casual, anecdotal observation reveals that most of the surnames against the Arizona law, or pretty much any law against criminals that cross the border into this country, are of a Hispanic bias, just as the surnames of, say, the Third Reich, mostly wore umlauts for hats.

A few nuggets of wisdom, patriotism, and words of social cohesiveness from a few of the Los Angeles City Council members, I have on loan from the pages of Time Magazine:

“The Lakers are critical to continuing the momentum,” says Los Angeles City Council member Jose Huizar, who was born in Mexico. His statement was referencing the momentum of the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona. Of what “momentum” he is referencing is anyone’s guess, as the only momentum to be found is the rapidly increasing national support for the Arizona law, and comically, a poll from the LA Times regarding Los Angeles’ boycotting Arizona. The result of the poll of Los Angeles residents was a resounding, “No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4%.”

Los Angeles City Council member Ed Reyes, one of the co-authors of the Arizona boycott legislation, is also holding out high hopes for the Lakers. “It would be huge,” says Reyes, hoping the Lakers would boycott the playoffs against Arizona. Mind that Reyes was born in Los Angeles, and is only an American citizen in the academic sense. It would be huge for Los Angeles alright, as boycotting an NBA playoff as a team would probably be the demise of that team as it is known, in that city. Reyes would love to see “Laguneros” — Spanish for Lakers — on the team’s jersey for at least one of the games against the Suns.

Reyes’ city council colleague Richard Alarcon is even more direct. “I love the Lakers, and hope they repeat [as NBA champions],” says Alarcon. “But there are some things more important than basketball. Democracy is more important than basketball. And the Lakers should make a statement.” Reyes is correct that “democracy is more important than basketball,” but considering that the Arizona law was passed by a democratic vote, and Alarcon version of democracy is of a Fascist’s persuasion, the then following statement would be more accurate: Democracy is more important than the Left’s version of Democracy. Since the discussion is encompassing, at its most basic level, people living and working where they should not, i.e., sneaking into a jurisdiction for a self-serving benefit, it is certainly worth mentioning that Alarcon was investigated in 2010 by the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division for not living in the district in which he ran for office.

Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, has taken a different approach, and with Villaraigosa being an economic prodigy, solvency is just around the corner for a functioning bankrupt Los Angeles. Villaraigosa went to law school, and was also a member of Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board. For starters, Villaraigosa had to abandon his legal approach to economic solvency because of a technicality: he failed the California Bar Exam four times and is not licensed to practice law by virtue of, quite frankly, being inflicted with the obtuse. So his only avenue was economic, where his genius has been roused from a lifetime of dormancy.

Villaraigosa appears to have stumbled upon the economic theorem employed by the Left: if costs are raised exponentially as revenues drops, then somehow, a balance sheet in the black will magically appear from nowhere. FDR perfected this theorem to prolong the Great Depression by at least a decade. Villaraigosa’s solution to an ever increasing budget deficient, now hovering around $500 million for Los Angeles, “In California, I think there’s a real sense that these immigrants provide a great deal to the economic might of the state.” Villaraigosa’s economic astuteness is highlighted by his agreement with the boycott of Arizona, and apparently he and the city foresee a financial windfall when Arizona and other states and cities reciprocate the strategy. All illegal immigration is a net gain for Los Angeles, and the country, this according to Villaraigosa.

Here is a short list of the “economic might” that illegal immigration costs the state of California and the nation according to the Center of Immigration Studies, compiled from census data: Illegal immigration cost the state of California $10.5 billion per year, or $875 million per month, or $20 million per week. An added bonus of “economic might” about which Villaraigosa can brag is that Mexicans smuggle 80% of all cocaine in the U.S. across the open border we share with Mexico, and 50% of all heroin. After all the “economic might” is calculated from illegal immigration, $8 billion is sent back to Mexico annually, further contributing to illegal immigration’s “economic might” here.

The City of Angels very well could be conducting their council meetings by the illumination of candlelight. There is this dam in Arizona, the Hoover Dam, that has been providing electricity to Los Angeles since 1936, ergo, Arizona would win the boycott competition by myriad watts, if they so choose to engage.

Irreparable Harm to Arizona’s Reputation? Read the headline at dailyfinance.com. The lead sentence stated, “As bad as the financial hit may be, the cost to the state’s reputation is almost immeasurable.” The disconnect from reality by the Left is breathtaking at times. This article was 100% fabricated, and written under the guise of a fantasy that if you write it enough times, it becomes fact. Several national polls have the Arizona immigration law gaining traction across the country. From the Pew Research Center, polling numbers for the law conclude, “Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them.” And as disclosed in a preceding paragraph, the LA Times poll concluded that 93.4% of residents of LA polled said LA should mind its own business. Financial hit and soiled reputation, indeed.

Reyes, Alarcon, and Villaraigosa, and others whose alliances lie with Mexico rather than America, justify their Lèse majesté for a community that does not exist, the Latin American Community, the Hispanic Community, and whatnot. This Latin and Hispanic Community does not exist, or at least north of America’s southern border. The  Latin and Hispanic community does exist though, south of the border in Mexico, Central America, and South America, and Reyes, Alarcon, and Villaraigosa are welcome to reside there, for comfort’s sake, of course.

This is a nation of Americans, sans the 14 million illegals, a nation of individuals with individual liberties, and individual freedoms. What it is not is a nation of “communities” of various ethnic backgrounds, heritages, and languages. The immigrants that filtered through Ellis Island, the Italians, the Irish, the Polish, never lost their pride and their ties to their homelands, even though they lived in Italian communities, Irish communities, etc. But what set these Americans apart from their contemporary illegal and legal immigrant brethren is that they were not leaches, learned English, worked, created a life, and assimilated a little each and every day, with passion and thankfulness, with the hopes of becoming American. These “communities” that Reyes, Alarcon, etc. belong to only seek citizenship, not becoming American.

It seems in the past month, my beliefs are aligned more so with the state of Arizona and its immigration law, and its ban on anti-American rhetoric taught by ethnic study programs, but then again, I always try to side with the founders, and I am sure they would side with Arizona.

The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, has banned all city employees from non-essential travel to the state of Arizona. One exception is law enforcement officials investigating crimes, but–in botched Shakespeare–therein lies the rub: one city’s junk is another state’s law. The venerable brain trust of the West Coast, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, are taking menacing procedures for an economic boycott of the Grand Canyon State, and even boycotting that racist chasm the Grand Canyon, no less. But fear not, Arizona, the Honorable Newsom formed, within hours of the passage of the law, the “Arizona Boycott Workgroup” to ascertain whether their boycott could possibly backfire on San Francisco, or through the lens of reality, if one sits down to a game of poker with 45 cents, a handful of crumpled IOU’s, and a reputation of being rather stupid, against the reigning world poker champion with the backing of $10 million worth of chips, what is the probable outcome?

I would presume that most folks of a common sense persuasion would likely be more offended, economically concerned, and morally aghast, if it had been Somalia that proclaimed a boycott of Arizona rather than San Francisco. In the grand scheme of things, San Francisco has long since become America’s vermiform appendix.

Let us deconstruct the city with the Golden Bridge. San Francisco is America’s Baghdad on the Bay; San Francisco can also lay claim as America’s Sodom. One small trivia fact about San Francisco that is not well known is that there are no angels in San Francisco. They boycotted it. The last time a couple of angels visited the city, they were last seen running up Fillmore with a wild look of terror in their eyes, clutching their holy britches with one hand, and protecting their posteriors with the other. Word travels fast on the internets of eternity, and thus was the beginning of the boycott of San Francisco by angels.

To be clear, San Francisco is the antagonist of all things American, and in a sense, the enemy of America. The hands on Darwin’s clock have spun backwards on the city of San Francisco. This city has digressed into one of the most perverted, anti-American, and rapidly decaying bastions of anathema produced by a civilized nation. Cold War Russia displayed a better disposition towards America than does San Francisco. Perversion, immorality, and American hatred are badges of honor worn with pride in this iniquitous abyss on the bay.

The city is operated by a Board of Supervisors and the Beelzebub of mayors, Gavin Newsom.

A truncated list of the decisions by the Board of Supervisors in which the only conceivable litmus test for their decision would be whether the decision is moral or immoral, with immoral the reigning champ:

Let us start with the shining star of the Board of Supervisors, Gerardo Compos Sandoval. Sandoval believes that the United States should not have a military; he believes that we should give up all our military weaponry; he just plain hates our military, our veterans, and the United States of America, which he and the citizens have become expatriates.

Sandoval stated, “I don’t think we should have a military.” He said that the local police and firefighters should be responsible for our national defense. When asked, “Should the United States give up our tools of war?” he stated, “You know that’s a very complicated question, but I would say, if you forced me to answer, I would say, yes, we should.” The Board of Supervisors voted down the harboring of the USS Iowa as a museum. Said Sandoval regarding voting against the harboring of the ship, “You don’t want a symbol of war in the harbor? It’s a warship and it’s got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can’t deny what it is.”

Sandoval is representative of the City of San Francisco. And since his harebrained ideas while on the Board of Supervisors were antithetical to logic, intelligence, and morality, the good complicit citizens voted him Superior Court Judge.

This bastion of civility voted to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, thus making their matriarch of stupid, Nancy Pelosi, President. Once again in a flamboyant display of irrelevance, San Francisco’s impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and Pelosi’s ascension to the throne of a communist America never materialized outside the city limits of America’s Baghdad.

They voted against the limited use of eminent domain, but counter to the pervasive movement across the country, chose to expand eminent domain.

They voted to publicly finance candidates of their choice by raising taxes on corporations and financial institutions to pay for their campaigns.

San Francisco loves pedophiles and sex offenders, and will defend them tooth and nail. The Board of Supervisors voted down a law that would increase the penalties and monitoring of sex offenders and pedophiles, but impeached Bush and Cheney.

The city voted to ban military recruiting in high schools and colleges and to completely ban handguns.

The San Francisco school board voted to ban all Junior ROTC programs from their school districts.

San Francisco, in contrast to Arizona, will violate the federal laws with which it disagrees. They force their police department to also disregard federal law. The city will not allow their police to ascertain a detained suspect’s immigration status, and if they serendipitously discover that they have an illegal alien in their custody, are forbidden from alerting federal authorities. San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City” for criminals, run by criminals.

But stupidity cannot be contained within the city limits of San Francisco, as it is a statewide affliction. President of the California State Senate, Darrell Steinberg, believes that it would be in the best interest of the state to end all state contracts with Arizona. But in the real world, California is so insolvent it would have long ago been broken-up and sold in bankruptcy court to the highest bidder, and if Karma existed, that winning bidder would be none other than North Korea, and perhaps for payment, the U.S. could receive something of greater value than California, such as the North Korean national energy grid.

But there is a solution that would appease all involved. Illegal aliens** have said they will leave Arizona because of the new law as they don’t feel so welcome. San Francisco loves them some fugitives. You can see were this is going.

The solution: load 6,000 Greyhound buses with the previously unwelcomed feeling 450,000 now overjoyed illegal aliens by offering them a welcoming atmosphere and a free trip to Arcadia–not to be confused with Arcadia, CA east of L.A.–deposit them just inside the city limits of the sanctuary city of Baghdad on the Bay, which can, if they so choose, disperse the overjoyed illegals among the welcoming around the state. If Arizona seems to be getting the better part of the deal, it doesn’t really matter since California, as a state, is dumber than a box of crickets, and they will never know the difference anyway.

This may seem like an insurmountable financial burden on the fine city of San Francisco, and the great State of California, but financial bounties await. If the state of California would only start charging an exit tax at the international border between California and the United States on the exponentially increasing hordes of the wealthy fleeing the state with the taxman nipping at their heels, true Nirvana would await the Golden State once again as their coffers would be overflowing.

**Do not construe that by the use of the term illegal aliens that I am insinuating that they come from south of the border and am condoning racial profiling of the darker skin persuasion. I am not. I believe, as most common sense folk do, that there is an equal chance that those without documentation in the state of Arizona could just as well have illegally crossed our Southern border from other countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, or Miami.

Over 20 billion dollars are sent from the U.S. to Mexico each year and is growing at a rate of 10% per year. 62% of all illegal aliens in the U.S. are working for cash and not paying taxes and this money is sent out of our economy and into Mexico’s economy.

Is this a clandestine operation that operates in the shadows? No! The U.S. government has taken steps to perpetuate this fiscal insanity.

The Federal Reserve introduced Directo a Mexico in the fall of 2005 to allow U.S. financial institutions to utilize the Fed’s Automated Clearing House channel to remit payments to Mexico. Directo a MexicoSM (Direct to Mexico) is a joint marketing scheme between the Federal Reserve Banks and the Banco de Mexico. These are the two central banks of each country. This program is used to assist U.S. banks to increase their share of the rapidly growing U.S. to Mexico money transfers.

Even though document fraud is rampant in the illegal alien business, including, but not limited to, stolen or fabricated social security numbers which continues to bolster benefit fraud–unaudited Social Security benefits are being wired to Mexico at the rate of 26,000 payments each month.

Mexico likes to refer to these payments as remittances. Vicente Fox summed up this booming industry with these words: “Remittances are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment.”

One would suppose that converting the 20 plus million illegal aliens in the U.S to legal status would solve the problem. That could not be further from the truth. It would be an economic disaster:

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

Not only would the economic burden on U.S. taxpayers triple, the same amount of money would still leave the U.S. economy and end up in the Mexican economy.

Other than the cost of health care, Mexico’s largest industry is operating in an area of economic anomaly by deferring the cost of crime, social services and any other conceivable cost to the U.S.– and the U.S. accepts it with unconscious blitheness. A few examples of the ICE and FBI stats were gathered from azresistance :

Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens.

Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

F.A.I.R. research shows “the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year.

California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.”
2006 (First Quarter) ICE/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants:

CRIME

95 % of Warrants in LOS ANGELES are for ILLEGAL ALIENS.

83 % of Warrants for MURDER in Phoenix Arizona are for ILLEGAL ALIENS.

86 % of Warrants for MURDER in Albuquerque New Mexico are for ILLEGAL ALIENS.

75 % of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

24.9 % OF ALL INMATES in California detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY.

40.1 % of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY.

29 % (630,000) Convicted ILLEGAL ALIEN felons fill our state and federal prisons at the cost of $1.5 billion annually.

53 % Plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by ILLEGAL ALIENS.

50 % Plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

71 % Plus of all apprehended cars stolen in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were stolen by ILLEGAL ALIENS or “Transport Coyotes”.

47 % of cited / stopped Drivers in California have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the vehicle, of that 47 %, over 92 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS.

63 % of cited / stopped Drivers in Arizona have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the vehicle of that 63%, over 97 % are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

66 % of cited / stopped Drivers in New Mexico have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the vehicle of that 66 %, over 98 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS.

BIRTHS

380,000 Plus “ANCHOR BABIES” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S. Citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid for by American taxpayers.

66 %, TWO THIRDS of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by American taxpayers.

HOUSING.

Nearly 60 % of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens.

SCHOOLS

34% plus of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 24% plus are non-English speaking.

39% plus of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 42% plus are non-English speaking.

In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English – 3.9 million speak Spanish.

SOCIAL SERVICES

43 % of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens.

41 % of all Unemployment Checks in the United States are to illegal aliens.

58 % of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens.

Less than 2 % of illegal aliens are picking crops but 41 % are on welfare.

POPULATION

Over 70% of the U.S. annual population growth (and over 90% of CA, FL, and NY) results from immigration.

TAXES

62 % of all “undocumented immigrants” in the U.S. are working for cash and not paying taxes, predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.

The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 (last known calculation by Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University) was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay), $70 Billion per year. [What are the 2006 costs?]

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average illegal alien is $55,000 cost to the American taxpayer in a 5-year span. You personally pay $11,000 every year to illegal aliens.

JOBS

(per Center for Immigration Studies – September 2006):

Between 2000 and 2005, 4.1 million immigrant workers arrived in the U.S., accounting for 86% of the net increase in the total number of employed persons (16 & older), the highest share ever recorded in the U.S. Of the 4.1 million, between 1.4 and 2.7 million are estimated to be illegal aliens. Also, between 2000 and 2005, the number of young (16 to 34) native-born men employed declined by 1.7 million – at the same time, the number of new male immigrant workers increased by 1.9 million.

George Bush vetoed HR 976, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), albeit for the wrong reasons. SCHIP in its latest revision is another step towards universal health care insurance. Not because of its purest intent, but because of its expanding borders. The program is designed to help families who earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but don’t earn enough to buy conventional insurance coverage. Therein lies the first flaw with the plan–the subjectiveness of the difference in the incomes and what they can or cannot afford. If a family wants to benefit from an entitlement program as the SCHIP program, then they should be subjected to a financial analysis of how the spend their income. The second flaw is it is a government entitlement program and will be infected with fraud. A classic example of who benefits from government programs like this because of inherent fraud:

The Not So Poor Voice of SCHIP

Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: Oct 7, 07 01:36 PM

On September 29th, 12 year old Graeme Frost of Maryland got to do the Democrats’ radio address, in which he told his story of how he and his sister were seriously injured in a car accident, and if it hadn’t been for SCHIP, they wouldn’t be here today. So who is this 12 year old? The Baltimore Sun did a story on the family, in which it stated the family couldn’t get health insurance through their work. But the article left out quite a few important, and interesting, bits of information, which Freeper managed to find while googling:

First, Mr. Halsey Frost, Graeme’s father, owns his own woodworking design studio, Frostworks, so his claim that he can’t get health insurance through work is shockingly deceptive. He chooses not to get health care for his family. Second, Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the very exclusive Park School, which has tuition of $20,000 a year, per child. Third, they live in a 3,000+ square foot home in a neighborhood with smaller homes that are selling for at least $400,000.

Yet, hardworking taxpayers who sacrifice many things such as expensive private schools and expensive houses in order to buy their own health care for their families are supposed to subsidize this family’s health insurance premiums.

 

There does not exist data that would manifest at what point a family could not afford health insurance. Some families could, based on their life styles, and some families could not, based on their lifestyles. There is no absolute mathematical line of distinction. There is nothing more fiscally dangerous than a government agency with control of taxpayer’s money and a recipient of said money with nothing separating them but a thin veil of subjectivity.

Some families earning up to $83,000 or single parent families earning 200% of the poverty level and families earning up to 300% of the poverty levels could receive this insurance. You can also receive this insurance for your family if you are in this country illegally.

Is there any plausible way these two abstractly different topics can be related to one another? Absolutely, in an economic faculty. The most primal foundation of fiscal and economic incumbency would cause one to spend money when there is unencumbered money to be spent on a worthy cause or where money can be re-apportioned and spent at no additional cost on a worthy cause.

Is the SCHIP a worthy cause? Yes, if it stays within the fiscal parameters of a worthy cause, which it has expanded outside of and if it is funded with money taken from an unworthy cause i.e. the cost of illegal aliens for example would fund SCHIP 100 time over.

These are only two instances of literally thousands where there can be an equaling economic effect. They were only chosen because illegal immigration will be a hot topic until it is resolved and this past week SCHIP was a hot topic because of its veto. The application of economic equaling is fundamental, equitable and the only fiscally responsible way to operate an economy.

She is pressing Mexican President Calderon to name her “peace and justice ambassador” so she can enter the U.S. again where she chose to abandon her 8 year old son. She does have the qualifications for the job– her resume is in the preceding paragraph speaks for itself. Pleading her case to the press she states:

“What I’m asking for is a diplomatic visa so that I can be an ambassador for peace and justice because I’m not a terrorist and the United States can’t continue treating undocumented migrants as terrorists,” Arellano told reporters after meeting with President Felipe Calderon at the presidential residence, Los Pinos.

Arellano said she would not back down from her request and was angered that Mexico was seeking a U.S. visa, adding that the Mexican government should not have to ask permission to send her north of the border.

“I’m not asking for any visa,” she said. “I want a diplomatic post as ambassador of peace and justice, and I won’t accept anything less.”

There is no reason Calderon would not give her bizarre request credence. He made this statement in his state of the nation address last week, “Mexico does not end at its borders. … Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” He asked Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa to “look into the situation that Mrs. Arellano and her son face and to approach U.S. authorities so that we can respond to her request.” The Mexican government said it is talking with U.S. officials about whether a deported illegal entrant and activist could return to the United States. Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa said she approached U.S. authorities on Arellano’s behalf after the 32-year-old activist asked Mexican President Felipe Calderon to help her return to the United States legally as a “peace and justice” ambassador.

What Calderon and Elvira are obviously counting on is Bush’s affinity towards illegal aliens– especially from Mexico. If she is given a diplomatic passport from Mexico, Bush would probably push for its approval. Once she receives diplomatic status, there is a good probability of her ending up with a cabinet position in the White House as Secretary of the newly created Department of Peace and Justice. If she plays her cards right, she could be made “peace and justice” Czar.

Even though Elvira Arellano was convicted and deported, she is still able to continue to abuse her son and use him as a pawn for her cause from across the border. This week she had her son paraded around Washington D.C. carrying a banner that read, “Born in the USA: Don’t Take Our Dads and Moms Away.” The group that had him on parade made their way to Nancy Pelosi’s office with a crew of television cameras in tow. Unfortunately Pelosi’s office was already packed with anti-war protesters so they resorted to taping two letters to Pelosi’s door, one in English and one in Spanish, telling her, “If Democrats expect our support in the next election, the Democrats must support us now.” The activists then proceeded to clash with police outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chanting and shouting for her to lead on immigration reform. Nancy Pelosi was in Portland, Or. The activists accompanying him compared his mother to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. Using Elvira Arellano’s name in the same sentence as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks should be considered nothing short of blasphemy to the Black Community. King and Parks were arrested for civil disobedience to further their cause. Elvira was arrested and convicted for identity theft and breaking federal law. The connection between stealing someone’s social security number and identification then proceeding to break federal laws with it to further the cause of 14 million law breakers escapes me. The mother of the year/pseudo peace and justice ambassador/legal scholar/Mensa candidate/full time loon had this to add:

“He is a boy who has been suffering because the U.S. government told his mother she couldn’t stay in their country anymore because she was undocumented,” she said.

This criminal could not be any more delusional or pathetic. Her son is suffering because his mother broke several federal laws and was caught up in a federal terrorist sting, and rightly so. The most serious being a felony for stealing someone’s social security number and assuming their identity. She crossed the border twice knowing she was breaking the law. She knew her actions were illegal and she was not just considered “undocumented” as she states. She was documented, a documented criminal according to the courts. Her son is suffering much more than the son of an American citizen would be suffering if their mother had broken laws and was sent to prison. He is suffering more because he is being exploited and abused by his mother, illegal alien activist groups and anyone else who thinks the sad face of an 8 year old boy can further their agenda. He is being parading around as the face of the illegal’s plight rather than being in school where any other 8 year old should be. That is the suffering.

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

This was a tough week for national security and the rule of law but it was a great week for illegal immigration. It’s not rocket science to connect the dots or digest the preponderance of events this past week to see the alarming effects illegal aliens, activist courts, the Bush administration and Mexico’s apparent control over policy in this county is having. The depth of the breach of national security is endless with the combination.

The first two news articles below are the results of rulings by the 9th circuit court of appeals in San Francisco on Friday. The fact that these rulings came out of this court is somewhat comforting since this is the most fundamentally flawed court the U.S. has ever produced, and the most overturned and in all likelihood the rulings will be reversed on appeal. This court is on track to have created more laws than the legislative branch with their activists agenda. This is a court that needs to be pulled out by the roots, broken up, and reassembled into at least 3 courts. A few of their honorable stats:

The Ninth Circuit has demonstrated contempt – if not open hostility – for the rule of law and the limited role of judges in our constitutional design. The Ninth’s decisions are often so far outside the judicial mainstream that the question is not whether the Supreme Court will reverse, but when.

Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

This is what happened this week in the U.S. with regards to National Security, the rule of law and illegal alien’s effect on the country:

Mexico trucks to roll on U.S. highways

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Bush administration can proceed with a plan to open the U.S. border to long haul Mexican trucks as early as next week after an appeals court rejected a bid by labor, consumer and environmental interests to block the initiative.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco late on Friday denied an emergency petition sought by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and consumer group Public Citizen to halt the start of a one-year pilot program that was approved by Congress after years of legal and political wrangling.

The Transportation Department welcomed the decision and said in a statement that allowing more direct shipments from Mexico will benefit U.S. consumers.

Judge stays rule requiring employers to fire illegal immigrants

A federal judge in San Francisco blocked the Bush administration Friday from imposing a rule requiring employers to fire workers identified as illegal immigrants in government records or face possible prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a nationwide temporary restraining order sought by the AFL-CIO and affiliated unions to keep the government from sending letters to employers demanding that they clear up workers’ citizenship status.

The order will be in effect until Oct. 1, when another federal judge will consider whether to grant an injunction that would block the rule until a trial on the unions’ lawsuit against the government is held.

The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week that carry with them more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation’s largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called “no-match” letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday…

Man ‘evicted for English’ will sue for discrimination

STUART, Fla. – The battle over a South Florida business ordered out of its location purportedly because the tenant speaks English and not Spanish is now headed for the legal system after being evicted.

Not even teachers can speak English

An official state inspection of Arizona public schools reveals that many students are being taught English by Spanish-speaking teachers whose command of English is so poor that the officials can barely understand them.

The recent inspection revealed teachers providing instruction in Spanish instead of the legally required English, students unable to answer questions in English, and teachers’ instructions such as “Sometimes, you are not gonna know some.”

The results of the inspections were reported by the Arizona Republic, which concluded hundreds of students in the state are trying to learn English from teachers who don’t know the language.

“Some teachers’ English was so poor that even state officials strained to understand them,” the assessment found. “At a dozen districts, evaluators found teachers who ignored state law and taught in Spanish.”

Other visits uncovered:

• In the Humboldt Unified District, one teacher said, “How do we call it in English?”
• In Phoenix’s Isaac Elementary, a teacher said. “My older brother always put the rules.”
• In Marana, a teacher said, “You need to make the story very interested to the teacher.”

Attorneys in Hazleton illegal immigrant case ask for $2.3 million

Plaintiffs who successfully sued to overturn Hazleton’s illegal immigrant law want the city to pay more than $2.3 million in legal fees.

U.S. District Judge James Munley struck down the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in July, ruling it unconstitutional. Hazleton has appealed the ruling to the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs asked Munley on Friday to award them more than $2.3 million in fees and another $45,000 in related costs.

“But for the efforts of the private lawyers and public-interest law groups involved in prosecuting this matter, plaintiffs would not have been able to seriously challenge Hazleton’s unconstitutional ordinances and the lives of plaintiffs and other similarly situated residents of Hazleton would have been adversely and irreparably affected,” the lawyers said in a petition.

Parks commish condemned for Minuteman involvement
Kansas City councilwoman says border group ‘one step from KKK’

A newly appointed parks commissioner in Kansas City, Mo., is being condemned by the city council for being part of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps – which wants to secure the American border against unauthorized individuals, military and contraband.

“This is one step from the KKK,” city council member Beth Gottstein told the Kansas City Star. “My world is totally rocked by this. We fight this every day. I am grieving for my friends in the Hispanic community.”

Border Patrol agent wants federal trial

A Border Patrol agent charged with murder in the shooting of an illegal immigrant is asking to have his case moved from state to federal court, and prosecutors aren’t objecting.

Lawyers for Nicholas Corbett argue that the agent’s actions were necessary and proper to perform his duties as a federal law enforcement agent, so he is immune from state prosecution under the U.S. Constitution.

They have asked the U.S. District Court in Tucson to take over the case and asked Cochise County Superior Court this week to send the case to federal court.

Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer said Thursday that the petition “comes as no surprise, and we don’t see any grounds to oppose it. We’ll just let it run its course.”

Sean Chapman, one of Corbett’s lawyers, said he could not comment because the motion was pending before a federal court.

Corbett pleaded not guilty Aug. 20 to second-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide in the shooting of Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera, 22, of Puebla, Mexico.

Corbett, 39, told a supervisor he shot Dominguez Rivera on June 12 near the border east of Naco after the man threatened him with a rock. Witnesses said Corbett shot him without provocation.

Mexican Government Increasing Fight Against US Immigration Laws

By: Sher Zieve

In yet another attempt of a foreign government to end US immigration laws and create a no-holds-barred open southern border scenario, the Mexican Senate has “ruled” that the USA has no right to deport illegal-alien Mexicans from its country. Citing the recent ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) deportation of, at least, two-time-offender illegal alien Elvira Arellano, Mexican Senator Humberto Zazue said: “We cannot remain quiet in view of this injustice and must ask for firm action from our authorities!” Firm action from our authorities? What is Zazue advocating? Increased violence from Mexican “authorities” at our southern border, perhaps? Is this another step in Mexico’s plan to take portions of the US as Mexican territories?

Note: It already appears that Mexico has a growing number of the US Border Patrol “leadership” members in their back pockets. As a prime example, West Texas Laredo US Border Patrol Chief Carlos X. Carrillo has firmly decided that protecting the southern border from both illegals and drug smugglers is not the job of the USBP. In no uncertain terms, Carrillo strongly advised Laredo citizens: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Border Patrol’s job is not to stop illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol’s job is not to stop narcotics or contraband or narcotics. The Border Patrol’s mission is not to stop criminals!” Carrillo goes on to say: “The Border Patrol’s mission is to stop terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country.” Really? Then tell me, Mr. Carrillo, how do you know a terrorist is a terrorist unless you stop and interrogate those attempting to illegally enter the country? And further, Mr. Carrillo, who rendered the decision that the USBP’s role at the border was not to apprehend illegals and/or drug dealers? Was it your boss? Or, is this simply your personal foreign policy agenda? From Carrillo’s pronouncements, one must assume that illegal crossings of “workers” and drug smuggling gang members run rampant in Laredo.

Unreported in the main stream media was Mexico’s threat to charge trade tariffs on U.S. imports if the U.S. proceeded with the border fence and current immigration law. They have complained to the U.N. about the border fence and our immigration laws, yet it remains a felony to enter Mexico illegally along with two years of jail time-unless you have enough money to pay off an official. They have a captive audience with the U.N. since the U.N. does not recognize the concept of illegal aliens. The U.N. uses the term regular migrate and irregular migrate. The U.N. is a strong advocate of open borders.

The above scenarios are not cherry picked highlights of the year , but just this past week, and represent just a few examples.

It is paramount as to who wins the next presidential election as far as national security is concerned. I am not sure if a Democrat could conceivably do as much damage as Bush has done to erode our national security via our borders. It is irrelevant what past administrations have done concerning illegal immigration. 9/11 should have changed the rules concerning our borders and the 600,000 unaccounted for criminal and expired visa aliens in the country, but it has escaped Senor Bush’s myopic vision of a open border continent.

As far the Republicans presidential candidate front runners go, Giuliani turned New York into a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and would doubtfully change the direction of U.S. border security even though his city was attacked by illegal aliens with expired visas. John McCain is pro amnesty for illegal aliens and co-authored the bill offering amnesty. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are the only two candidates in the race at the moment that have the capability of drawing a line in the sand and not only halting this invasion but reversing it. They are the only two candidates that would have the foresight to suspend NAFTA and anything related to it until the Mexican government starts legitimately working to curb the flow illegal aliens into the U.S. and we get illegal immigration to a manageable level. It is well past time for someone to play hard ball with the Mexican government. There is a time for diplomacy and a time for action. It is time for action.

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

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.