Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Guard the Borders Blogburst

by Heidi at Euphoric Reality

WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT SENATE BILL S. 2611

The new immigration bill (the most "sweeping reform in 50 years") S. 2611 is an amalgam of petty causes, illogical provisions, unstructured "solutions" with zero allowances for implementation, and self-contradictory language. Despite the mess, it was passed by self-righteous politicians who repeated the mantra "it's better than doing nothing." This from the same gaggle of do-nothings who outright rejected the House's law enforcement bill.

The Senate bill has our President's full support - this same bill is a derivative of one structured by Ted Kennedy and John McCain, and supported in full by the majority of Democrats. That alone ought to give one pause - President Bush, a Democrat?

Peggy Noonan says, "The disinterest in the White House and among congressional Republicans in establishing authority on America's borders is so amazing--the people want it, the age of terror demands it--that great histories will be written about it."

She opines that it is possible that..."the administration's slow and ambivalent action is the result of being lost in some geopolitical-globalist abstract-athon that has left them puffed with the rightness of their superior knowledge, sure in their membership in a higher brotherhood, and looking down on the low concerns of normal Americans living in America.

I continue to believe the administration's problem is not that the base lately doesn't like it, but that the White House has decided it actually doesn't like the base."

S. 2611 is less about law, and more about a weird, mutant agenda that melds licentiousness with an utter disregard for the end result. There are quite a few details in S. 2611 that the media has ignored and that the legislators would rather you know nothing about. Some were provisions germane to the original Kennedy-McCain bill or the pseudo revision of Hagel-Martinez, the rest are amendments that required separate votes to accept or reject. Here's what you need to know about the Senate's fiasco.

NATIONAL SECURITY

The Senate failed to pass an amendment that would've made amnesty contingent on effectively securing the border. Their priorities are completely opposite those of the American people, who have repeatedly made it clear that our borders must be secured before anything else. Furthermore, buried in Arlen Specter's manager's package, an amendment proposed by Dodd makes it mandatory for our government to consult with Mexico before taking any security action along the border, to include building any barrier or any enforcement along the border. This includes everything from federal troops, and state-mobilized National Guard, down to local law enforcement. In other words, even if a county sheriff mobilizes a posse to guard the border, he must clear it first through Mexico. This effectively gives the Mexican government veto power over our national security concerns!

We've heard a lot about the 6,000 National Guard troops, assigned to help with back-up duties in order to free up Border Patrol agents. Unfortunately, that will make only 500 additional agents available to apprehend and detain lawbreakers at the border.

The White House adamantly insists that Guard troops take no role in law enforcement, even though, so long as they are under the command of their governors—as they will be under the president’s proposal—they are allowed to do so. Republicans worry that when the Guard shows up for duty, Lou Dobbs’ cameras won’t be far behind, recording their impotence as they merely alert border agents to the whereabouts of entering illegal immigrants whom they must passively watch.


"Merely alert border agents to the whereabouts of entering illegal immigrants?" Sound familiar? The National Guard will, at most, be performing Minutemen duties. But wait! I thought the Minutemen were "vigilantes", Mr. President.

A tiny concession to border security was passed (Sessions, R-AL, amendment #3979) which allows for the increase of fencing and vehicle barriers along 370 miles of the southwest border of the United States. Unfortunately, existing hardware - including rancher's broken cattle fences - would be counted towards this paltry total.

What's most appalling is that a Democrat tried to push through an amendment (Leahy, D-VT, amendment #4117) that would revise the existing ban on granting refugee status to aliens who have provided "material support" to a terrorist organization! Fortunately, the motion was killed, but the fact that it was even considered and proposed is deeply troubling! Who can take these guys seriously?

EMPLOYMENT

Ted Kennedy passed an amendment (#4066) that makes it unnecessary for any illegal alien to have an employer attest that they are employed when petitioning for permanent legal residence, and "self-employment" is sufficient. Plenty of room for fraud and corruption there!

Now here's where the whole argument for "cheap labor/doing jobs Americans won't do" flies out the window. Barak Obama (D-IL, amendment no. 3971) passed an amendment that extends the Davis-Bacon Act's "prevailing wage" levels to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of American workers, who have this protection only on federal job sites:

So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats' union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.


There goes their precious "cheap labor" - this provision will effectively price many guest workers out of the market. "Guest workers" will have legal status and visas that entitle them to real wages, overtime, deductions like unemployment and social security, and workers’ rights that legal workers now enjoy. Illegals will still be cheaper. Thus, twenty million illegals will be amnestied right out of the job market. Then what do we do with them when millions of new illegals flood into the country to take their place?

Now enter the litigation factor: foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be "terminated from employment by any employer . . . except for just cause." In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

TAXES

We've been assured time and again that newly amnestied "guest workers" will have to pay back taxes for the years that they lived here illegally - except that they really won't. A loophole in the new bill provides that only two years of back taxes will need to be filed. I don't know any American citizen that can just choose not to pay taxes for years! Additionally, the Senate has now provided for illegal aliens to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Our government will end up paying them!

SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator Ensign (R-NV) tried to remove the provision allowing illegal immigrants who receive legal status under the legislation to receive retro-active credit for Social Security benefits for time that they worked before receiving legal status. Arlen Specter killed it. The bill allows illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits for the years that they worked illegally, even if they paid into Social Security under a false number or using a stolen identity! As an American citizen, if I were caught stealing someone's identity or forging documentation to avoid paying taxes, I'd go to jail. Not so illegal aliens! There are NO penalties for breaking those laws - only retro-active rewards. The longer they broke the law, the bigger the pay-off.

VOTING

Senator McConnell (R-KY) sought to add to the bill a requirement that all voters in federal elections be required to present a valid photo identification.

"It is nonsense to suggest that somehow a photo ID for one of our most sacred rights should not be protected by a requirement that is increasingly routine in almost all daily activities in America today," said the Kentucky lawmaker, second-ranking Republican.

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., likened the proposal to a poll tax or a requirement for voters to pass a literacy test. "Now is not the time and this is not the place to consider an amendment that may disenfranchise a million or more poor, minority, disabled, and elderly voters -- all of them American citizens," he said.


The proposal barely passed on a vote of 49-48, but unfortunately, it remains in limbo, evidently doomed by arcane rules now that the Senate has voted for cloture.

What the bill DOES provide for is a Bureau of the Census report to Congress on the impact of illegal immigration on the apportionment of Representatives in Congress. Of course, they need to count them - they are, after all, their newly bought electorate!

"GUEST WORKER" STATUS - NOT TEMPORARY AT ALL

Here is a perfect of example of self-contradictory language within the bill itself. The bill supposedly protects American workers by ensuring that new immigrants will not take away jobs. However, the bill's own definition of "United States Worker" includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.

Senator Kyl (R-AZ, amendment #3969) attempted to ensure that temporary workers stayed temporary by removing the bill's provision allowing guest workers to apply for permanent residency. The Senator from his own state, McCain, killed the amendment.

Also, thanks to Senator Santorum (R-PA) the bill expands the visa waiver program (Immigration and Nationality Act, Sect 217) to numerous additional countries. At this point, why even bother with a visa? Waive it all!!

BUDGET

Senator Allard (R-CO), concerned by the incalculable administrative costs of implementing S. 2611, raised a point of order about the budget. Such a move is allowed under the Budget Act when the projected cost of legislation under consideration exceeds a certain level. If the point of order is upheld, the legislation cannot proceed. The Senate irresponsibly waived the protective rules under the Budget Act, rejecting the point of order 67-31. Apparently, no cost is too great.

THE "GO BACK TO THE END OF THE LINE" FALLACY

Bush's former chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey blows the whistle on the "end of the line" fiction being used to sell the Bush/Senate immigration reform:

At present, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are waiting to immigrate legally to America. They have already waited in line to get their first appointment, then to submit the paperwork, then been called back to answer more questions. And still, they wait. In places like Hong Kong, the waiting time may be as long as 15 years. Most of these people have relatives--cousins or grandchildren, for example--who live and work and pay taxes in America and even have become American citizens.

While the process isn't pretty, there is no good alternative. Permission to reside in America is very valuable....

Comprehensive immigration reform promises that people already in the United States illegally can apply for citizenship, but requires them to "go to the back of the line." But a key question is, the back of which line? The reform bill before the Senate doesn't require illegal immigrants to go back home--to, say, Hong Kong, to the end of the 10-to-15-year line there--to get a green card. Instead, it allows the current illegals to receive their green card immediately--having, in effect, jumped the line at the U.S. consulate abroad. Then, like other green card holders, they will be able to work here, collect government benefits like food stamps and Medicaid, and travel as freely as if they had a U.S. passport.

The line the current illegals will go to the back of is the citizenship line. Under the proposed law, current illegals, newly minted green card in hand, will have to wait six years, then get in line to apply for citizenship. But even after six years, they will be years ahead of many people who have gone through the legal process and are waiting overseas for a consular official to let them come here. Once those who have been playing by the rules all along get here, they too have to wait six years before getting in line for citizenship.

If we really mean "the back of the line," that should be behind everyone who is already in the pipeline to come here legally.


Let's be real: this bill allows those who come here illegally to gain a huge advantage over those who follow the rules. This, in effect, creates an irresistible incentive for others to ignore the rules and come here illegally. Fast track it by going illegal - there's no reason not to!

ZERO PROVISIONS TO MAKE IT ALL WORK

Lindsey has further concerns about the utter non-viability of the Senate's bill:

In 2004, the INS issued 946,000 green cards and naturalized 537,000 people. The proposed immigration reform anticipates giving green cards to up to 11 million people [likely closer to 20 million] in one fell swoop and making them eligible for citizenship six years later. It is inconceivable that the INS could handle an eleven-fold increase in its workload. Do we really intend to pass a bill that purports to document these 11 million people without setting up a system capable of providing them the promised documentation? If we don't, everyone else who is already here legally but needs a visa update, or has adopted a foreign-born child, or wants his aging mother to join him in America, will get swamped by the tsunami of newly legalized people seeking documentation.



VDare concurs and says that the guest worker program is an administrative catastrophe in the making: "Already, there are backlogs of millions of applications with CIS [Citizenship and Immigration Services] for the various immigration benefits. If any guest worker program or amnesty is enacted, the sheer amount of work in processing, receiving and vetting applications and the assorted work that goes with them (interviewing, fraud investigations, verifying documentation) will without a doubt delay any application already pending—even if additional staff are added. This includes, of course, those innocents who bothered to apply to enter the U.S. the right way." No wonder, legal immigrants are so upset with this whole thing!

I do not understand how the Senate has been so willfully blind to the will of the people and so determined to ignore the future costs of their folly:

The approved bill would send the U.S. population skyrocketing towards a billion people by the close of the century -- with no analysis done of the impacts of this mass population explosion on housing, congestion, overcrowding, education, the environment and the overall quality of life. Local communities have not been consulted, and virtually no preparation has been undertaken to provide for the enormous burdens this legislation would entail. It reflects the degree to which the Senate is completely out of touch with the average American.

Nor does the bill take any serious steps that would improve immigration enforcement -- especially in the interior. It merely continues a cycle of rewarding lawbreakers and clothing a loss of border control with the patina of legality. Rather than face the reality of today's immigration crisis, the Senate has enacted a terrible bill that once again puts the interests of the American people last. The bill's cost is staggering, the administrative burdens crushing and the consequences for the cohesion of the future American nation -- no longer bound by a common destiny of the rule of law -- are severe.


_________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.



Tags = Immigration

Legislative Update

Checking at Captain's Quarters, I found information about a bill that could be a HUGE benefit to all citizens, and particularly bloggers. S. 2590, which has been given the name Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, would allow the average American to finally track what the government is spending HIS/HER money on:
The Coburn-Obama-Carper-McCain measure stipulates that within 30 days of awarding federal tax dollars, the government would have to post the name of the entity receiving the funds (excluding individuals receiving federal assistance), the amount of funds received by the entity in each of the past 10 years, detailed information about each of the transactions during the previous decade, the location of the entity, where the goods or services purchased with the federal dollars will be performed or purchased, and a unique identifier such as the Dun & Bradstreet number commonly used by the private sector.
Needless to say, I'm for it. I would welcome the opportunity to scope out who the beneficiaries of legislative largess are.

While you're letting your Senators know that you're in favor of the bill, don't forget to write, call, or email CongressCritters about the Immigration legislation, and why we're not supporting it - or the people who vote for it. Let them know that this is a non-negotiable. I am fully prepared to TURN OUT the elected ones who vote in favor of any proposal giving amnesty to illegals.

Tags =

What was so great about the Old Days?

I've been having a great start to my vacation by roaming around the blogs, dipping my toes in here and there, and just sniffing out interesting things.

I'm finding a lot of posts about the culture of the poster's teen years, and how the music, clothes, TV and movies influenced that person forever.

What tripe!

I was a basic baby boomer. I became fixated on the Beatles, just like every other girl of my time (I was a Paul girl - he and my mother shared a birthday).



I can't say that I recognized his musical genius - I just liked him because he was cute in an androgynous, non-threatening way. Hey, I was 13 at the time.

The same with TV shows - I didn't watch the great dramas - I watched Gidget, The Patty Duke Show, The Jetsons, and all that other mind candy of the times.



One of the few shows that stood the test of time was Star Trek. My whole family liked that - but, then, you must remember that we were total geeks. We all have worked in a technical or computer field, and our conversation is heavily laden with acronyms and tech-speak.



But, I can't say that I tear up when certain songs are played. I also can't say that I listen to much of the current music - it's too hard to understand (my hearing has deteriorated considerably), too filled with vulgarities, and, frankly, nothing I'm interested in dancing to.

I'm just not a nostalgia freak. I don't moon over an older, better world of the past. I remember that world - it wasn't so much.

I like today. I have the money to be able to side-step the parts of the culture I find repulsive or stupid. I like modern conveniences. I don't feel the need to live in the past. I can't say that I regret nothing, but I made my choices, and I'll live with the consequences.

Tags = Culture

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

As Alice Cooper Sings.......

School's Out song.

I'm spending the day with my husband. I'd almost forgotten just how inattentive and noisy urban teens can be. They mean no harm, they are generally good kids, but they are terrible students. They can't SHUT UP long enough to learn. They have no clue why they can't pass proficiency tests - they're in school every day, aren't they?

Tags = Culture

Monday, May 29, 2006

Memorial Day

This has been a different weekend.

I traveled to Ohio, a 12-hour trip from SC. First, I stopped in Columbus overnight. I spent a day resting and enjoying the company of 2 vets and their 3 kids (my daughter and son-in-law).

Last night, I was on the road after dinner. I arrived home at 10:00pm, and enjoyed my first time in my own bed in a long time. Today, I'm hoping to spend a few hours with another vet, my son. I'm going to send email to another son, who is in Bahrain.

Last, I'm going to stop off at Holy Cross cemetery to pay my respects to my favorite WWII vet, my dad.

Tags =

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Hard Evidence that Global Warming is True!

I don't want to unnecessarily alarm anyone, but I was reading IMAO, and he points out a scary proof that Al Gore is on the money:
The earth is heating up and we will all die!

Believe it, man. I've been watching the temperatures here in Florida, and there has been a significant increase in average temperature since January. We're talking like more than ten degrees! If this trend continues, the oceans will boil in a matter of years.
I got so scared reading that! Because, I've noticed it, too! In January, I often had to scrape off the frost on my windshield in SC. But, today, I left the house, and was surprised to feel the heat! It must have been 80 degrees! In the morning!

OMG, we ARE going to fry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tags =

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Nice that the Palmetto Senator is using his head

Sen. DeMint of SC spoke in support of denying illegals Social Security benefits:
“It makes no sense to reward millions of illegal immigrants for criminal behavior while our Social Security system is already in crisis,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. “Why in the world would we endorse this criminal activity with federal benefits? The Senate missed a big opportunity to improve this bill, and I doubt American seniors will be pleased with the result.”
On the other hand, I'm not happy with SC's other Senator, Lindsey Graham:
“For illegal immigrants in the United States more than two years, the Senate bill is similar to a plea bargain,” said Graham. “They will have to come out of the shadows and acknowledge they came to the United States in violation of our immigration laws. The terms of probation will be to pay $2,000 in fines, undergo two national security and criminal background checks, remain employed, pay all federal and state taxes, register for military service, show proficiency in the English language and understand American civics.”

“I think the terms of the probation are strict but fair,” said Graham. “Some immigrants will meet the terms of their probation and some won’t. Those who don’t will face deportation. Those who do will then be able to go to the back of the line to apply for citizenship. We made the conditions strict to ensure people pay their debt to society and they do the right thing if they wish to live in the United States.”
So, the sneakier they are, and the longer they managed to avoid getting caught, the higher their reward? I strenuously object to giving preference to criminals who've flouted our laws. This is a slap in the face to other foreigners who've followed the rules, and been waiting, sometimes for years, to LEGALLY immigrate.

Tags =

Cool Toy

On Downtown Chick Chat, I found this newspaper clipping generator. Very cool. Use it to create your own mock-stories.



Tags = Blogging

Monday, May 22, 2006

Special Message

An important vote on immigration is coming up:
The Senate is poised to pass S. 2611 this week, the giant amnesty bill that would change the demographics of our country and start us on the slide into rampant crime, drug culture, and third world poverty. Every thinking American is needed at this moment to phone, fax, or visit their United States Senators and oppose this legislation.
Please click on the title link to read the rest. Do it not just for yourselves, but for our future.

Tags = Immigration

Guard the Borders Blogburst

by Heidi at Euphoric Reality

Our Open Borders Will Be The Death Of Us Yet

I live in Texas, and sometimes I think people don't truly grasp the fact that the chaos on our borders is not a border state issue - it threatens them directly, no matter where they live. The fact is that our border chaos is directly linked to our national security. Terrorists already have and continue to illegally cross our border, blending in with illegals from Mexico and Central America, or brazenly crossing over with an armed escort of gang members or even the Mexican military.

Watch this video of an ongoing investigation done by the news team from KGRV TV serving
Harlingen-Weslaco-McAllen -Brownsville, Texas. (Video will open in your media player - it's a news segment.) It is part of an ongoing series highlighting the culmination of months of investigative research into the flow of terrorists over our borders. Fred Burton, a counter-terrorism expert of Stratfor, was interviewed on camera. He stated that now is the perfect time for terrorists to sneak across the border. Escalating violence and an unprecedented flood of illegals is distracting law enforcement and stretching it thin. Zapata County sheriff, Frederigo Gonzales Jr. says that as for WMDs, it is not a matter of "if", but "when".

About one in every 10 caught border jumpers is an Arab. I don't think I need to point out that if they are sneaking into the country illegally, they fit the profile and are probably terrorists. Unfortunately, we only catch about 25-33% of the flood of illegals, and estimates are that we absorb 3 million illegals (Time Magazine, September 2004 and Bear Stearns July 2005) that do make it through each year. That could mean that about 10% of the illegals that DO make it across are possible terrorists. Do the math: that's potentially 300,000 terrorists making it into our country free and clear. Let's get really skeptical and downgrade that so we feel better about it - let's say only 1% of those that make it through are possible terrorists. That is only 30,000 - per YEAR. Is that OK? Considering it took 18 terrorists to wreak the terror of 9/11, is 300,000 or even 30,000 terrorists OK with you?

If that's a reasonable risk for you, then consider the percentage of potential terrorists that have already crossed the border and are living among us - sleeper cells in our own neighborhoods. The low estimate of illegals inside our border is 20 million, the high is 29 million. What's 10% of that figure? Is a few million potential terrorists a reasonable risk?

For some strange reason, the smaller number of 30,000 is almost scarier to me. Maybe it's just easier to grasp a few thousand insane killers bent on our destruction, instead of an army of millions. Maybe it's because we can do still something about thousands - IF we act swiftly and ruthlessly - but a few million is an almost insurmountable...and it's possibly far too late. Fred Burton agrees with that assessment – he said the numbers of terrorists that have been caught is nothing compared to those that have made it through – those numbers are huge.

If you are an open borders type and think it's wrong to build any barrier along the border, or in any way militarize our border; or if you think illegal immigration is just about nice, poor people who want jobs, you need a wake-up call. Let's look at some of the issues raised by the investigation in the video above as well as some others I've written about in the past year.

1. Several months ago, according to KGRV TV, two IEDs and components for 33 more were discovered in Laredo. It won't be long before we face here in America, what our brave soldiers face every day in Iraq. And IEDs may be the least worrisome. If it's a simple matter to smuggle 3,000 pounds of drugs across the border, as the sheriff mentioned, how much easier is it to carry across a suitcase bomb - a dirty nuke?

“Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons,” Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Admiral James Loy testified on February 16 before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “At home, we must prepare ourselves for any attack, from IEDs (improvised explosive devices) to Weapons of Mass Destruction…from soft targets like malls to national icons.”


2. A terrorist jacket, with patches depicting an Arab military and 9/11, was found in Hebbronville, TX. Finding terrorist garb is nothing new. In 2005:

Ms. Garner, who grew up here in Naco, population 7,000 says..."It is more dangerous and pernicious, with a growing number of people of different nationalities coming across the border, including from the Middle East, India, and Afghanistan."

The evidence of that comes in Islamic prayer rugs found in the desert dust, Arabic literature left by still-warm campfires, and Afghani head garb caught on cactus quills. The FBI also recently found a drug tunnel beneath the bedroom of a schoolmate of one of the Garner girls, with $250,000 cash hidden inside.


3. In November 2005, a confirmed al Qaeda operative was arrested near the Mexican border and turned over to the FBI. He had been living in Mexico for six months and making notes of the movement of people and police officers.

4. Also in November of last year, A congresswoman from NC went on the record as noting that three al Qaeda operatives were being held in a jail in Texas, after being apprehended on the U.S.-Mexican border.

5. In 2005, in southern Texas alone, 51 suspected terrorists were captured while crossing the border [from the KGRV news report]. They came from countries such as Iran, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan, and were arrested on various charges of gun smuggling and illegally wiring large sums of money. We do not know where they are today. That's a problem.

6. In 2005, 10 Egyptians were arrested in Douglas, Arizona.

7. In 2004, a high-level al Qaeda operative (comparable to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11) was arrested in McAllen, Texas attempting to make her way to New York after illegally crossing the border by swimming the Rio Grande. Though she was on a terrorist watch list, she had illegally entered into America at least 250 times before being caught!!!

8. In September of 2004, Action 4 News in Harlingen, Texas, learned that Al Qaeda cells - each group having from seven to fifteen suspected terrorist members were found just across the Rio Grande Valley in Mexico.

"We know from intelligence reports that there are middle easterners that are making their way in our direction," said U.S. Congressman Jim Turner during a news conference at the Veterans Memorial International Bridge in Brownsville.

"We don't know their purpose, but we do know that they are there and those reports are coming in increasing numbers. So it should be a wake-up call."



9. In July of 2004, Adnan El-Shukrijumah, a high-ranking Al-Qaeda leader and one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, was spotted in Honduras meeting with members of the MS-13 gang. By August, he had may his way north and was spotted in north Mexico.

By the way, if you need proof that al Qaeda is working hand-in-glove with Latino gangs, go here - there's plenty of reading.

10. In October of 2004, an intelligence report supplied to the Department of Homeland Security by Russian security services said that a group of 25 backpack-carrying Chechen terrorists - all white - illegally entered Arizona by way of Mexico last summer.

11. In September 2001, 10 Yemenis were arrested by Mexican police before trying to cross from Agua Prieta into Douglas, Arizona. They were released and they returned to Agua Prieta to try again, where they were joined by several other unidentified Arabs.

12. In November 1998, over 100 Iranians were apprehended in Arizona because of a tip called in by a border rancher.

Those are just a few examples. Our border security is non-existent, and our enemies are well aware of that fact.

While entry into the U.S. is their primary goal in establishing a base in Latin America, Islamist terrorists -- well-aware of the allure Marxism once held for many south of the border -- also see the region as a potential breeding ground for Islamic converts due to its poor economic and social conditions and corrupt governments.

For instance, the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah wields a strong presence in the tri-border region, a lawless, crime-ridden area where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay intersect. Both Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are also said to have spent time there, during the 1990's.

It was Mohammed who in 2002 encouraged alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla to 'enter the United States by way of Mexico' in order to carry out attacks on U.S. targets, according to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Ironically, before converting to Islam and volunteering his services to Al-Qaeda, Padilla belonged to the Chicago chapter of the Latin Kings -- like MS-13, a violent Hispanic criminal gang.

Although U.S. agents were able to collar Padilla before he could carry out a terrorist attack, the U.S. border strategy, as presently construed, may one day soon yield a much less savory result.


Hm, do you think so???

Nevertheless, as stated in the KGRV news report, our government does not want us to know of the terror threat flowing over our border. Homeland Security refused to respond to KGRV's requests for an interview on the subject. And the government is doing everything they can to shut down the citizens who were once the greatest intelligence asset to to the Border Patrol in stopping terrorists crossing the border: American ranchers living along the border.

Perhaps the most valuable asset that the Border Patrol has is the aid of rural Cochise County (AZ) citizens. Many have attempted to help, in accordance with Arizona law. Through that legal process, landowners may execute a citizen’s arrest for individuals or groups trespassing on their property. However, even that has been nullified.
[...]
Rural citizens here have met with savage recriminations for exerting their legal rights. Immigration advocacy groups howl in protest, as does the Mexican government. Their lawyers have demanded that the ranchers be prosecuted for false arrest, kidnapping, intimidation, criminal assault and violation of civil rights...Illegal immigrants have now sued some Cochise County citizens in American courts.
[...]
Ben Anderson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who lives in Sierra Vista, Ariz., has made a detailed study of the border danger since the flood of illegals began through Cochise County in 1997.

“There is only one way to handle this,” the colonel says firmly. “In a world now filled with biowarfare agents, backpack nuclear devices and chemical weapons like Sarin gas, we must militarize the border. There is no other way to stop the flow.”


Congressman John Culberson (R-TX) concurs:

FBI Director Robert Mueller had previously "confirmed" in testimony before [a Congressional] committee "that there are individuals from countries with known al-Qaeda connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants."

"And these are clearly Arab terrorists," Rep. Culberson added, "from countries like Yemen, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They're crossing the border, pretending to be Hispanic immigrants, and then disappearing."

Rep. Culberson said news of al-Qaeda’s penetration of the U.S.'s southern border has him worried that the next terrorist plot could involve setting off simultaneous truck bombs in major urban centers.

"The day they blow us up," he predicted, "the border will be sealed tighter than the Berlin Wall and you'll have armed United States military forces" enforcing immigration laws.


That will be too late.

_________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.



Tags = Immigration

Just time for a quick post

Good thing I wasn't eating when I read this on Cold Fury:
Hagel/McClain is pushing an immigration bill that would bring 100+million new immigrants in the next 10 years. Gee, do you think that might destabilize the country just a tad? Hey, here’s an idea: let’s make it easier for educated people to come here legally, and harder for illiterate, uneducated people who don’t like this country to come here illegally. I know, I know, I shouldn’t stick it to poor President Bush that way. He wants me to be a caring blogger, a compassionate blogger, a welcoming blogger. But hey, what can I say… I guess I’m just a blogger who does the work compassionate, non-demented Americans won’t do.(My emphasis)

What's with this "work Americans won't do?" I've done a lot of jobs in my time, including in-home child care (major sucky), waitressing, retail sales, stock room, filing, typing, copy clerk, telephone operator, just to name a few. I've cleaned up junk no one should have to (too many people treat the cleaners as their personal maids - not that the maid wouldn't quit rather than clean up after such slobs). I've worked jobs that were poorly paid that I couldn't afford to quit. I spent a miserable 5 months once, dodging the boss's wandering hands, trying not to lose the job.

When the union my husband and I belonged to went on strike, I had 3 jobs within 24 hours. When the union rep asked when I was going to walk the picket line, I told him "when I don't have to work 3 jobs and I get paid like the other teachers". He was not happy with me. Tough - he had no problem taking my money, but couldn't be bothered to make sure that all certified teachers got full pay.

This whole "jobs Americans won't do" is nonsense. The reason illegals are preferred is because they won't complain - about pay that isn't minimum wage, about working conditions that violate standards, about working overtime without extra pay.

Tags = Imigration

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Some thoughts on stopping illegals

Lemme just throw out some ideas:

  • Let's both put the unemployed to work and get some assistance with moving Pedro back to the proper side of the border.

    Use the bounty hunters. Offer bonuses if they catch an illegal who also has an arrest warrant against them.

  • Use deputized assistants to grab the illegals. Keep them on bologna diets for a few weeks, then ship them to the border. I feel confident that there are enough unemployed Americans (use retirees for recon, paperwork, and logistics work and save the strong-arm types for the actual muscle jobs) to make a serious dent in the numbers.

  • Mandate use of the Social Security number verification system. If an employer knowingly hires illegals (more than 1/4 of the labor force should be considered prima faci evidence of collusion), here's an idea - also deport the person responsible - without a passport! You like those people so much, you live with them - in their country!

  • Disallow deductions for illegals as an expense on the income tax. Make companies pay BOTH parts of FICA for any employee they hire that turns out to be "off-the-books". Also, the company pays the back Worker's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, etc., plus penalties.
I was watching "The Untouchables" last week. The basic supposition that, if you can't get the crooks on violent felonies, get them on IRS technicalities, is still sound. Let's use the already legal means we have to nail both those employing illegals, and the illegals themselves.

I think it's pretty clear that the whole Federal government, from the House and Senate, to the Executive branch, to the Judicials, lack any pretense to having cojones. So, let's not depend on them. Let's do a Joe Arpaio - use the existing regs and statutes, interpreted OUR way, to do the job others are too chicken to do.

Tags = Immigration

A call for assistance

Kevin, over at The Liberal Wrong - Wing, needs help. He's feeling overworked, and could use some assistance. He's looking for additional writers.

Sharing the load is getting to be a common way to keep up the posting, yet not work yourself into the ground. If you're a blogger or wanna-be, look Kevin up. I started that way, on Right We Are!, with my co-blogger, Maripat. When the blog folded, I struck out on this blog. It's a good way to test the waters, and see if the bloglife is for you.

Tags =

Don't quite know how to categorize this one

Deciding what news is most important is a tough job. On a slow news day, which this one must have been, guess what CNN thinks is VERY important?
The former college student known as the "Naked Guy," who gained notoriety in the early 1990s for attending class in the buff, has died in jail, authorities said.

Andrew Martinez, 33, whose stripped-down strolls at the University of California, Berkeley, got him expelled and prompted the city to adopt a strict anti-nudity ordinance, was found unconscious Thursday in a Santa Clara County jail, said jail spokesman Mark Cursi.
Can you imagine a life so devoid of accomplishment that your obituary is headlined "The Naked Guy"?

Ever-tolerant Berkeley finally, after many years, banned public nudity. Their actions apparently took away Mr. Martinez' main reason for existence, as the police are investigating his death as a possible suicide. FWIW, I think the Council made the right choice. Can you imagine having to be the next student to sit in the Naked Guy's vacated seat? Gross!

Amazingly, there don't appear to be any pictures of Martinez, although I seem to remember seeing some during his "stripped-down" years.

Tags = Culture

Tell us again why we should care

From FoxNews.com
An attorney for Jack Kevorkian said the assisted-suicide advocate will probably not survive another year if kept in prison, as he again asked the state to grant his client a pardon or commute his sentence.
So, Dr. Death won't survive. So?

Look, this is the guy that said if living is intolerable, end it. So, why doesn't he follow his convictions?
The former doctor is serving a 10- to 25-year sentence for second-degree murder for giving a fatal injection of drugs in 1998. He is eligible for parole in 2007.

In 2003, 2004 and 2005, Granholm followed the parole board's advice in denying applications for a commuted sentence or a pardon.

Kevorkian has said he assisted in at least 130 deaths, but has promised that he will not assist another if released.
Well, that's different - he PROMISED. Hey, do you suppose that we can also get Manson to promise? Think of the potential for saving on prison health care. When they get sick, just parole them.

Tags = News & Politics

Saturday, May 20, 2006

2 Minute Complaint

This won't change anything, but it will release a safety valve in my brain.
  • My head hurts. I haven't decided whether it's sinus pressure, or the beginnings of another allergy attack. Either way, it makes me feel like laying my head down, and I don't have the time for that.
  • I was hoping to catch up on yard work this weekend. But, it keeps raining every day. Which probably contributes to the head stuffiness.
  • I'm still tenaciously clinging to the extra weight I put on this spring. Of course, that could partly be the junk food I've been eating lately.

    Nah, I'm sure that's not it.
  • I mentioned my husband is in the hospital. But, he's unlikely to hear anything definitive until after the weekend. Which means, he's stuck in there, and won't be making any progress towards getting better until Monday.
  • I'm stuck here in SC for the next week. I could leave right after grades are turned in on Monday, and I'm sure the administration would be understanding. But, if I do, I'll forfeit the $250 attendance bonus. And, I'm basically cheap.


Tags = Personal

Friday, May 19, 2006

Family Emergency

I just got a call from my husband. He has been admitted to the hospital, and may have to have surgery. Needless to say, I may not be able to post for a few days.Tags = Personal

Monday, May 15, 2006

My Own Personal State of Whatever

Every few months or so, I feel compelled (for reasons that are, to quote Mr. Spock, Totally Illogical) to drag in something personal, thrust it at the world, saying "see that? See that?", and again depart.

Call it My Own Personal State of Self address.

It's been raining, off and on, for days. Makes me a little homesick for Cleveland, as that is exactly what our spring weather is like. It's got its pluses - at least it keeps the temperature more bearable. It does, however, make my joints ache fiercely.

I've picked up a little bruise just under my left eye. I really can't remember exactly where I got it, but I think it may have something to do with the remodeling I've been doing. I seem to remember walking into the pull-down ladder to the attic. I was seriously tempted to answer the kids who asked where I got it - "Oh, you should see those four guys in the biker club, they look much worse". However, I know from previous experience, kids take you seriously at just the wrong time.

I received a letter from my Senator, Lindsay Graham, about the immigration issue. I sent one of the Free Faxes from NumbersUSA. After I signed up, they began sending me information and reminders that I could send a message to Congress every time legislation came up on immigration. You don't have to do much, and it does make the process easy.

I'll read Sen. Graham's letter later, once the lights come back on. Have I mentioned that I'm doing some remodeling? The wiring is being updated as I write. Fortunately, the outlets are on a different circuit.

I've been noticing many blogs succumbing to a sort of fatigue - at least, that's what it seems like, as I notice that many once prolific posters have dwindled to once a week or less. I can understand it. We all have lives, apart from blogging. Very few of us are paid for our efforts. For most, it's an opportunity to finally have our say, as long as we want, without having to watch them sidle away, saying "oh, that's so interesting, wow, look at the time, see you later". I imagine it's a little like the authors who write one book, then nothing more. They got that story out of their system. The process wasn't all that interesting to them, they just had a strong desire to write a few words.

Me, I like the process. I even like revision and editing. (Yeah, I'm weird. I noticed it in college when most other students settled for 1 or 2 drafts, the excellent ones for 3 - I once tinkered for 3 weeks on a paper. I counted 10 different versions, with substantial changes in each). So, whether or not anyone ever read me again, I'd still write.

Tags = Blogging

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Reformation or Revolution?


by Heidi and Kit at Euphoric Reality

Tonight, the President will address the nation on his plans for illegal immigration. Unfortunately, he's already given his word to Vicente Fox on Sunday that his plan to put a few National Guard troops on the border is just a temporary formality, of sorts, and not meant to intimidate anyone. Right. Heaven forbid we intimidate anyone to deter them from breaking our laws!

The question then arises, who does Bush feel more compelled to explain himself to - us Americans or the Mexicans? He owes the American people everything , and the Mexican government nothing! So why is he assuring Fox of anything concerning our internal national policies?!

I have no illusions about what we'll hear from President Bush tonight. But before he tries to lull anyone into complacency tonight, let's look at the reality of the Goode Amendment, which Bush will no doubt reference in his speech tonight. Troops on the border to bolster security? It's not what it sounds like:
OK, here are the dirty little secrets.

“(d) Conditions of Use- (1) Whenever a member who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Bureau of Border Security or the United States Customs Service is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany the member.”

So, each military member will simply now be a buddy for a Border Patrol guy.

Now look at this;

“(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest;”

So, the military has nada authority.

BUT it gets better;

“(h) Termination of Authority- No assignment may be made or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 2007.’”

This is a ONE YEAR DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush's speech tonight seems to be a weak bid to stem the hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. As the party's leader, Bush has a responsibility to lead and direct his party, and he may just be leading it to a crushing defeat in the upcoming elections. People who voted for Bush not once, but twice, are abandoning the Republican Party in droves. On a recent news radio poll, 80% of the callers who had voted for Bush twice, now heartily disapprove of him. Of that 80%, 90% of them said it was due to his mishandling of our border security. But Democrats shouldn’t celebrate any victories yet, because it’s not just Republicans - what it's doing to the two-party system is even worse.

This issue is splitting the American people into a majority who demand border security and immigration enforcement and a small, but vocal minority who demand amnesty. There are now two schools of thought coalescing around the faltering Republican Party and its bumbling missteps. The debate is happening now and we need to be a part of it. So let’s debate!

Kit and I dove into this a little deeper and have each represented a school of thought concerning the future of the Party, and by extension, our two party-system. In the interest of full disclosure, Kit is an increasingly-reluctant Republican and I am a furious Independent (formerly Republican who split from the party over a year ago).

The Reformer
by Kit Jarrell

Immigration is about as hot an issue as this country has seen in a while. Die-hard conservatives who once proudly pasted Bush/Cheney stickers on the backs of their cars are suddenly screaming for the President's head on a platter in the wake of his seemingly deliberate ignorance of the will of the American people, who in a new poll overwhelmingly call for border security and lower immigration numbers. A low rumbling has been heard in the blogosphere as some call for a conservative boycott of the 2006 elections in an effort to "show those GOP folks who's boss."

In the last few days, several conservative bloggers have stepped back a bit, asking if perhaps we're not being too hasty. Captain Ed says we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we simply sit home on Election Day.
...we still have to vote in November. If our preferred candidate does not win in the primaries, we still have to act responsibly and choose between the two major party candidates in the general election. Not only will abdication result in a loss of control over our own representation, the failure of GOP candidates has national implications that will wind up hamstringing the politicians that really have worked on our behalf -- the Tom Coburns, the John Boehners, the Jon Cornyns. And by sitting on our hands, we will have proven too inflexible to be dependable -- which will only encourage Republican candidates to reach out to the center-left more than ever before.
He's right. Here's how I see it:

The time for us to be acting is now, before the elections. We need to be seeking out and supporting candidates that we know will act with integrity and fortitude, who will understand and respect the rule of law, and who will do the job they were elected to do: represent the will of those who voted them in.

However, if Election Day rolls around and our candidate didn't make it, that is no excuse for us to sit home and do nothing. What happens if we throw a temper tantrum and refuse to vote? Democrats win. And let's face it: As much disillusion as we may feel right now, it's nothing compared to what this country will sink to if a liberal is elected back into the White House.

Stop the ACLU agrees, and quotes the Anchoress:
I just have to ask all of you people - on every side - who have decided that immigration is one man’s burden, and that every good thing President Bush has done is to be negated because he hasn’t snapped his fingers and done what YOU think is the solution to the immigration problem…what did Clinton do about immigration, what did Bush 41 do? What did St. Reagan do? What did Carter do? What has any president, congressperson or senator done about immigration for the last 30 years, except kick the issue down the road for someone else to deal with?
As hard as it may be to hear, she's got a point. The responsibility for the scope and breadth of the current immigration problem lies on all of our shoulders. Illegals didn't suddenly start showing up in the last year. Politicians have been ignoring the problem for decades...and so have we.

Anchoress goes on:
[On] immigration…one man is to blame, one man is at fault, one man must find the Solomonic solution. And if he doesn’t, he’s a bum no matter what else he’s done. Meanwhile, the press can’t get over the president who smiled and cried his way through two terms, and they still work on his legacy. Can you ever recall a time in history where 6 years after an administration ends, the ex-president is still breathlessly being polled-on, still being given (on most days) as much press as the current president? I can’t.
Is Bush wrong on this issue? Absolutely. Am I angry about it? You're damn right I am. But he's what we've got for another two years. I'm not asking everyone to go to Bush rallies and cheer. I am, however, telling you that being a conservative isn't like being a liberal. We don't get to take our toys and go home simply because someone's not playing fair. We don't get to scream for the nanny because we're not getting what we want. We're not part of that tribe. We don't get the luxury of tantrums and whining and petulance. Let's leave that for the cowards who'd rather hold up a sign than pay their dues as freemen.

As conservatives, we are the ones who see the big picture. We have to. Yes, immigration is one of the biggest issues facing this country. Yes, we need to act now. Yes, we need to hold our politicians accountable for their actions (or lack thereof). But sitting at home or boycotting the elections will only show everyone that we're just as spineless as the liberals we deride.

Liberals run when things don't work out. We don't. We stay until they're finished, until they're done, until the problem is taken care of. Don't throw up your hands yet. There's still work to be done.

The Revolutionary
By Heidi

I see the point made above. There is no doubt that we cannot sit back and do nothing. If we do - we deserve worse than we get. But can the Republican Party be reformed by simply finding new candidates? I know Democrats that are vastly disappointed with the direction of their party, too. Personally, I figure the system is broken. I think our Founding Fathers would be heartsick to see the extent of corruption within our two party system - it's like a grandiose house that has rotted from the foundation up. It would be best to tear it down and build something new and rock-solid on the foundation our forefathers built.

I am not prepared to give Bush a free pass by comparing him to our previous do-nothing Presidents. Never has there been a time in history when we have faced the sheer glut of problems rooted in the invasion of illegals - we're at 20 million or more - twice what the government will admit to. Never have we faced the crises of a foreign government managing our internal domestic policies, or our own government actively undermining our own laws, hamstringing our law enforcement, and refusing to listen to the majority of the American people. The American people have spoken - but nobody is listening!

Bush is the leader of the Republican Party. If he did the right thing, our majority-Republican Congress would follow. End of story - mission accomplished. Since he WON'T do the right thing, he puts those elected officials in the vulnerable and dangerous place of having to go against the entire executive branch in order to do what their people demand. As we've already seen, there's few of them that are man enough to do that. And that's what Bush is banking on! He's the one risking his own party, not those who abandon the Republican Party because it no longer speaks for them!

I think the Anchoress' defensive position is much more dangerous to the Republican Party than anything else: "How is one man supposed to do what countless others haven't?" That alone is a losing proposition! She asks what all the other presidents did about illegal immigration. Well, here are several extenuating points to ponder about that:

1) we've never had 20-28 MILLION illegals before
2) we never had a 9/11 before
3) we were not at war
4) those Presidents didn't promise the entire country that nothing mattered to them as much as our national security. Bush did.

The Republicans know that conservatives can't go anywhere else without risking the liberals taking control. I think Republicans count on the fact that conservatives are trapped, and they abuse it. Republicans caution rebellious conservatives by reminding them of how fourteen years ago, disaffected voters split the vote between Bush 41 and Perot. "Look what happened," they mourn, "we got eight years of Clinton." Republicans paint those independents as having sabotaged the election. Yet, what was the best candidate they could field against an incumbent Clinton in 1996? Bob Dole? C'mon - that's the best they could do? Losing two elections to the likes of Bubba Clinton is not the fault of the Independent voter - it's the result of a weak-willed Republican Party. They handed those elections to Clinton with a big red bow on top! That alone tells me they don't have what it takes to survive a reformation - they play it way too safe.

Today, we can't elect third-rate leaders just because we're voting against a floridly silly Al Gore or a treasonous John Kerry - who feels good about that?! Voting for the lesser of two evils, to vote against the worse candidate, is not the way any Republican or Democrat can hope to win an election. Neither party is any longer representing the American people, but rather big money interests and powerful small interest lobbies. Elections are a big money game. Though an Independent Perot couldn't win with his millions 14 years ago, he may have just been well ahead of his time. Here we are a decade and a half later, and millions of us are actively looking for a candidate with a spine of steel and an unswerving loyalty to the American people and the sovereignty of our homeland! I don't know about you, but I'm ready! There needs to be a radical overthrow of the rotten parties currently in control.

There's a confluence of circumstances that may make possible today what was impossible 14 years ago - field a powerful Independent that truly represents the American people. I've heard people caution that we can't afford to be single-issue voters. I beg to differ - when it comes to our national sovereignty, nothing is more important. Illegal immigration and Mexico's meddling in our domestic affairs are the greatest threat to our national sovereignty that our generation has ever seen. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can handle the gravity of the problem - they've already proven that to their everlasting shame.

It's time to throw them all out - the spirit of the American Revolution burns deeps inside many of us. It's time to ignite that fire and accomplish what lesser men and women have deemed impossible.

__________________________________________


This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It is syndicated by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration in our country, join the Blogburst! Send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

Tags = Immigration

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Major funny message with a point

Check out this message about people who cross borders to do jobs others won't.

Found on The People's Cube. Please support them, they've been banned by Google for offending China. Like that's a crime.

Oh, wait, in China, it IS!

Tags = Immigration

A 9/14 Memory of Manhattan

Whatever you're planning to do in the next few minutes, stop. Click the link above, and grab a tissue.

My favorite redhead is sharing a memory of going back into the city for the first time after. Truly, it's important to read.

The immediate aftermath of the collapse of the towers sent my husband and me home for a few days. The city of Cleveland was closed. Mayor Mike White was criticized about it later, but I think he made the right decision. A tremendous amount of air traffic uses the local controller station (actually located in Oberlin, OH), the last thing we needed was extra people around, and the governments (local, state, and federal) needed some breathing room.

We had just started new jobs at the same school, so depended on each other for support in those days. Once we returned, we focused on getting the school opened. For a time, we were putting in 12-14 hour days at work. That was truly a blessing, as it kept our minds off our children, two of whom were in the service (Navy and National Guard). After the first few days, my memory is a little hazy. Details have disappeared over time. But, I do remember the concern about our kids didn't diminish. We didn't talk about it, except to reassure each other that they would be all right. I kept the fear inside.

Somewhere in the next few weeks, I remember going home on a Friday, intending to take a short nap (about 5:00). I woke up on Saturday, and ran to the bathroom (barely made it). I had slept 16 hours straight. Apparently, I needed the shutdown time.

I was so impatient to strike back. The pace of planning the invasion seemed glacial. I was fully aware that the mopping-up part of the operation would be the most prolonged. I'm old enough to remember listening to European refugees talk about years after the war, how the rubble still remained. So, the fact that winning the war wasn't wham, bam, thank you m'am doesn't surprise me.

I feel confident that, after we are done in Iraq, we'll have another little job to do. We may have to chase those little cockroaches around for a while. Along the way, we'll help people take control of their own country. We might not have had to do that if we'd not spent so much time trying to form "multi-national" teams with the UN in previous conflicts.

I'm peeved at Bush right now over the border thing. But that doesn't mean I'll be voting to sweep clean in November. We really can't afford to give the appeasing fools moonbats opposition another crack at screwing up this war.

Tags =

Duke thoughts

Ho-Kay, I'm trying to understand something. Let's break it down systematically.

Women, we are told, NEVER lie about being raped. Never.
Unless, of course, they do.

Huh?

Well, it's simple - the feminist world divides accusers into 2 groups.

Women who are to be believed without reservation:
  • Anita Hill
  • The Duke stripper
  • Those alleging rape by Republicans or other very, very bad men
  • Anyone who accuses a Fundamentalist preacher
  • Tawanna Brawley
Women who are, according to the feminist agenda, lying sluts:
  • Juanita Broderick
  • Paula Jones
  • In fact, let's just make a special category for anyone who accuses Bill Clinton
  • Desiree Washington, the beauty contestant who accused Mike Tyson
The National Organization for Women has long held that the rape stats show only 2% of allegations are proven false. Michelle Anderson, at Villanova University of Law, recently wrote a paper on rape on campuses.
there are no solid data to support the belief that false complaints of rape are more common than false complaints of any other crime
Again, from another section of the report:
there is no good empirical data on false rape complaints either historically or currently. A debate over the number of false complaints nevertheless continues.
Why the confusion? In part, the following may explain some of the fuzziness of the data:
In 2001, for example, only 39 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported, as compared to 61 percent of robberies and 59 percent of aggravated assaults. CALLIE RENNISON, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION 2001 10 (2002).

Most female college students who have an experience that meets the legal definition of rape do not even define that experience as rape, and so never recount it as such to the authorities. [emphasis mine] Fischer, Cullen, & Turner, supra note 197, at 15.
How many men may be affected? In 2002, there were 95136 reported forcible rapes. If 2% of the reports were false, that's 1,902 crimes that didn't happen. For those reports, 28,288 arrests werew made. If 2% of those men werely accused of a crime that didn't occur, 565 men were forced to defend themselves, and if no evidence backed up the allegation, they could still be convicted, and jailed. And labeld a sex offender for life.

See, in most crimes, there's some evidence. If you report a car stolen, and claim you know who did it, you generally have to produce evidence that you, at least, OWNED a car.

Not so in rape. There are men who have been convicted when the victim couldn't even remember anything, so impaired by alcohol was she. Yet, based on the alleged victim's personal belief that "I wouldn't have consented to sex", the man was convicted.
Reported complaints of rape on campus almost always involve acquaintances and alcohol.
So, why is an impaired man the one who takes all the blame for the sexual act taking place, when the women is the innocent victim. It seems to me that if both are drunk or otherwise impaired, if sex takes place, blame is a wash. How about educating young women that, if they drink to excess, they may find they had sex, willingly or not. If they don't want to risk that, don't drink.

Also, don't try to match the men drink for drink. There are MANY studies showing that women, even matched for body weight, get impaired faster, and sober up slower.

Part of being a grown-up is taking responsibility for one's actions, whether you anticipated the results or not. Do I know, one way or another, whether the rape charges are true or not? Nope, and I don't think it would be possible for a jury to decide on the evidence, either.

So, where is the presumption of innocence? It's a Constitutional right - except in rape cases. At least, when the alleged perps are white men. You don't have to be a Constitutional expert to know that's totally wrong.

Tags = News & Politics

Righteous Violence

I was reading Dean's World again today, and found a thoughtful post about the 4th Amendment.

It started me thinking about what I call, for lack of a better phrase, Righteous Violence.

RV is the concept that we all have the basic right to defend ourselves and our loved ones against the likelihood of death or assault, even if our response results in the death of the agressor. No one should have to accept their own death to satisfy a Biblical interpretation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". To this end, we have exceptions that permit someone to kill in limited circumstances:
  • In defense of their own life. If you have reason to believe that your life is in immediate danger, and there is no other way to keep that from happening.
  • If you have been authorized by the government to use deadly force. This covers military, police, and the like. These people have mandatory training on the guidelines - when they can exercise that right, what is not allowed. If they violate those guidelines, and kill outside clearly defined parameters, they can be prosecuted for murder.
In their dislike for the above authorities, many liberals claim that NO use of force is necessary. They seek to disarm all citizens, even the law-abiding, on the hypothesis that, if fewer guns were available, violence would decrease.

Unfortunately, the criminals don't seem to want to cooperate. They keep arming themselves.

So, anti-gun laws disarm the victims. Which suits the bad guys just fine.

Internationally, the same arguments are used against Israel. If they would just leave their legal property, and turn it over to the Hamas crew, every problem would cease. Oh, and, BTW, tear down the fence around your property, and get rid of the guns.

Yeah, that'll work. Since the Arabs on the borders have proven to be so reasonable.

This isn't an issue of protecting your own hide. After all, we will all die some day. But, it's also about protecting the innocent. Those who can't protect themselves.

Like them.











Tags = Bill of Rights

Tattoos

I was just catching up on blogs, when I spotted Cursed By a Classical Education's comment section.
everyone getting a tattoo should have to have a note signed by a nursing home that the tattoo-ee has recently visited to see what Korean/Vietnam war tattoos look like today. I'd be willing to bet the number of those going under the 'ink' would drop considerably.
The tats are getting to be a standard on many under-18 kids, both boys and girls. I'd have to say that black males and white females are the ones that are most likely to get them. Most popular type? For girls, hands-down, it's the ones on their lower back - according to Urban Dictionary, they're called Slut Stamps,
Those damn lower back tattoos that girls/women get. Sometimes also known as "ass antlers." Ubiquitous in porn

Love the name. Hate the tat.



A close second in my dislike category is the armband.



OTOH, look at the quality males you can attract.

Tags = Culture

Friday, May 12, 2006

PC - the early years

When I first started reading the Internet news and blog media, I read NewsMax quite often. After a short while, I gravitated to either news sites, or political analysis. Commentary just didn't have the same appeal for me.

Do check out this story about the early origins of Politically Correct Thinking, (found via Babalu Blog, but don't take everything as gospel. I'm still trying to track down some of the claims.

Tags = Politically Correct

Of course, it's a loss of CONSUMER confidence

Sometimes, I have to laugh about the determination of the MSM to twist, spin, and skew every story into a puking repudiation of the [hawk, spit, boo, hiss]EVIL BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Found the following on CNNMoney
After charging toward an new all-time high earlier in the week, the blue-chip Dow index tumbled about 140 points Thursday as a spike in gold and oil sparked selling in the stock market.

Two economic reports released Friday kept investors on edge about inflation.

The University of Michigan's preliminary index of U.S. consumer sentiment for May fell to a seven-month low as high gas prices took a toll on consumers.
Gee, that doesn't sound like a lost of consumer confidence to me - it sounds as though people are shifting their money from stocks to commodities (gold and oil). When the blue-chips falter, doesn't that often mean that more speculative, riskier investments get the benefit? And, wouldn't that translate into INCREASED confidence?

Oh, what do I know? I'm not OFFICIAL media.

Tags = News & Politics

Changes in media habits

I've really lost the habit of reading a daily newspaper. I used to run for the paper every morning in the 70s and 80s. I read every story, even the fillers. I became a CNN addict during the first Gulf War (maybe we should start calling it GWI?). After I started teaching, I slowly began cutting down on buying a newspaper, but I increased the amount of time I spent with the network news and cable news.

That has changed since the towers went down, when I accepted that we were, and would continue to be, at war with Islamic fanatics. I used the emerging blog media to find out what was happening, and, over time, I gradually supplanted the MSM with blogs and other, less mediated sources of information. Over time, I started noticing that the blogs were more immediate, more accurate, and, if slanted in a particular direction, at least honest and up-front about it.

I dipped my toes in the water, and quickly became a part (a very small part) of the phenomenon. In my search for interesting content, I started researching primary (and reliable secondary) sources, and enjoyed returning to a passion I'd had in college, data analysis. With the rise in Internet content, it's possible to find nearly everything you need to know about a topic.

I think it's clear the MSM has been stabbed in the vitals. Like the dinosaurs and other large critters, it may be some time before they gasp their last. Remnants of them may still exist, although in very altered form.

I, for one, won't miss them.

Tags = Media

Thursday, May 11, 2006

He might just have a future in politics

From FoxNews web site, I found this story about the Arizona sheriff with an attitude - and a non-PC 'tude at that.



The sheriff (pictured above) is Joe Arpaio, the Arizona official who became famous for his slashed-to-the-bone prison approach. Some of the features:
These new measures included serving less expensive meals to inmates and issuing them pink underwear as part of the jails' uniforms and ordering the use of pink handcuffs.

One of his most criticized decisions was the construction of a tent city that housed both men and women. Some inmates in the facility claimed that they were mistreated. In an effort to institute equality between the men and women prison sentences, he created an all-female chain gang.
Lest you think him unduly harsh, he has a softer side
Arpaio also instituted a program for inmates to study while in jail and to try to recover from drug abuse. This program is named Hard Knocks High, which is the only approved high school program in any American jail. Another jail program, called ALPHA, is aimed solely at getting inmates away from drug abuse
Some of the other decisions he has made include
He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
So, it will probably not come as a surprise that the sheriff is using the anti-smuggling state law to go after illegal aliens, with the help of a 250 member posse.

Frankly, I don't really understand why we don't let bounty hunters track down aliens and take them to the border. It would be cheaper to pay the for-profit hunters a fee than to cover the costs of the alien's residence in this country.

I found the original story on Knowledge is Power.

Tags = Immigration

Thith means WAR!

Thith means WAR!

I've been fuming this week about the situation of the DHS not understanding that they are employees of the United States, not Mexico. Clearly, there is some confusion, as the story shows. When an employee, government or not, decides that the mission statement (i.e., the Constitution) means nothing, and that groveling before foreign powers is more important, it's w-a-a-y past time for that employee to find another job.

From the opening of the immigration bill (H4437),
It is the sense of Congress that the immigration and 4 naturalization policy shall be designed to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the United States of America.
Got that? OUR country, not theirs.



Take one of the above and buy a clue.

Peeps, it's once again time to flood Congress with letters, email, and calls to let them know we expect them to evolve into vertebrates. The Congress is pushing to get legislation passed, and it's important to get our positions known. The House bill, while not perfect, focuses more on border security. The Senate bill will be brought to the floor in the next week. Click on the links for the full text.

I know it takes a lot to wade through obscure language to determine whether the legislation is worth supporting. I know my own time is extremely limited right now, as I have less than 2 weeks of school. But I've found that reading the original text helps make the issues clearer.

Tags = Immigration

Monday, May 08, 2006

Guard the Borders Blogburst

Nuestro Himno: Is It Really "Our Anthem?"
By Rahel B. Avraham of CustomerServant

The pro-illegal immigration folks now have their own campaign song. It’s called “Nuestro Himno,” (our anthem), and it’s peddlers say it’s just a re-interpretation of our national anthem, “The Star-spangled Banner.” Let’s see if that claim actually holds water.

First, an English translation of “Nuestro Himno.”

Verse 1

It’s sunrise. Do you see by the light of the dawn
What we proudly hailed last nightfall?
Its stars, its stripes
yesterday streamed
above fierce combat
a symbol of victory
the glory of battle, the march toward liberty.
Throughout the night, they proclaimed: “We will defend it!”

Chorus

Tell me! Does its starry beauty still wave
above the land of the free,
the sacred flag?

Chant:


It’s time to make a difference the kids, men and the women
Let’s stand for our beliefs, let’s stand for our vision/What about the children, los ninos ?

These kids have no parents, cause all of these mean laws.
See this can’t happen, not only about the Latins.
Asians, blacks and whites and all they do is adding
more and more, let’s not start a war
with all these hard workers,
they can’t help where they were born.

Verse 2

Its stars, its stripes,
Liberty, we are the same.
We are brothers in our anthem.
In fierce combat, a symbol of victory
the glory of battle,
(My people fight on)
the march toward liberty.
(The time has come to break the chains.)
Throughout the night they proclaimed: “We will defend it!”
Tell me! Does its starry beauty still wave
above the land of the free,
the sacred flag?


And now, to put things in perspective, the lyrics to “The Star-spangled Banner.”

The Defense of Fort McHenry
September 20, 1814
By Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

As you can see, there’s very little similarity between these two pieces, and that’s just scratching the surface. The fact is “Nuestro Himno” is not a simple translation of our national anthem into Spanish. It’s an attempt to take what is now a very familiar tune, which carries with it very vivid associations for some of us, and slap a pro-invader anthem on top of it.

The Star-spangled Banner was written in response, to a real life-or-death battle. If we had lost that part of the war of 1812, we’d be British subjects. On the other hand, this new cheap imitation that wants so desperately to be our national anthem is a plea for acceptance on behalf of those who have broken the laws of this country, and yet want to be forgiven for their trespass without paying any penalty.

“We know we’ve broken your laws, but can we have some of your hard-earned liberty anyway? After all, we’re brothers. And if you don’t give us some of your freedoms and rights, more than we already have, we say that your flag no longer flies over the land of the free and the home of the brave, because we’re in this land, and we’re not free, and though we were brave enough to cross through Central America and Mexico to sneak across the border, you don’t call us brave. But we are brave! We sneaked past your border guards, and we believe we can halt your economy in one day, and we don’t care if you give us free schooling, government subsidies for every baby born in this country. We’ll wave Mexican flags, and even cover your flag with ours, and we’ll even claim that your entire southwest region is ours and we’re going to take it back, but all the same, we want you to accept us as perfectly legal.”

This, at least, is how I interpret this anthem’s message.

And some record company’s CEO has ingeniously figured out how to cash in in a big way on the immigration fight going on in this country. By asking that “Nuestro Himno” be played simultaneously on Latino radio stations yesterday, and marketing it as simply a re-interpretation of the national anthem that will allow Hispanics who don’t speak English to understand what they’re singing, that CEO stands to make a huge amount of cash, and gain himself a lot of publicity.

If anyone is really interested in understanding what the national anthem’s lyrics mean, they could very easily have the lyrics translated in non-poetic form. But this is poetic license gone horribly wrong. And the national anthem isn’t copyrighted, so no one has to pay any royalties. No record producer could have missed that.

To conclude, I would answer the question I posed in this way. “Nuestro Himno” is a shining example of criminality and greed. Nothing more.

_________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.



Tags = Immigration

Saturday, May 06, 2006

A wonderful film

When I rented the DVD "I, Robot" last week, I threw in a film I'd always wanted to see - "Bright Young Things".

I read the phrase years ago in an Agatha Christie novel. She seemed to have an indulgent memory of those people's extravagant foolishness, so I thought it would be interesting to watch.

Boy, was it.

It was a little like watching an early version of the Disco Years, when promiscuity, chemical indulgence, "gaying it up", and pack behavior was the rage. The movie is based on Evelyn Waugh's "Vile Bodies", and delivers a harrowing story. The one actress who walked away with the movie is Fenella Woolgar, who plays the fabulously wealthy and titled Agatha.



Her mental and emotional breakdown left me slack-jawed. Even in a mental institution, she still didn't "get it" - she was ready to party down again. Rather like the celebrities who go through rehab, again and again, then find another bacchanal before the ink is dry on the release papers.

Now, the film isn't without flaws. The ending is contrived and some of the more farcial events (the disappearing Major, the butler's identifying cocaine as baby powder, etc.) interfere with the basic story line. The slang and posing of the characters rings true to me - I'm old enough to have known people who were young in that era, and that, according to those who lived it, was the way it was (apologies for the Walter Cronkite reference).

Tags = Culture

Lies of the Left

This COULD be a lengthy post. But, I'll try to winnow it down to a reasonable length. The CA Parent Bribery 'Scandal' - the 1...