Immigration - Page 2

On Illegal Immigration and Border Security
Congressman Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk

Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans' minds lately and with good reason.  The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997.  1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally.  We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.

We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin.  Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades.  There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study.  It's no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages.  They are subsidized by our government to do so.

Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system.  I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice.  In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform.  I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system.  Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.

The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic.  Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship.  This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy.  I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.

I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders.  For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country.   Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation - we don't have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.

The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders.  I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America.

Learning About Immigration Policy From Mexico
By Allan Wall (

Almost everybody believes that the U.S.A. needs immigration reform. I'd like to propose that we study immigration systems in other countries, to see what we can learn from them.

It's arrogant to assume that we Americans have all the answers, and that no other country can do anything better than we can.

Some of the biggest critics of our immigration policy are Mexicans. So let's examine Mexico's immigration policy and see what we can learn from it.

We might even decide that Mexico has some approaches to the issue that we could copy. Surely they wouldn't object to that.

Would they?

How can we summarize Mexican immigration/nationality policies? Here's how: Mexico has an immigration system tailored to fit the interests of Mexico.

And what's wrong with that?

The legal basis for Mexico's immigration law is found in the Ley General de Población [the General Population Law].

The cabinet-level department responsible for immigration is the Secretaria de Gobernación, loosely translated as the Interior Department.

According to Article 3, section VII of the General Population Law, the responsibility of this department is to

"Subject the immigration of foreigners to the methods it deems relevant, and to achieve the best assimilation of these [immigrants] to the national environment and their adequate distribution in [Mexican] territory." [Sujetar la inmigración de extranjeros a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, y procurar la mejor asimilación de éstos al medio nacional y su adecuada distribución en el territorio.]

So the goals of Mexican immigration policy are assimilation and the distribution of immigrants throughout Mexican territory.

Mexico has had immigrants from many countries, from Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and even the U.S.A. And Mexico has done a good job in assimilating these immigrants. Part of it is because the immigration levels are so much lower than in the U.S., and partly because the Mexican system does indeed encourage assimilation.

According to Article 32 of the General Population Law,

"The Interior Department will establish, subject to the corresponding demographic studies, the number of foreigners whose entrance to the country may be permitted, whether by activities or zone of residence, and will subject to the methods that it deems relevant the immigration of foreigners, according to their possibilities of contributing to the national progress." [Artículo 32.- La Secretaría de Gobernación fijará, previos los estudios demográficos correspondientes, el número de extranjeros cuya internación podrá permitirse al país, ya sea por actividades o por zonas de residencia, y sujetará a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, la inmigración de extranjeros, según sean sus posibilidades de contribuir al progreso nacional.]

So the Interior Department establishes immigration quotas based on the demographic situation of the country, and wants immigrants who will contribute to the development of the nation.

Article 34 even explains what kinds of immigrants Mexico is looking for:

"The Department of the Interior may establish for the foreigners who enter Mexico the conditions that it deems appropriate with respect to the activities to which they will engage in and the place or places of their residence. It will take care thusly that the immigrants shall be useful elements for the country and that they will have the necessary income levels for their subsistence... and of the persons who are under their economic dependence." [Artículo 34.- La Secretaría de Gobernación podrá fijar a los extranjeros que se internen en el país las condiciones que estime convenientes respecto a las actividades a que habrán de dedicarse y al lugar o lugares de su residencia. Cuidará asimismo de que los inmigrantes sean elementos útiles para el país y de que cuenten con los ingresos necesarios para su subsistencia y en su caso, la de las personas que estén bajo su dependencia económica.]

"Useful elements"?" Necessary income levels?" It sounds as though Mexico is being rather choosy. Mexico wants immigrants who are (1) useful to Mexico and (2) who have enough income to take care of themselves and their families. How discriminatory!

OK, so what kinds of immigrants does Mexico not want? Well, that's spelled out in the General Population Law, Article 37. It states that

"The Department of the Interior may deny to foreigners the entrance into the country or a change in immigration status for any of the following reasons:

 I. When there is no international reciprocity."

(What if we did that? What if we conditioned our immigration policy on how other countries took in our people -- starting with Mexico?)

 "II. When the national demographic equilibrium demands it."

(When it doesn't upset Mexico's demographic equilibrium).

 "III. When the quotas referred to in Article 32 of this law don't permit it."

(See Article 32 above).

 IV. "When it is considered harmful to the economic interests of Mexicans."

(Shouldn't we also limit immigration if it's harmful to the economic interests of ordinary Americans?)

 V. When they (the immigrants) have broken the laws of Mexico or have criminal antecedents abroad.

(Mexico doesn't want criminal immigrants).

 VI. When they have broken this [immigration] law, its regulations or other applicable administrative orders in the matter, or if they don't comply with the established requirements.

(What if we did that -- instead of repeatedly amnestying illegals?)

 VII. If they are not physically or mentally healthy in the judgment of the health authority, or are prevented by other legal orders.
And, just to make sure everything's covered, Article 38 stipulates that

"The Department of the Interior is authorized to suspend or forbid the admission of foreigners, when it is determined to be in the national interest."

That pretty much covers everything, does it not?

There are several myths and misunderstandings about Mexican immigration policy.

Many Mexicans think that Mexico has no immigration policy, that anybody can come into the country without any kind of visa. I've been asked why the U.S. demands visas and Mexico doesn't! Reason: few Mexicans have any contact with the Mexican immigration bureaucracy, the INM [Instituto Nacional de Migracion] and they've believed the rhetoric of the Open Door Mexico.

Some Americans think Mexico has a lax immigration system because it's so easy for American tourists to enter Mexico.

Yes, it is easy. But the tourist only sees the tip of the iceberg. Mexico has a whole range of immigration options. The tourist visa is just the easiest level.

The system is carefully designed to keep out paupers, to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, and even to discriminate between native-born Mexicans and naturalized Mexicans.

Mexican immigration law recognizes several levels of immigration status. The most temporary status is that of no-inmigrante, which includes, tourists, transmigrants, visitors, religious workers, political asylees, refugees, students, distinguished visitors, local visitors, provisional visitors and journalists. All these individuals have the right to bring a spouse or children. But they are responsible for them.

A more permanent status is that of "inmigrante," which includes rentistas (people with independent means), investors, professionals, certain administrators, scientists, technicians, artists, athletes, spouses and parents of Mexicans, and family members of such persons (once again, at the responsibility of the head of family).

After 5 years of being an "inmigrante", one may pass to the level of "inmigrado" which is more permanent still.

There are restrictions on land ownership for foreigners, as I have pointed out before. There are ways to get around this, but when a foreigner buys or gets effective control of Mexican property, he waives his rights to the intervention of his country of citizenship in case of a land dispute. And I have never seen the U.S. government take any effective action to defend an American in Mexico in a land dispute.

As far as illegal immigration, the government of Mexico detains and deports over a quarter of a million illegals annually, most of them from Central American countries, which are poorer than Mexico. All Mexican police are required to enforce Mexican immigration law, and so does the Army, which has already militarized the northern border. [ note: Mexico's northern border is, of course, American's southern border. Mexico has a southern border of its own, of course, and it faces pressure from further south.]

Mexican immigration officials don't hesitate to use racial profiling. In a previous article, I reported how officials in the north of Mexico tried to deport Mexican Indians thinking they were Central Americans. And, in a recent case, Mexican police used tear gas to get some illegal aliens out of a trailer. What if our immigration officials did that?

Not only that, according to Article 67, any Mexican official who deals with a foreigner is responsible to verify the foreigner's legal status as part of the transaction. The "sanctuary policy" practiced in so many U.S. cities would not get very far in Mexico.

When Lilia and I were married, here in Mexico, I had to ask permission of the Mexican government to marry her, and I had to prove I was here legally. Of course, I love my wife and so it was worth it. But just imagine, once again, what if the U.S. did that?

Legal foreigners living here in Mexico can pretty much do anything we want. We're free to travel throughout Mexico to our heart's content.

However, there are limits. It is strictly verboten for us to get mixed up in Mexican politics, even to march in a protest demonstration.

The Mexican constitution has a particular and well-known article which deals very clearly with the status and expectations of non-Mexicans in Mexico. It's the famous Article 33:

Article 33 -- Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualities determined in Article 30. They have the right to the guarantees of Chapter I of the first title of this Constitution, but the Executive of the Union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country.

Articulo 33. Son extranjeros los que no posean las calidades determinadas en el articulo 30. Tienen derecho a las garantias que otorga el capitulo i, titulo primero, de la presente constitucion ; pero el ejecutivo de la union tendra la facultad exclusiva de hacer abandonar el territorio nacional, inmediatamente y sin necesidad de juicio previo, a todo extranjero cuya permanencia juzgue inconveniente.

Los extranjeros no podran de ninguna manera inmiscuirse en los asuntos politicos del pais.

Contrast that with the U.S.'s impossible deportation procedures, as chronicled by Juan Mann!

Article 43 of the General Law of Population (Ley General de Población) states that:

"The admission to the country of a foreigner obliges him to strictly comply with the conditions established for him in the immigration permit and the dispositions established by the respective laws."

Americans and other foreigners are regularly expelled for overstepping these bounds. In 2002, 18 gringos were expelled for participating in May Day marches. Later in the same year, five American citizens were expelled for participating in a demonstration demanding the release of some campesinos.

In contrast, the U.S. allows even illegal aliens to march openly in the streets demanding their "rights."

Does the U.S. need an Article 33?

Mexico's citizenship laws are spelled out in the legal corpus known as the Ley de Nacionalidad. PDF

In order to become a citizen, the applicant must renounce his home country citizenship, demonstrate that he speaks Spanish, knows Mexican history and has assimilated to Mexican life.[VDARE.COM note: A previous Mexican Government had a very bad experience with some Texans who failed to assimilate. Remember the Alamo?] And he must have lived in Mexico for 5 years.

Certain classes of people, however, can get citizenship in less than 5 years. For example, an immigrant married to a Mexican, or parent of a Mexican child, can get it in 2 years. An adoptee can get it in 1 year.

And note this: Other preferences are based upon ancestry or country of origin. An immigrant of Mexican ancestry gets a preference and only has to wait two years. Immigrants from Latin America or the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) only have to wait 2 years for citizenship.

All other things being equal, this would give an immigrant from Spain a preference over an immigrant from Germany, an immigrant from Argentina preference over an American, and a Mexican-American would have preference over an Anglo-American.

Hmmm! What would happen if the U.S. gave preference to immigrants from the British Isles, Canada, and Australia? I imagine they'd call us racists. But it's a fact: Mexico gives preference to persons of Mexican ancestry, other Latin Americans and Spaniards.

In the U.S.A., a naturalized citizen can do almost anything that a natural-born citizen can do, except be president (and some people even want to change that).

But in Mexico, naturalized citizens are limited from many positions government positions, which are spelled out in the Mexican Constitution. A naturalized Mexican citizen can never serve in the military during peacetime, can never be a policeman, and can never be a pilot, captain or crew member on any vessel or aircraft bearing a Mexican insignia. (Article 32) And a naturalized Mexican can never be in charge of a port or airport.

A naturalized Mexican can never be president (Article 82), just as in the U.S. But he can also never be in the Mexican Congress (unlike ours) (Articles 55 and 58), can never be on the Supreme Court (article 95), and never be a governor of a Mexican state (Article 116) nor serve in the legislature or as mayor of Mexico City (Article 122) .

The truth of the matter is, no matter how well-assimilated a naturalized Mexican is, he will always be a sort of second-class citizen.

And, while a natural-born Mexican can never be stripped of his citizenship, a naturalized Mexican can be (Constitution Article 37). A naturalized Mexican citizen could lose his citizenship by acquiring another nationality, working for a foreign government without permission, accepting titles or decorations from a foreign government or helping a foreigner or foreign nation in a diplomatic dispute or before an international tribunal.

Hmmm again. In other words, the kind of thing a lot of our Latino officials do all the time. But Mexican law flatly prohibits that sort of thing.

If it's good for the goose, isn't it good for the gander.

Bottom line: although the Mexican elite constantly attacks U.S. immigration policy, Mexico's own system is stricter, and explicitly focused on the interests of Mexico.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's their country. But our officials should not be intimidated one whit when scolded by Mexicans about immigration.

In fact, we ought to turn the tables and ask Mexico about its own immigration policy. And, frankly, we would be wise to import many aspects of Mexican immigration policy ourselves!

(P.S. Mexico places the military on its border with Guatemala to prevent illegal immigration.)

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here his "Dispatches from Iraq" are archived here his website is here.

Interesting, and  this is only one State...
From  the L. A. Times
1.  40%  of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A.  County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying  taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working  without a green card.
2.  95%  of warrants for murder in Los Angeles  are for illegal aliens.

3. 75%  of people on the most wanted list in  Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all  births in Los Angeles County are to illegal  alien Mexicans on  Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers. 
5. Nearly 35% of all  inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here  illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal  aliens in Los Angeles County are living in  garages. 
7. The FBI  reports half of all gang  members in Los Angeles are most  likely illegal aliens from south of the border. 
8.  Nearly 60% of all  occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9.  21 radio stations in L.  A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County  5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak  Spanish. (There are 10 .2 million people in L.  A. County. )

All 10 of the  above are from the Los Angeles  Times

Less than 2% of  illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Over  70% of the United States' annual  population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida , and New York)  results from immigration.

29% of  inmates in federal prisons  are illegal aliens.

We are a bunch of  fools for letting this continue.

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
For A More Perfect Union
6501 Greenway Parkway Suite 103-640 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 :: Phone (520) 829-3112
I am Hispanic. I am an American. I am a Minuteman. These terms are not contradictory.
By Al Garza, National Executive Director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

During my youth, I served this country proudly in the Marine Corps in Vietnam, along with some great Americans. I now have that opportunity once again to serve my country with other great Americans, through my role with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. We are a volunteer organization filled with patriots who stand watch on our nation's borders in support of the brave men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol.

We are motivated by the rule of law and the need to secure the borders of the United States for the sake of our children and our grandchildren. Like our Founding Fathers, we are willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes "in order to form a more perfect union," even when we are discouraged by the actions of our elected leaders in Washington, who often forget that they "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the Governed..."

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps volunteers do not engage in hate speech, bigotry, violence, vigilantism or launch unjust personal attacks against law-abiding citizens. In fact, we are commissioned to witness to the injustice of the "we hate America crowd" led by the National Council of LaRaza who have exposed their true motives when they threaten Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser for refusing to fire Frances Semler from her appointed post on the Park Board without cause; an action that would result in most private employers receiving an expensive lesson in employment law.

I urge the citizens of Kansas City to question the actions of the National Council of LaRaza, a group which claims to stand for civil rights, but extorts your Mayor with threats of defamation and boycott if their demands are not met -- demands that a grandmotherly civic leader be terminated for her affiliation with a patriotic organization. I find their actions demeaning to all Hispanic Americans, and undermining of our civil liberty and patriotism.

After all, can any organization that encourages people to violate our laws truly claim to love America? Can you truly love America if one of your stated goals is to violently reclaim U.S. soil in the name of Mexico through a movement known as Reconquista?

Unlike LaRaza's selfish agenda, our Minuteman mission is peaceful and responsible for saving the lives of hundreds who entered our country illegally and were left to die in the desert, be forced into prostitution or otherwise exploited for their cheap labor. Securing the borders is pro-immigrant. Minutemen volunteers are showing our federal government and fellow citizens the national security effectiveness for the protection of all that will result from the construction of a double-layered physical fence, and a simple increase in the number of Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops stationed on our borders.

As citizens, we have a moral obligation to provide immigrants a safe passage -- by our rules -- while also protecting the citizens of the United States from invasion, disease and criminal behavior. The immigration problems we face can be resolved when employers, elected officials, the judicial system and law enforcement agencies at the local, state and national levels work together to enforce all immigration laws.

Minuteman activities are inclusive, conducted by men and women, naturalized as well as native-born citizens, college students and members of the Granny Brigade who fill a void on a mission that continues to receive strong support from millions of Americans. Our volunteers will travel from all over America to the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canadian borders next month for our national muster. They will observe and report illegal activity to the proper authorities. Furthermore, they will call, write and fax their Members of Congress to voice their opposition to the on-going lobbying campaigns advancing amnesty legislation.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps conducts our activities for the "general welfare" of all legal citizens of the United States and the protection of all innocent human life. Can LaRaza really claim they do the same thing?

Minutemen and Donations Needed NOW!

You too can help defend American by making your way to the border to join the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps as the first line of defense against illegal immigration. Sign up now to do your part in securing America!

If you can not commit to going to the border, fear not: you can still be a great help! Donate now to support those that are on the border and help pave the way to a secure America with the brave pioneers on the border!

The people of America are what make us strong, people just like you who are willing to sacrifice time and money in the pursuit of a strong and secure America. It takes the people of America to secure America. Americans don't rely on others or wait for somebody else to fix the problem -- we are the trailblazers!

Click Here to Donate to the October Operations Support Fund

Monday, October 1st through Wednesday, October 31st

At the U.S. - Mexico Border shared with Arizona, Texas and California as well as the U.S.-Canada Border shared with Washington State. Select here for details

Our Government is still NOT DOING ITS JOB! Beginning October 1st 2007, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps will conduct 24/7 operations for 31 days to secure the border. Your participation is critical.


If patriotic Americans don't take action -- QUICKLY -- the new liberal Congress in Washington will ERASE OUR BORDERS and vote for AMNESTY instead of border security.

MCDC is CALLING ALL VOLUNTEERS and Minuteman SUPPORTERS in the colonial tradition of the Minutemen, to SERVE or DONATE money and materials to HELP PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR NATION. Thank you to all volunteers who at their own expense are heading to the border and to those who respond by doing one or more of the following:

1) If you are a registered volunteer and cannot go to the border, or if you just want to send your financial support to our Minutemen at the border.

2) If you want to be a Registered Minuteman and get your ID card.

3) See October Border Muster Operations locations and schedules.

YOU can make a REAL DIFFERENCE. So, for your sake, for the sake of your children, your grandchildren, and for generations to come, please help MCDC continue its fight to protect and preserve the United States of America and defend our Constitution.

Sincerely for these United States,

Carmen Mercer
Vice President
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

Donate to the October Operations Support Fund
Minuteman Corps October 2007 Border Watch Details

If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
Dept Code 954
PO Box 130707
Houston, TX 77219-0707
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Inc.
6501 Greenway Parkway
Suite 103-640
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Phone (520) 829-3112

State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
Why unrestricted immigration amounts to national suicide and what we must do now to secure America's borders and preserve the republic
by Pat Buchanan

Civilizations die by suicide, not murder, says Patrick Buchanan, and liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. Its ideas, pursued to their logical end, will prove fatal. And none of those ideas is as certain to bring our civilization to an unhappy end as the proposition that America's borders must be open to any and all comers, legal and illegal. In State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Buchanan explains why the very life of our nation is at stake in the immigration debate. If immigration and border controls aren't reintroduced, it will be the end of America as we know it -- and soon.

Buchanan explains why the massive influx of illegal immigrants into America is nothing less than an invasion -- and yet the Bush White House and GOP-controlled Congress appear disinclined to do anything about it. He details how our current policy of "open borders" and nearly unrestricted immigration have brought a stream of criminals and thugs into our nation -- for the benefit only of an entrenched political establishment that couldn't care less about the good of the American people. He explodes myth after myth about illegal immigration -- including President Bush's notorious statement that illegal aliens "do jobs Americans won't do" and the idea that foreigners somehow have a natural right to come to America.

Nor will all this be an easy problem to solve. Buchanan demonstrates that any presidential candidate who speaks out against the Hispanic onslaught in the American Southwest will now lose the electoral votes of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Soon, electoral realities will make it impossible for any serious candidate to speak out against unrestrained immigration. Yet, he points out, if it wanted to, the U.S. Government could secure the Mexican border within weeks -- and details the political reasons why this won't happen, despite the fact that immigration control measures have consistently won large margins of support from American voters.

State of Emergency also lays bare the roots of our immigration crisis, providing a capsule history of U.S.-Mexican relations and explaining Mexico's long-standing grudge against the United States. Buchanan exposes the long-term goals of radical Mexican and Chicano groups that want to erase not only American sovereignty over the Southwest, but also American sovereignty altogether. He warns against the balkanization and tribalism that threaten our future as a nation, and, for those who have forgotten (and there are many), he gets back to basics -- explaining what a nation actually is and should be.

America, says Buchanan, could soon be facing its last chance to stave off national suicide. In State of Emergency, he provides a comprehensive primer for all politicians, activists, and concerned citizens who want to stop the flood of immigration before it's too late.

How illegal immigration threatens every American:

Fact: our illegal population today is greater than the total number of Irish, Jewish, and British immigrants who ever came to the U.S.

Why the reigning Republicans ignore the law and do little or nothing to stop illegal immigration

How mass immigration inevitably tilts the center of gravity of American politics to the Left

How the numbers of Americans of European descent are rapidly decreasing -- and the political and social implications
Eurabia on the rise: the devastating consequences of unrestricted immigration in Europe

How Los Angeles today provides a glimpse of what all of America will be like in 2050

An "American creed"? Why those who believe that the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address hold us together as a nation are distorting or reinventing history

Why Mexico's President Fox has done nothing to help secure the U.S.-Mexican border -- and has actually abetted the invasion of the U.S. by millions of illegal aliens

The decisive step that the Mexican government took in 1998 toward building a potent political machine within the United States

Fact: not only are arguments about the economic benefits provided by illegal aliens false, but illegal immigration also constitutes a massive drain on our economy

The Mexican War is not over: its deep impact on contemporary immigration politics

Why importing a vast diaspora from a neighboring nation so different from our own is such a hellish risk

How the United States Government threw up its hands and abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion by illegal aliens over four decades ago

Why it is difficult, if not impossible, for cities to get control of the growing crime menace of immigrants and illegal aliens

Latin elites that are doing everything they can to prevent the assimilation of Mexican immigrants into American culture

John F. Kennedy and immigration: how, in 1991, the U.S. took in twelve times more immigrants than what JFK stated in the early 1960s as an acceptable annual limit

Bush's guest worker plan: how it provoked a surge to the border

How, as Republicans dither, some Democrats are beginning to see the potency among voters of the illegal immigration issue

How, rather than fading away, issues of nationality long considered dead are resurfacing today

Why so many children of Asian-American and Hispanic immigrants are assimilating into a deadly subculture of gangs and crime

How even conservatives now routinely denounce as "racist," "nativist" and "xenophobic" anyone who argues that mass migration from the Third World risks disuniting and even destroying America

How we must recapture control of immigration policy from politicians paralyzed by fear of ethnic lobbies and cultural contributors, or immobilized by ideology

Why ideology and democracy are not enough to save America -- and what we need most now to trump the call of ethnicity

Six critical steps that must be taken now to secure America's borders and preserve the republic
by Michael Cutler, 29 year veteran of INS
November 6, 2007

I have just read an editorial in the New York Times. The editorial glosses over many facts where illegal immigration is concerned. In fact, had Al Gore not written a book about global warming entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," that title would serve this debate quite aptly.

It is important to understand that the folks who advocate for open borders and essentially uncontrolled immigration use two primary tactics to further their agendas. They resort to an Orwellian "Newspeak" or, alternatively, they accurately define a problem that presents a significant problem but then propose a solution that makes no sense and may well exacerbate the problem, but enables such deceptive individuals with the opportunity to push a "solution" that furthers their goals.

In considering the first tactic of using false language to obfuscate an issue I would point to former President Jimmy Carter who began this process where illegal immigration is concerned, by demanding that INS employees stop using the term "Illegal Alien" and replace it with the more genteel and clearly deceptive term "Undocumented Worker." The current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush has offered to "Legalize the immigrants," a statement that is amazing when you consider that this is the equivalent of offering to "Make water wet!" Immigrants are legal, they have green cards and they are on the path to United States citizenship. They can bring their immediate family members legally to the United States as immigrants in their own right. They can take virtually any job they are qualified to do. How much more legal would the President make them? In point of fact, he was really saying that he wanted to make illegal aliens legal but understood the reaction to such an offer would have been swift, overwhelming and rancorous.

When I raise these issues when I participate in debates my opponents often criticize the use of the word "alien" because they claim it sounds as though aliens came from another planet. The reality is that the term alien is as old as the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the body of laws that govern the entry and presence of aliens in our country, defines an alien as simply being any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. Period. There is no insult to this definition. This is not in any way, shape of form similar to the "N" word. In fact, when we, as Americans travel to other countries, those countries will refer to us as being aliens! And they will have no compunctions against using that word!

The Online Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "Illegal" as follows:

:not according to or authorized by law: unlawful, illicit; also: not sanctioned by official rules

The second tactic, that of providing supposed "solutions" to a critical problem that makes no sense can be seen in statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney who stated that there are millions of undocumented workers in this country. We don't know who they are, where they are or what they are up to and that is why we need a "Guest Worker" program! This statement was made by the Vice President several years ago and it astounded me to hear (and see it) when I was a guest on the Lou Dobbs Tonight program on CNN. The staff at CNN had brought me out on the set to be interviewed by Lou Dobbs and as they hooked up my microphone, I noticed that Lou appeared particularly riled up. I asked him why he was upset and he told me that he wanted me to see a video clip of the Vice President that had enraged him. He told me that he wanted to get my reaction to the Vice President's statement. Of course I wondered what was going on and was utterly astonished to see the video, once we were on the air, of the Vice President standing before a town hall meeting, wireless microphone in hand, making that outrageous statement! I immediately understood Lou's outrage- indeed, I shared it!

How would providing millions of illegal aliens with authorization to work in our country deter future illegal immigration? It was, in fact, in my judgement, the Amnesty of 1986 that resulted in the massive of influx of illegal aliens into our country who had been encouraged and emboldened to violate our borders and our immigration laws with the expectation that they would be rewarded for such illegal conduct. More importantly, there is no way that our bureaucrats at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) could possibly determine the true identities of million of undocumented aliens. They would not even be able to confirm the nationalities of many of these undocumented aliens. How would providing individuals whose identities are unknown and unknowable with official identity documents in whatever name they claimed was theirs make us safer? The reality is that this would put us at a far greater risk because this is the precise tactic that terrorists and criminals use in order to hide in plain sight. They create false identities for themselves to make tracking their movements and activities all but impossible for our law enforcement agencies. This is why the 19 terrorists who so savagely attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 used a total of 364 aliens and variations of names and other identifiers in order to embed themselves in our country and hide in plain sight among us as they prepared to carry out what would be the most devastating attack ever launched against our nation within our borders.

The "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" that was prepared behind closed doors in the dead of night by a few legislative thugs in Washington headed up by Senator Ted Kennedy several months ago kept me awake at night. My fears were articulated in a commentary I wrote that the Washington Times published. In that commentary I referred to that legislative abomination as being the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007." ( and

On three separate occasions, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama quoted from my commentary on the floor of the United States Senate during the time that the bill was being debated. You can read one of those instances at:

George W. Bush and other advocates for open borders also distort the facts. A good example of such distortion can be found when President Bush had stated repeatedly that our nation had tried an "enforcement only" approach to immigration but that such an approach failed because it did not provide for the illegal aliens in our country with an opportunity to legally work in our country! In point of fact, there are currently only about 4,000 special agents at ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) who are dedicated to enforcing the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. To put this in proper perspective, the City of New York has just over 8 million residents. This teeming city covers some 400 square miles and enjoys the lowest crime rate of any major city in the entire United States. This is most probably attributed to the fact that New York City has a well trained and equipped police department that has nearly 38,000 police officers carrying out their duties. The United States has perhaps more than 20 million illegal aliens who are scattered across a third of the North American continent and a law enforcement agency that has roughly one tenth the number of agents as the NYPD has police officers!

It is also important to know that the job of the special agents at ICE should require that they do more then simply look for the ever increasing number of illegal aliens and especially those among them who become involved in serious criminal activities. These agents should also be conducting investigations into alien smuggling, aliens who become involved in immigration benefit fraud such as gaining residency based on sham marriages to United States citizens and resident aliens, and those who furnish false and altered identity documents. These agents are also badly needed to assist other agencies such as the FBI and DEA in task forces that target terrorist and narcotics trafficking organizations whose members include aliens. (I spent nearly half of my career working in conjunction with other such agencies to identify, investigate and ultimately dismantle narcotics trafficking organizations. In New York, when I was assigned to the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA, I determined that roughly 60% of the individuals who were arrested by the DEA in NYC for drug-related crimes were, in fact, identified as being "foreign born.")

So this then begs the question, what constitutes an "enforcement only" approach to immigration law enforcement that President Bush talked about? In point of fact, this was about creating an illusion of enforcement and it was the illusion of enforcement that failed to control illegal immigration. Providing illegal aliens with the opportunity to acquire lawful status in our country will do nothing to deter illegal immigration and would, in fact, encourage still more illegal immigration.

The author of the editorial I have attached below presumably well understands what I have set forth above. He is obviously following in the well-worn path trod by those who for one reason or another, want to erase our nation's borders and blur the distinction between what it is to be lawfully present in our country and what it is to be present illegally in the United States. As I have often stated, the difference between an illegal alien and an immigrant is the difference between a burglar and a houseguest! I sincerely doubt that if Mr. Downes, the author of the editorial, returned home from work only to find an intruder sitting on his couch watching his television that his first thought would be to offer him a meal and a job! Nor would he invite the intruder to have his family join him!

Let us make a couple of points clear. Every nation is defined by its borders. Think back to the study of geography in high school or college. This was about borders. Virtually every nation on the face of this planet enforces its borders. The Mexican government has resorted to extreme measures where its southern border is concerned but then criticizes the United States if we even dare attempt to secure our borders. Politicians in the United States on both sides of the political aisle have been largely unwilling to secure our borders because, to put it succinctly, the Democrats see in the flood of humanity potential voters and the Republicans see massive campaign contributions by those unscrupulous employers who want to hire the cheapest and most compliant labor force possible. Labor is a commodity and the more you flood the labor market with cheap labor, the more you reduce the price of labor. This is wonderful for those who sit at the top of the economic food chain at these corporations but is absolutely a disaster for those of us who actually have to work for a living!

Mr. Downes does not like the term illegal aliens and goes on to make it appear that illegal aliens are committing a violation that is probably no more serious than a motorist who fails to drop a couple of quarters in the basket as he drives across a toll bridge. In point of fact, the job of the inspector, a job I am amply familiar with, having begun my career with the INS in 1971 as an immigration inspector assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, is to keep out aliens who pose a threat to our safety and well being. Inspectors are supposed to prevent the entry of aliens into the United States who have criminal histories or suffer mental illness which would cause them to do harm to our citizens. The inspectors are supposed to keep out drug addicts and those who harbor dangerous diseases. Inspectors are supposed to keep out terrorists and violent gang members. They are supposed to keep out those who would become public charges and take the jobs of Americans and those who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Having done the job of immigration inspector, adjudications officer and having spent some 26 years as an INS special agent, I can definitively tell you that there is no way of knowing why an alien circumvents the inspections process in entering our country without inspection. He (she) may simply want to get a job and send money home (Last year some 45 billion dollars was wired from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean by illegal aliens- that was the 'visible' money that was sent out of our economy, negatively impacting the United States, still more money moves surreptitiously). It is also possible that the alien who enters our country without being inspected is a fugitive in another country wanted for some serious crime. Such an alien might also be a terrorist who is attempting to gain entry in preparation to launch another attack on our country and our people. Think back to Dick Cheney's statement: "We just don't know who they are, where they are or what they are up to!"

Furthermore, illegal aliens often commit other crimes such as identity theft in order to work illegally. By working illegally they may be undercutting American workers who can no longer afford do their jobs because illegal aliens will work for substandard wages under what are often illegally dangerous conditions.

Driver's licenses for illegal aliens not only enable illegal aliens to drive but to create credible and potentially false identities for themselves, a strategy employed by terrorists and criminals.

Yet Mr. Downes would make the emotional claim that he only wants to help illegal aliens who want to go to college and provide them with benefits and incentives that we do not provide to United States citizen children. This is the equivalent of offering to subsidize your neighbor's child's education while telling your own kids that they are on their own and will have to work their way through college!

What part of the word "Reality" doesn't Mr. Downes understand?

The reality is that, as I have stated on numerous occasions, "A nation without secure borders can no more stand than can a house without walls!" If we want to do what is morally right, then the United States should make it clear that we will not enter into trade agreements with any country that fails to meet the needs of its citizens by providing universal education to its citizens with real economic opportunities to live decent lives within their own country. Poverty and human suffering pervades the world. The United States cannot have all of the worlds poor come here; the United Nations estimates that some one billion human beings are so poor that they do not have access to safe drinking water! There is a saying, "If you give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for his lifetime!" It is time that the United States took that concept to heart and made Americans first within their own country! This would be in the best interests of We the People and would, at the same time, provide better lives for people around the world!

By Lynn Stuter
May 2, 2006

Every day thousands of illegal aliens are crossing the southern border of the United States with Mexico, known as the Mexican border. These people cannot be called immigrants because immigrants enter the United States through ports of entry and obtain permission to live here, work here, and generally make the effort to become United States citizens, complete with speaking the English language. This is not the case with the thousands illegally entering the United States along the Mexican border. These people do not have permission to live here, work here, and generally make no effort to become United States citizens or speak American English.

The hue and cry over illegal aliens residing in the United States has been growing in the past several years. The Minutemen Project was organized to provide observers along the Mexican border in an effort to staunch the flow of illegal aliens entering this country. This movement has survived the malicious maligning of pro-illegal alien groups and the likes of the ACLU who has left no opportunity untaken to paint the Minutemen as gun-toting vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. Not true but the characterization is intended to discourage Americans from lending a helping hand or giving monetary support to these brave souls who are, in too many cases, risking their lives by being observers and extra eyes helping the Border Patrol do its job.

For people living next to or near the Mexican border, living there has become a living nightmare with illegal aliens trashing land, homes, and outbuildings; killing landowners, Border Patrol agents, and tourists unfortunate enough to get in their way; killing or stealing livestock; stealing vehicles, guns, and anything else they can get their hands on. Within the continental United States not a day goes by but what we hear of another instance in which an American is brutally murdered, sodomized, raped or assaulted by a Mexican citizen in the United States illegally.

The violent street gang Mara Salvatrucha 13 (M-13) arrived in the United States from El Salvador by way of Mexico. The gang is nation-wide, is considered extremely dangerous, a currently is believed to control much of the illegal activity along the Mexican border including smuggling drugs, guns and illegal aliens for profit from Mexico to the United States. MS-13 is well-known for targeting and killing law enforcement personnel. In early 2005, there was believed to be 5 to 6,000 MS-13 gang members in Washington, DC and adjoining communities in Virginia and Maryland. That is just one area of the United States.

A recent encounter with a member of this group by an American citizen should give some indication of how dangerous this group is. We shall, for the sake of protecting the American, call him "Bob." Bob discovered an abandoned trailer on a nearby property and sought out its owner, wanting to legally obtain the trailer if the owner no longer wanted it. A knock at the door was answered to find an individual of Hispanic origin there concerning the trailer. The man made it clear that he was an illegal alien who wanted and intended to take the trailer, irrespective of its rightful owner. An argument ensued in which the illegal alien removed his shirt, displaying his gang symbol tattoo, telling Bob that he "liked to harm white men, would burn down (Bob's) house then fade back into the barrios of Los Angeles or maybe Raleigh, North Carolina if (he) didn't get (his) way in obtaining the trailer." This is an all too-common occurrence in the Southwestern United States and is becoming more of a problem in other parts of the United States as well. While some MS-13 gang threats are pure intimidation, too many are actualized to consider any threat as hot air.

Beyond the criminal conduct threatened, the racial slur is evident. Had this been a white man stating he liked to harm Hispanics or Mexicans, law enforcement, the prosecuting authority, the FBI and the United States Department of Justice would have been johnny-on-the-spot; the media would have showed up en force; and the rhetoric about "hate" would have flowed like wine. Just ask Roy Warden who had the audacity to burn a Mexican flag in Arizona. The rhetoric emanating from the local political machine has been endless. While burning the American flag would have been just okay, Warden now finds himself indicted in a politically motivated move to assuage the local Mexican illegal alien populace. Quite obviously, these illegal aliens have never intended to become Americans but expect to be able to live in America as Mexicans flying their Mexican flag while reaping every benefit possible at the expense of American taxpayers. But it's okay for Mexican illegals to burn the American flag on American soil, fly the Mexican flag on American soil (which is considered an act of foreign occupation), mouth racial slurs against whites on American soil, and threaten Americans on American soil.

By now most have heard of La Raza, one of the organizations supporting Mexican illegal aliens in America. La Raza in English means "The Race." Obviously, the intended connotation is that Mexicans are The Race. What could possibly speak more clearly of racial bigotry and hate? What could possibly speak more clearly of the intent of the Mexican illegal alien populace residing in the United States?

The following, written by Bruce Westcott, is not the picture the mainstream media paints of the illegal alien populace in the United States.

"I have stood in grocery store lines watching my earned income distributed to illegals. My family van was demolished by an illegal alien - we have no recourse. My wife and I have been in pediatric clinics being practically the only paying customers. My family has endured emergency room delays caused by non-paying demands from illegal aliens. I have been offered home sales' agreements including mortgage financing guarantees for illegal aliens. My son was forced to relocate his schooling caused by overcrowding of children of illegal aliens."

Nor is it the picture painted by the myriad of illegal aliens showing up in front of mainstream media cameras for their fifteen minutes of fame, pontificating on how they just want to make a living. If they can't make a living in Mexico, then they, as Mexicans, have a responsibility to make things different in their own country, not come to America illegally.

We have all heard President Bush's take on the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country: "They are here to do jobs that American's won't do." Really? A recent Pew Hispanic Center study shows that of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country, 3% provide stoop farm labor; the other 97% are taking jobs away from Americans in the fields of construction, hospitality, manufacturing, restaurant, administrative and service jobs. In real terms, that equates to 11.64 to 19.4 million jobs that Americans want and need! Granted hiring illegals to do these jobs is less costly to the employer but certainly not less costly to the consumer. The employer pays the illegal aliens lower wages, provides no benefits, but charges the same price as though he were; the profit going into the employer's pocket. Greed is the name of the game while, American taxpayers foot the bill for medical care, unemployment and welfare for these illegal aliens.

But hiring illegal aliens, just as illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the United States, is against the law. That is the bottom line: it is against the law!!!

Our nation was established on the strength of law irrespective of race, color or creed; equal opportunity, equal access and equal protection under the law. This is the foundation of our constitutional republican form of government. This is also diametrically opposed to democracy -- rule by man according to his own passions, opinions and prejudices with the whims of the majority visited upon the minority. As James Madison stated, in Federalist Number 10, such a form of government "is as short in its life as it is violent in its death" for reasons that should be obvious.

Yet here we have President Bush stating over and over that the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country are here to do jobs that Americans won't. Over and above being the epitome of the axiom that a lie repeated oft enough becomes truth, Bush is totally disregarding the law in pursuit of his personal passions, opinions and prejudices (democracy). President Bush thinks we should have a guest worker program and amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already in the United States. In some form or other Senators Kennedy, McCain, Specter, Brownback, DeWine, Martinez, Hagel and Graham concur with Bush's total disregard for the law which states illegals shall be deported back to their country of origin.

And what could have possibly been a better place to start doing that then the nation-wide gatherings of illegal aliens to protest immigration reform? Where was the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), charged with deporting illegal aliens, while these illegal aliens were so conveniently gathered at specified places across the United States? Why were these illegal aliens allowed to disrupt the lives of Americans? Why weren't these illegal aliens rounded up -- lock, stock and barrel -- and shipped back across the border to Mexico? The cost to do that couldn't possibly be any greater than what these illegals have cost the American people already, and surely not more than Bush has squandered invading Iraq and pursuing his phony War on Terror.

And speaking of Iraq, if Bush is so adamant about his War on Terror, why hasn't he secured our borders? How many terrorists have crossed our open borders since September 11, 2001? When we compare Bush's vociferous pontificating about his War on Terror, then compare the same to his open-borders policy, the two obviously don't coalesce which then poses the question of "what is really going on here?"

Bush, as his father GHW Bush, is a proponent of the One World Government concept and agenda with, of course, America at the top of the heap, leading the way -- the one world government being the result of American imperialist expansion. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq; now Bush is threatening Iran. All of this, of course, must sail under the flag of some ship of reason and that ship is the phony War on Terror emanating from the created "crisis" of September 11, 2001.

And the open-border policy with Mexico also plays right into Bush's plan for American imperialist expansion -- the incorporating of Mexico, the United States and Canada into one. No borders, one government. Why deport 12 to 20 million Mexicans when the plan is to dissolve that border in the near future and become one happy family of Americans -- of course?

Don't believe it? Download and watch the campaign ad recently discovered in which Bush, in 2004, plays to illegal aliens under the guise of courting the vote of people of Hispanic race legally in America; the give-away of who his intended audience is being at the very end of the ad when Bush is clearly visible holding and waving the Mexican flag.

For those who truly believe that Bush is a conservative, a good Christian man; that he is looking out for America's best interests; that September 11, 2001 was the sole product of foreign terrorists; that the War on Terror is truly about terrorism; that George Walker Bush walks on water; I say, "hogwash!" Bush has no more allegiance to America, the founding principles of America, or the American people than did Benedict Arnold!

By Lynn Stuter
May 2, 2006

News last week brought the startling, if not shocking, announcement that the American government has been providing the Mexican government with the location of citizen groups and citizen volunteers acting as extra eyes and ears to the American Border Patrol. The shock to many is that the American government would do such a thing, putting the lives of innocent Americans in jeopardy.

Then came the no less shocking news that Mexican consulate officials were provided office space in the Tucson offices of the U.S. Border Patrol in February, 2006, and are being allowed to dictate Border Patrol agent's activities. At least one agent resigned in protest.

And, of course, as is usual when the government gets caught engaging in unethical (or treasonous) activities, its standard operating procedure (SOP) is to deny, deny, deny. However, information that has only been given to the government by the citizen groups helping patrol the border, and citizen groups acting in other parts of the United States to curb illegal alien activity, has ended up in the hands of the Mexican government and found its way to a Mexican government website. This is information that goes far beyond the requirements of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, requiring that government detained foreign nationals be given access to their consulate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that it was the United States government who supplied the Mexican government with that information.

Let's be clear here. We are not talking about immigration -- people obtaining the required documents and entering the United States legally; we are talking about illegal aliens, foreign nationals entering the United States at other than legal border checkpoints and without the required identification or documents. And let's be very clear on what this represents. Twelve to 20 million illegal aliens residing within the borders of the United States constitutes an illegal invasion. When the majority of those illegal aliens come from one country, said illegal invasion becomes an act of aggression; in fact, an act of war. That country is Mexico.

Article III, § 3, Constitution, United States of America: "Treason, proof and punishment. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

In providing a foreign nation (Mexico) information deleterious to the health and safety of American citizens, those responsible have committed an act of treason in "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" when the enemy is levying war against America.

Who is ultimately responsible for this act of treason?

Twice in the last month, Americans have been witness to the orchestrated demonstrations of illegal aliens in major American cities. On May 1, 2006, the intent was to show Americans how much economic damage the illegal aliens, the foreign aggressors, could do in our country by not showing up for work. Sympathetic employers and businesses closed their doors that day in a show of support for these illegal invaders.

But the effort fell flat as the economic impact wasn't even a blip on the radar screen of American commerce. The effect was however, a more than adequate demonstration to the American people of the sheer numbers of illegal aliens being allowed to live without fear of deportation in the United States while they take jobs from the people of the United States who need them. In turn, the money being made by these illegal invaders is being sent out of the United States to Mexico while American taxpayers foot the medical and welfare bills of the illegal aliens, and while the companies employing the illegal aliens pocket the profit from not paying taxes or benefits, paying lower wages but maintaining comparable market price.

And while these illegal invaders blocked streets, caused congestion, and cost American taxpayers the overtime and extra police needed to monitor their illegal activities, not one illegal was deported as required by law. And with the exception of possibly the Honorable Representative Ron Paul (Texas) and the Honorable Representative Tom Tancredo (Colorado), not one United States Senator or Representative had the gumption to stand up and demand these illegal invaders be rounded up and deported.

Some explanation of why this did not occur can be found in an article written by Melissa Sattly on August 19, 2001 and published in the Brownsville Herald. In the article a Mexican citizen and former government official is quoted as stating, "In Mexico, Bush is viewed as a friend because he is making changes in the United States to open borders, fight the trucking issue and promote immigration reform."

The article has other telling statements to make, "Immigration is another hot topic of dialogue between Fox and Bush. In past speeches the Mexican president has advocated an open border policy and amnesty for more than 3 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States.

Bush has proposed granting the amnesty and supports a guest worker program, sponsored by Republican Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, that would offer limited work permits to Mexicans working certain jobs in the United States."

The article also allows as how while governor of Guanajuato, Mexico, Fox "saw firsthand the powerful draw of jobs north of the border."

All of this according to the passions, prejudices and opinions of President George W Bush in complete indifference to the law that requires illegal aliens to be deported to their nation of origin. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy in which the passions, opinions and prejudices of the majority are visited upon the minority in an act of oppression; constitutional republic vs democracy; rule of law vs passions, opinions and prejudices.

America was established on the rule of law, not as a democracy. The law says these illegal invaders must be deported. It is the responsibility of our elected representatives in Washington DC to see that they are deported. The cost to American taxpayers in wages, benefits, crime, medical, schooling and welfare has and will continue to far exceed the cost of deportation.

But in his total disregard for the law in pursuit of his passions, opinions and prejudices, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why President George W Bush has done nothing about the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States; 9 to 17 million more than was estimated in 2001. Further, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the actions of government employees under his leadership is a direct reflection of his policies; in this instance, providing information deleterious to the health and safety of American citizens to the Mexican government due to Bush and Fox being of one accord regarding the illegal invasion of America by citizens of Mexico.

That the United States government is supplying information to a foreign government deleterious to the lives and safety of American citizens is an act of treason. It is also an impeachable offense that President George W Bush has and is allowing this to happen. It becomes apparent that his allegiance to Fox and the nation of Mexico is greater than his allegiance to the United States of America which is also an impeachable offense.

And then, of course, there is that ever-present fact that if GW was serious about stopping terrorism, he would secure our southern border and stop the illegal invasion. It becomes very obvious that the War on Terror is not about terrorism but about control and oppression of the American people.

Along this same line, Title IV of Public Law 107-56, the U.S. Patriot Act, is entitled "Protecting the Border". Subtitle A of Title IV addresses the northern border (with Canada); there is no provision for protecting the southern border. Now one would assume, given the greater potential for terrorists to cross the southern border, that this section would make provision for that probability, and if GW was serious about protecting the United States of America from terrorists, the Patriot Act would carry such a provision. That it doesn't makes it apparent that GW wants that border left open to terrorists and further, that the Patriot Act is about controlling Americans, not stopping terrorism.

Former impeached president William Jefferson Clinton desecrated the Oval Office by playing around with Monica Lewinsky. Is illegal spying on the American people any different? Is lying to the American people any different? Is invading Iraq under a false flag any different? Is initiating the phony War on Terror under a false flag any different? Is exerting undue influence on a supposedly independent commission investigating 9/11 any different? Is illegally databasing millions of telephone records from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth any different? Is committing acts of treason any different?

In short, President George Walker Bush is no better than William Jefferson Clinton was. To claim Clinton was wrong because he is a Democrat but Bush is right because he is a Republican is the epitome of hypocrisy. Republican or Democrat, right is right, wrong is wrong, and treason is treason.

George Walker Bush deserves to be, and should be, impeached. For providing the Mexican government with information deleterious to the health and safety of American citizens, he should be charged with treason.

By Lynn Stuter
July 24, 2007

Last week started off with the revelation, by a British newspaper that Cheney is pushing Bush to act on Iran. It is telling, indeed, that American citizens have to resort to reading foreign news websites to find out what American politicos are really up to; testament, indeed, to the efficacy and veracity of American mainstream media.

It isn't bad enough that Bush embroiled America and American troops in a false flag operation in Iraq; now he is considering compounding that egregious err in judgment by invading Iran on the assumption that Iran is building nuclear capability? Napoleon was a small man with a big ego; so was Hitler; and, so it seems, is George W Bush. Only a mad man with no regard for the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights would ever entertain the idea of such an egregious abuse of power.

But last week, like so many before it, was highlighted by more incidents of egregious abuse and overextension of power by the executive branch under George W Bush.

Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), member of the Homeland Security Committee, was denied access to classified documents concerning continuity of government (how government will be conducted) during a terrorist attack. Speaking of his ordeal, DeFazio had this comment to make, "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right..." What was his first clue?

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was denied a requested briefing on how the Pentagon planned to safely withdraw American troops from Iraq. In denying that request "Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman did not mince words. 'Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies...'" Say what? That discussion has been all over the news media for weeks, making it obvious that in making said statement the Pentagon has made no accommodation for the safe withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Bush Administration officials unveiled a bold assertion of executive privilege in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys; seeking to block contempt charges being sought by Congress against current and former Bush Administration officials in the hopes of prying loose information concerning the firings.
What is relevant here is not who was involved, but what was involved -- the egregious and arrogant actions of the Bush Administration to block the people's right to know, making it very apparent that the American people had better make it a point to know. This is a man who has displayed, repeatedly, an arrogant disregard for the rule of law, for the Constitution, for the Bill of Rights; who has done more, in his 6½ years in the Oval Office to undermine, subvert, and destroy the rights of the American people, then any president before him, including Bill "I can't keep my pants on" Clinton.

At the same time, George W Bush has worked tirelessly in pursuit of the New World Order/One World Order (NWO/OWO) agenda. After losing his bid to pass the illegal alien amnesty bill, a bill that would have allowed 12 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens legal residency in the United States, Bush lap dog, Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security inclusive of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), went before cameras to make the case that enforcement was "gonna get ugly"; that border patrol personnel would be viewed as "mean and nasty"; that business would condemn the economic effect.

Glenn Spencer of American Patrol called this tack by Chertoff a gambit; an opening move intended, ultimately, to gain advantage. "Chertoff is selectively enforcing immigration law to create monstrosities ... He is doing this to evoke outrage and, ultimately, support for Bush's amnesty program."

Why would Bush do that?

The light of truth is shed when one knows that Bush is a key player in the treasonous move to dissolve the borders between the United States, Canada and Mexico to form a European Union clone, the North American Union, dissolving the borders of the United States and forming one nation devoid of the cumbersome and restrictive U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. With that knowledge, it is easy to see why Bush would do that: he doesn't want to send illegal aliens back to their country of origin. And since the American people obviously aren't buying his premise that we, as a nation of immigrants, equate with 12 to 20,000,000 illegal immigrants here in violation of existing U.S. law; he is using this ploy to create discourse, civil upheaval and unrest. The means justifies the ends.

We learned this week that among the countries of origin is Iraq. A news item this past week divulged that Iraqis, for some time now, have been smuggled across the Rio Grande into the United States; the result of Bush's refusal/failure to secure our borders following the events of September 11, 2001. A growing number of Americans now believe that September 11, 2001 was the result of the enemy within, not foreign born and trained terrorists. The obvious growing number of illegal Iraqi civilians in the United States; the fact that, despite Chertoff's "gut feeling", there have been no significant incidence of terrorism in the United States since September 11, 2001, would tend to bolster that conclusion.

Said Chertoff, before the microphones of the Chicago Tribune, "Summertime seems to be appealing to them (al-Qaeda) ... We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities." Sure enough, the very next day, the National Intelligence Estimate was released, noting "that al-Qaeda has been able 'to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks,' by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary." Never mind the fact that al-Qaeda had no foothold, connection or presence in Iraq before Bush invaded the country under a false flag. It would be accurate to say that Bush provided a breeding ground for al-Qaeda recruits.

This week, too, we heard Bush tell reporters, when questioned about pardons for Agents Ramos and Compean, railroaded by Bush shill, Johnnie "open borders" Sutton, "I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts ... These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them." Lewis "Scooter" Libby was also found guilty by a jury of his peers. Quite obviously, Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence had nothing to do with the fact that the jury also listened to the facts and found Libby guilty. The double standard is hard to miss. And the difference also points to Bush's arrogance. While Agents Ramos and Compean were prosecuted for doing their job protecting American from a drug dealing scumbag who was given immunity and special privileges by Sutton in return for his testimony, Lewis "Scooter" Libby actually was guilty of obstruction of justice. The message is clear: if you are working class America, you will be found guilty whether you are or not, and you will go to jail; if you are a member of the elitist class, you will get a "get out of jail free" card even if you are guilty as charged. Bush's assertion that Sutton presented the facts is a hideous joke. Anyone who has ever had much experience with the legal system (what the American justice system has become) knows that the facts aren't what get presented in the present-day courts which would be better described as kangaroo courts.

Still think Bush is a "compassionate leader" who cares about John Q Public?

And we learned this week of yet another Bush executive order "blocking property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq" without notice; said property residing "in the United States"; said person alleged "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of" ... "threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people..."

Protest the illegal invasion of Iraq, have your property seized; expose the truth about the illegal invasion of Iraq, have your property seized; oppose the arrogance, the tyranny of Bush and Company, have your property seized. The message is clear: "I'm fed up with my subjects opposing my duty to pursue the NWO/OWO agenda. Sit down and shut up or I will take everything you have worked your entire life for. If you don't like my defecating on the U.S. Constitutional and Bill of Rights, too bad."

This executive order violates at least three amendments of the Bill of Rights: The First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, right of assembly and right of redress of grievances; the Fourth Amendment protecting from illegal search and seizure; and the Fifth Amendment protecting against forfeiture of life, liberty and property without due process of law and seizure of property without just compensation.

If you don't think this applies to you, think again. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and Bush and Company are shining examples of the arrogance, the total disregard for rights and property that tyrants display. And if Senator Feingold's push to censure Bush is any indication, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have the will power of a castrated bull! No doubt Bush and Company are just quaking in their shoes! Not only is Bush the worst president in recorded history, but the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives obviously join him in their respective capacities.

Following the convoluted path of events, it becomes more than a little obvious that the "war on terror" is really a war on America and the American people with Bush leading the NWO/OWO charge.

In 1992, George HW Bush, father of George W Bush, responded to this question from the late Sarah McClendon, "What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?" this way, "...if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us."

George W Bush is obviously a chip off the old block!

By Lynn Stuter
August 7, 2007

In 1938, William Dodd, ambassador to Germany, sent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt the following message:

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

In 1933, Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was approached by a cabal of influential American bankers and industrialists working under the umbrella of the front group, American Liberty League. Their request of Butler: that he lead a 500,000 strong force of rogue veterans in a coup against FDR and the legal American government. The intent of this cabal, already supporting the efforts of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, was to instill a government not unlike that of Hitler and Mussolini in the United States.

Butler went along with the scheme until he was able to ascertain who the participants were. He then blew the whistle on this group before the House Committee on un-American Activities. For his efforts, Butler was ostracized and black-balled by the mainstream media; his testimony before the House Committee on un-American Activities was omitted from the record. The cabal was never brought to justice, but the coup was foiled.

Who were the American bankers and industrialists involved in this plot to overthrow the legal government of the United States? According to Wikipedia, while most of the funding came from the Du Pont family, participants included U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Foods, Standard Oil, Birdseye, Colgate, Heinz Foods, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

And among the participants in this coup attempt was one Prescott Bush, father of George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st president of the United States, grandfather of George W Bush, current president of the United States. Prescott Bush was not only instrumental in bringing Hitler to power in Germany, Mussolini to power in Italy, but was also plotting to overthrow the legal government of the United States and establish a fascist state here. Prescott Bush served as a Senator from Connecticut and was a partner in the prominent investment banking firm Brown Brothers Harriman.

It was from the lips of George Herbert Walker Bush that the American people heard the phrase, "New World Order." And America watched as GHW Bush passed the reins of power to his "good friend who is like a member of the family," William Jefferson Clinton, who then passed the reins on to George Walker Bush in what can only be termed a fraud-ridden election, re-elected for a second term in the same manner.

Under the reign of George Walker Bush, we have watched him wage war on America, the American people, and American sovereignty; we have watched him institute executive order after executive order in his pursuit of absolute power, labeling himself "the decider" while the American legislative branch does absolutely nothing to curtail his abuse of power. His actions mirror those of Hitler in his quest for power in Germany.

And just like Hitler, Bush is using fear to keep the American people supporting his un-American activities, starting with the events of September 11, 2001. And every time Bush wants something more, another threat emerges and Congress and the American people, with few exceptions, fall in step. Yet the greatest threat to the American people, American sovereignty, the American way of life sits in the White House, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in the Middle East.

And if the reins of power are passed from George Walker Bush, which many at this point have serious doubts will happen, given Bush's ability to wage war on the American people through terrorism and the American people's willingness to blame the same on foreign born terrorists, that power will be passed, by corrupted balloting if necessary, to Hillary Rodham Clinton, protégé of self-avowed Marxist Saul Alinsky, who, in his book, Rules for Radicals, paid homage to Lucifer as "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom." (1971; Vintage Books; dedication page) Prophetic, indeed!

This past week we saw the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Those in the know are ware that this bridge is part of the I-35 NAFTA Super Highway Corridor, bisecting the United States; providing transport on Mexican trucks of foreign cargo from the NAFTA port in Mexico through the United States to Canada and points east and west along that corridor. Later this month, Bush will meet with his Security and Prosperity Partnership counterparts from Mexico and Canada, President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Steven Harper, to further the dissolution of the United States, Canada and Mexico into the European Union style regional world government entity, the North American Union.

Unlike the quick disposal of the Murrah Building and the WTC complex in New York, both the targets of "terrorist activity", the 35W bridge still lies in the water with the National Transportation Safety Board, the FBI, state and local officials mulling over the scene and promising that the reason for the failure will be found.

Remember, this is the same NTSB that did the flight simulation of the plane supposedly inbound to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, for the FBI; the simulation that when studied by using the flight data recorder information provided by NTSB, found that the plane in question actually over flew the Pentagon by 300 to 400 feet! Not only this, but that the simulator as provided by NTSB showed the plane on a different inbound trajectory than the path that supposedly sheered five light poles. When questioned about these obvious anomalies, the NTSB had "no comment." Imagine that!

In the case of the 35W bridge, government officials knew the bridge was structurally deficient; that the bridge needed work; but did nothing to correct the problems. The government can lose 2.3 trillion dollars into a black hole in the Pentagon budget, money that has never been accounted for in the six years since September 10, 2001; the government can spend trillions on an illegal and unconstitutional false flag invasion of Iraq; but the government can't fix bridges that provide access for the average American worker until after those bridges collapse and the resulting deaths become political fodder for talking heads such as George Walker Bush. It took the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate all of 48 hours following the collapse of the 35W bridge to write, introduce and pass HR 3311, providing $250 million to rebuild the 35W bridge. What is the worth of the lives lost because of government negligence?

Will the American people ever be told the truth about why the 35W bridge collapsed or will the government, in a CYA move so typical when wrong-doing is apparent, move to cover its tracks, obfuscate the issue, and provide no real answers? One has to wonder when people like W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of CTL Group, an engineering firm, who helped investigate both the Murrah Building and the WTC, are involved. Both sights were scrubbed as quickly as possible, with no criminal investigation, leading any reasoning individual to the conclusion that the government definitely had something to hide.

Adding insult to injury in the collapse of the 35W bridge, George W Bush, on August 4, 2007, before the microphones in Minneapolis, Minnesota, quipped, "God Bless the people of this part of the world."

True to form, King George. Or has "the decider" now become World Emperor George?

George W Bush is obviously a chip off the old block!

By Samuel Blumenfeld
September 5, 2006

I don't go to the movies much these days. But I did see "United 93" and "World Trade Center" because they presented a positive view of Americans dealing with incredibly difficult circumstances which have impacted the lives of all of us. The Islamic terrorist attack on the Twin Towers was an attack on all of us.

But then, for some unfathomable reason, I also went to see "The Devil Wears Prada." It was on a whim, and I had no idea what the movie was about. But I was intrigued by the title because it suggested sophisticated subject matter. I had seen Prada ads in glossy magazines. The models always looked sick, drugged, or depressed. It was a cult of ugliness parading as high fashion.

But the film was a great surprise. I enjoyed it so much that I went to see it twice. The story is from a novel by a young writer, Lauren Weisberger, who tells a tale of what it was like to work for an impossible boss, the editor of a great fashion magazine. It is a roman a clef, and anyone in the New York fashion field would know whom she was writing about.

However, the film rises far above the novel in every way. First, the magazine editor, Miranda Priestly, is played by the incomparable Meryl Streep. She's a very demanding boss, but she also represents some very positive values: intelligence, savoir-faire, creativity, and responsibility. Streep creates a character as unforgettable as Scarlet O'Hara. Anne Hathaway plays Andrea Sachs, the midwestern girl right out of college, who comes to New York seeking her fortune and winds up working for Miranda. But in the end Andrea becomes disillusioned with the glamorous but dog-eat-dog world of high fashion, deserts her boss at a crucial media moment and dumps her cell-phone in a Paris fountain. The little snot then returns to her down-to-earth sous-chef of a boyfriend -- Mr. Philosophy 101 -- and tells him how right he was about everything.

But the main character of this movie is not Miranda Priestly, but the fabulous city of New York, the glittering island of Manhattan, the greatest, most glamorous city ever created in the history of civilization. The photographic sweeps over Manhattan in brilliant sunlight and also at night with its lights and sleek automobiles tell the story of a civilization so rich, so technologically advanced, so dazzling, so powerful, that Islamic terrorists could bring down the gigantic Twin Towers without crippling the city.

The beauty of Miranda Priestly is that she represents the American woman in all her liberated glory, ruling the fashion world with decisive finesse. Fashion is very much at the heart of Western civilization and secular culture. Paris, New York, London are the arbiters of what everyone will wear just about everywhere except in the dark recesses of the Islamic world. There, women wear the burka, a symbol of inferiority and enslavement. The burka represents a barbaric state of mind that stifles the Islamic world and baffles the West. Polly Toynbee wrote in The Guardian after the liberation of Afghanistan:

The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen.

Thus, you can safely bet that no one, not even a sword-wielding Islamofascist threatening to cut her head off, could ever force Miranda Priestly to wear a burka!

If there is a clash of civilizations, it is between the glamorous, liberated fashion world of the West and the dismal, enslaving world of the burka. Stanley Kurtz wrote in the National Review: "The conflict between modernity and the traditional Muslim view of women is one of the most important causes of this war."

The purpose of American military power is to protect the freedom of the Miranda Priestlys of our world so that they can express beauty and creativity without fear of the enemy. It is the duty of American men to protect American women -- intelligent, creative, and nurturing.

Also, I did not detect a vulgar word or expression during the entire film. And equally impressive were the scenes made on location in New York, in which Andrea dodges taxis or walks through crowds. Everything is authentic. The scenes in Paris were equally authentic in every detail. The director, David Frankel, took great pains to make every scene as real and true as possible.

Obviously, Frankel loves New York and knows the city. He is the son of Max Frankel, executive editor of The New York Times. He went to Hollywood to write TV sitcoms and make movies. When one reads the credits at the end of this movie, one gets just a small idea of what it takes to produce a film of this kind. It was a major cultural and technological undertaking, and in this case the result is brilliant and exhilarating.

If there is a clash of civilizations, it is between the glamorous, liberated fashion world of the West and the dismal, enslaving world of the burka.

By Samuel Blumenfeld
December 3, 2006

The recent assassination of Pierre Gemayel, a leading pro-Western Christian politician in Lebanon, has all the earmarks of an Hezbollah-Iranian operation carried out with or without Syrian help. Iran is now pouring millions of dollars into Lebanon to rebuild Hezbollah's military strength, and is also financing Hamas in Gaza.

Iran considers the pro-Western Christians of Lebanon as much an enemy as Israel, and she may very well ignite another civil war to finally bring the Christians under Muslim domination. In other words, what happens there is going to have a serious impact on American security one way or another. All of which brings us to the war in Iraq.

Much of the criticism of that war has been emotional and irrational. Why? Because it is a war difficult to understand. Also, we have never fought a war of this kind before. But be that as it may, the war can only be characterized as a noble struggle against tyranny. It is part of the American plan to bring democracy to the Middle East, to free its people from cruel dictators and radical Islam. That it has turned out to be a very difficult war is no reason to throw in the towel and go home. It is all the more reason for us to hang tough.

The war has already won us several dividends. It persuaded Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions. It has produced a friendly democratically elected government in Iraq, and it provides us with a base of military operations close to our deadliest enemy: Iran.

We have been in a state of belligerency with Iran ever since its student hotheads invaded the American embassy in Teheran in November 1979 and held 52 staff members hostage for more than a year. Its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a latter day Hitler, who was a 23-year-old student when the U.S. embassy was seized, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and wants Americans to get out of Iraq. A retreat from Iraq would convince the Iranians that we are weak and unwilling to defend our interests.

The war by radical Islam against the West is a World War being fought on many fronts, from New York to Bali to Madrid to London. While we have zeroed in on al Qaeda as the focus of our attention because of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on 9/11, we must not forget that those attacks were merely part of the larger war.

Without 9/11 we would have never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. Whatever you may think of how we got into Iraq, the simple fact is that the Iraqi front is where the war is presently being fought at its greatest intensity, because that's where the terrorists have concentrated their efforts to defeat the United States and the democratic government it helped create. And because of all the defeatist rhetoric coming out of Washington, the terrorists are now confident they can win.

Why did we ever believe that the Islamic terrorist movement that produced the killers of 9/11 would be easy to defeat in their own home territory? Probably because we were able to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban in a short war with few casualties, and we were able to remove Saddam Hussein in a short and brilliant invasion of Iraq. That gave us the false impression that the Jihadists were a pushover. Nor could we anticipate that Muslims would wind up killing each other in such cruel, barbaric, inhuman ways.

So, how do we win such a war? By simply hunkering down in Iraq and protecting its new-born democracy from destruction by the insurgency. Yes, it means suffering casualties, but we tend to forget that the enemy was able to kill 3,000 innocent individuals on American soil in just a few hours.

The war is winnable provided we understand what winning means. Winning means preventing the enemy from taking power in Iraq. It's that simple.

An American retreat from Iraq would produce catastrophic consequences. It would enable Iran to establish its political hegemony over Iraq, force the Kurds to leave the Baghdad government and create an independent Kurdistan giving Turkey the pretext to invade Kurdistan. It would turn Iraq once more into an enemy of the U.S., destabilize Pakistan, encourage the Taliban in Afghanistan to increase their efforts to regain power in Kabul, and serve notice to both Israel and the Lebanese Christians that America does not have the stomach to defend them.

Another serious consequence is that the world-wide Jihad would go after American interests all over the world and do its utmost to create terror in the U. S. itself.

An even more serious consequence is what a defeat in Iraq would do to the American psyche and the morale of our military forces. Our soldiers in Iraq are true American heroes who believe in victory. If their government in Washington goes belly-up, there is no telling what members of that force might do when they get home.

In addition, all respect for the United States as a great military power would evaporate. The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and Islamists would rejoice at the debasing and humbling of the United States as a paper tiger and laugh at our moral pretenses.

Would an America defeated in Iraq come to the aid of Taiwan if invaded by the Communist Chinese? Would we be capable of preventing the Iranians from producing a full-fledged nuclear weapon? Would we have to leave it up to little Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear capability? Would we be capable of preventing the North Korean thug from producing his own nuclear arsenal? Would our retreat make the world safer for our children?

As a Malaysian statesman observed in Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, "The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail."

In short, we cannot afford defeat.

Too many Americans seem to believe that peace can come cheap. And if we must go to war, it must be an easy war. But there are no easy wars. This nation has been fighting wars ever since it was born out of the War for Independence. We fought the Barbary War in Jefferson's time, the Mexican War in 1848, our own Civil War in 1861-65, the Spanish-American War in 1898, then World War One, World War Two, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Invasion of Grenada, the Bosnian War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and now the Iraq War. And who is stupid enough to believe that Iraq will be our last war?

In short, the war in Iraq is both noble and moral, it is a necessary part of our struggle against world Jihadism, and it is quite winnable as long as we understand what winning means: preventing the enemy from destroying the first democratically elected government in Iraq's history.

In the stern and prophetic words of President Andrew Jackson: "No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody....Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in."

By Samuel Blumenfeld
February 17, 2007

My dictionary defines hellbent as "firmly resolved or recklessly determined," which is exactly what the opponents of the Iraq war are up to in their mindless quest for defeat. It was nauseating to actually see the Democrats sit on their hands during the State of the Union address when the President mentioned the word "victory." For Democrats, and even some Republicans, victory has become a dirty word.

The Democrats want the American people to believe that defeat is good and striving for victory is bad. Indeed, the last thing the Democrats want is for Bush to achieve victory, for that would hurt their chances of regaining the White House and it would repudiate the left-wing view that victory is not possible in our global war against Islamic terrorism.

I recently picked up a copy of Time magazine of May 25, 1942, published while we were engaged in World War II. On the cover is a portrait of Yugoslavia's Draja Mihailovich, the intrepid leader of Serb resistance against Hitler's army. He was one of the true heroes of the war but was later betrayed by the Communists and executed.

But what is most interesting in that issue of Time are the many ads calling for victory against the Axis powers. The Pennsylvania Railroad ad reads, "Helping the Navy Launch Victory," explaining, "warships must go by rail before they go to sea." A Cooper-Bessemer ad proclaimed, "After victory, better Cooper-Bessemers can help produce in plenty those wonder fulfill the rich promise of this Chemical age." An American Trucking Associations ad states, "You've got a date with a U-Boat. Every truck you see on the road is helping to speed our war effort...many of them working 18 hours a day...none are joy riding."

The idea of victory was so pervasive that no American doubted the outcome of that war, regardless of our early setbacks. The reason for this positive state of mind: we wanted to win. And win we did at the cost of 292,131 military lives and 6000 civilian deaths. Senator Kennedy has recently complained that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II at the cost of over 3000 lives, or about 900 lives per year. In World War II we lost over 70,000 lives per year. In his reckless pursuit of defeat the Massachusetts Senator will use any argument to arouse public indignation against the war-even though it can be won if we wanted to win.

The headline for the Bibb Manufacturing Company ad in 1942, reads, "Cotton goes to war!" It explains, "Here at The Bibb, nine thousand top-flight Victory workers and ten large mills are now geared to Democracy's production line...making vital war materials from cotton." The headline for the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation ad reads, "Skilled Crews Set a Fighting Pace Producing War Steels."

Employers Mutual Insurance Company of Wausau, Wisconsin, proclaimed in its ad, "Victory is only a question of MAN-hours." Chesapeake and Ohio Lines asserted, "We all have a date with Victory...but first we have a stupendous job to do." Bakelite's headline is, "It's a long jump from Boudoir to Fox Hole."

In America's liberal magazines of today, we find nothing but a new kind of sick yearning for defeat. The January 15, 2007 front cover of Time has a picture of an American soldier with the headline, "The Surge: Does Sending More Soldiers to Iraq Make Any Sense?" But what it really means is, "Does Striving for Victory Make Any Sense?" As for the ads, they sell Credit Cards, Microsoft, Investments, Medications and Sleeping Aids (with pages of tiny print describing possible side effects), Quit Smoking ads, Cars, Insurance, Mouthwash, Cellular phones. Not a whisper about helping the war effort.

Magazines like Vanity Fair have hundreds of ads for luxury goods telling us that nothing is more important than pleasure and self-indulgence. GQ and other life-style magazines are crammed with ads for men who seem to think of nothing but clothes, cars, watches, and perfumes. They all reflect material affluence, cultural and moral decadence on a scale never before seen in human history.

What you won't find in any of these magazines is a true understanding of the consequences of defeat: a diminished and humiliated America, so weak and decadent, that Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah can spit in our faces, and we will call it rain. Forget about the CIA and the Pentagon, we really don't need them anymore, except for the jobs they create for the liberal elite. When America stops wanting to win, that's when we no longer can be depended on or trusted by our friends and allies. And that's when America ceases to be America.

Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks

Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin  Washington is building for the US economy.    Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way.  A "pilot" program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States .   Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns.   Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.

Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935.   The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes.  American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them.   Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit.   Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further.   This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.

The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing.   Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon.   All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs.   Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here.  Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs - consumers do, in the form of higher prices.   If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them.  But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade.   And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety.  Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.

Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots.   The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results.  For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free.   We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion.  Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that.

God Bless America!

There are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some Americans, need to understand.

First of all, it is not our responsibility to continually try not to offend you in any way.  As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle.  This culture, called the "American Way" has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

Our forefathers fought, bled, and died at places such as Bunker Hill, Antietam, San Juan, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Korea, Vietnam...

We speak English.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society -- learn our language!

"In God We Trust" is our national motto.  This is not some off-the-wall, Christian, Right Wing, political slogan -- it is our national motto.  It is engraved in stone in the House of Representatives in our Capitol and it is printed on our currency.

We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation and this is clearly documented throughout our history.

If it is appropriate for our motto to be inscribed in the halls of our highest level of Government, then it is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  The more patriotism that is removed from where our children are taught, the less our children will learn about what it is to be an American and our nation's spirit will slowly be killed.

God is in our pledge, our National Anthem, nearly every patriotic song, and in our founding documents.  We honor His birth, death, and resurrection as holidays, and we turn to Him in prayer in times of crisis.  If God offends you, then I suggest you reconsider living here, because God is part of our culture and we are proud to have Him.

We are proud of our heritage and those who have so honorably defended our freedoms.  We celebrate Independence Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Flag Day.  We have parades, picnics, and barbecues where we proudly wave our flag.

As an American, I have the right to wave my flag, sing my national anthem, quote my national motto, and cite my pledge whenever and wherever I choose.

The American culture is our way of life, our heritage, and we are proud of it.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.  Like it or not, this is our country, our land, and our lifestyle.

Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion about our government, culture, or society, and we will allow you every opportunity to do so.  But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom:


Keep patriotism alive.

It is time to take a stand!

God Bless America and our Military and Veterans!

If you agree, pass this on to other Americans!

'Undocumented Immigrants'
By Ken Adachi <Editor>
May 1, 2006

I can't condone illegal 'immigration' in America. It's not "immigration" when you enter the country illegally; it's criminal entry. This is a sovereign nation and its government has the right and the duty to keep out or deport (or jail) those who enter illegally. Every other nation on the face of the earth exercises that right without apologizing for protecting itself from illegal incursion. However, here in the Bastion of Orwell, where the federal government is under the control of traitors and mindless robots workers who are engaged in a covert agenda intended to destroy America from within, we have hundreds of thousands of mostly Mexican, but some Central or South American illegal aliens protesting in the major cities of America shouting for "their rights" to freely live and work here "just as every other immigrant group who ever came to America without being treated like a criminal" and similar myths.

(You should note that the 'immigrant' protest marches are being played to the hilt in the media while the larger protest marches mounted in the weeks and months prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, were played down to the hilt, given 15 second sound bytes on TV, and grossly underreported as to the size of the protesting crowds, both in America and abroad. Why? Because the so called 'immigration' issue was contrived to erupt at this time in order to act as an emotion-charged diversion, while the far more important issue of going to war with Iran (including implementation of the draft) proceeds quietly in the background, un-debated, unexamined, and un-protested. )

Just to set the record straight, if you enter this country illegally, you have committed a crime and therefore you would be guilty of engaging in criminal behavior. That behavior would define you as a 'criminal'. Currently, that criminal behavior is classified as a misdemeanor crime. An Immigration Reform bill, spearheaded by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin Republican) which passed 239-182 in December 2005, calls for illegal entry to be classified as a felony crime.

While unaware liberals and illegal aliens (or their advocates) characterize this provision as "draconian", "mean-spirited", and "unfair", it seems to me that it's the logical thing to do when your country is being overrun with illegal aliens and there's no end in sight. When Illuminati straw man Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million Mexican, Central American, and South American illegals in 1986, that was touted in the press as a magnanimous 'solution' to the problem. In exchange for granting alien resident  or citizenship status to 3 million poor people who slipped into this country to further burden our schools and health care systems, we were told that the contentious issue would now be "behind us." Twenty years later, however, we now have 12-20 million new illegal aliens residing in America, but now they are taking to the streets of America to protest for 'immigration rights' and are demanding that United States legislators should "listen to the voice of the people" as I heard one woman with a heavy Spanish accent tell a TV reporter.

The Dissolution of America
Please bear in mind that there is a single political Illuminati agenda and that is the creation of a One World feudal government. The illegal aliens shouting in the streets for their "rights" and brazenly marching with the Mexican flag held high do not know that. Nor do they see the part that they are playing in effecting that goal. The Illuminati agenda requires the destruction of the United States, politically, economically, and militarily and the flooding of this country with illegal aliens is part of that agenda.

Beyond the cost to American taxpayers, the growth of illegal aliens creates a sense of lost cohesiveness, unity, and national identity among native born Americans. You give up easier when you view your "town" (symbolically speaking) as having gone to Hell in a hand basket. When I first came to southern California in the early 1990's, there were 3 or 4 radio stations in Spanish and 2 or 3 Spanish television stations. Today, about one third of all the FM radio stations that I can receive here are broadcast in Spanish and about 50% of all UFH stations that I can pick up with my TV antennae are in Spanish. Traditionally, true immigrants to America entered legally and came in order to stay and become part of the tapestry of America. They worked, raised their families, and mostly spent their money here in America, contributing to the country's growth and prosperity. That's not what's taking place with the current army of illegal aliens.

The money they earn here is being sent back to their native Mexico, Guatemala, or San Salvador, which amounts to many Billions (one source-60 billion) which advocates for illegal aliens will freely admit and even boast about! After they take care of their family and extended families, they next turn their attention to building up the infrastructure of the little town they came from replete with new baseball stadiums and a civic swimming pool. That's great for the locals, but every dollar sent out of America deprives Americans of that energy exchange. It's not true that 12 million illegal aliens are performing jobs that Americans are not willing to do, like The Decider keeps telling us over and over again. Just try to get a job here in southern California as a carpenter, painter, landscaper, maintenance man, lawn care man, etc.. If you're an American, forget it. You won't get to first base with the employer. He doesn't want to hire Americans because he can get all the illegal Mexican aliens he wants at below market wages and no concerns about unemployment benefits, union headaches, etc. It's illegal to hire 'undocumented workers', but there is no enforcement of those laws by federal  agencies who are in a position to identify employers hiring illegal aliens. That's not an accident or oversight, that's internal policy.

The downfall of the United States could not be wrought from the outside, so the plan was set in motion more than two hundred and twenty five years ago (Adam Weisshaup) to destroy this country from within by rotting out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values (read Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr), replacing traitors where there were once stood loyal patriots striving to improve and protect the interests of America.

Illuminati agents had been slowly infiltrated into the government from its very inception (Alexander Hamilton), but the pace of infiltration throughout American society picked up in the closing decade of the nineteenth century (Fabian Society) and became more significant with the administration of Woodrow Wilson. The creation of the Federal Reserve Banking system in 1913 and the multitude of treasonous acts implemented by FDR in the 1930's set the framework for the betrayal that we now see unfolding around us. Truman greatly accelerated the destructive goals of the Illuminati by allowing the creation of the CIA  in 1949. The implementation of the CIA was guided into place by Allen Welsh Dulles (CIA director under Eisenhower) and John Foster Dulles (Sec. of State under Eisenhower), both of whom were Illuminati agents for the House of Rothchild. In my opinion, Eisenhower and Kennedy were the last two loyal American Presidents we had (in fact, Kennedy got himself killed because he thought he was President).

Johnson was sort of a transitional traitor. If you had confronted him with the accusation, I'm sure he would have been mortified, but he was the sort of man who had lost so much of his moral compass while playing the politics game in Texas, that he had too little conscience and far too much ambition to forego the opportunity to become President following the assassination of his boss - whom he bitterly hated (I'm convinced that Johnson was aware of the plan to kill Kennedy). Nixon could also be called a transitional traitor. The Illuminati was able to install their agent directly into the Oval Office in the person of Henry Kissinger (who essentially dominated Nixon and his policies) just as they installed their boy 'Colonel' Edward Mandel House directly into the Oval Office when Wilson occupied it  After arranging for Nixon's impeachment for not following their orders closely enough, the Illuminati forced Nixon to give the Mason's hand wave for acknowledging their control and his defeat by waving his right arm from left side to right side as we all witnessed on TV while he bid farewell from the steps of the helicopter sitting on the White House lawn. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2, of course, were all hand picked 'company men', who would follow orders (and in the case of Bush 1, give them too).

Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are/were essentially decent types who lacked the capacity for cruelty and evil that was reported of the others, but they cooperated with 'the Council' all the same, especially Reagan. FEMA and all of its evil outgrowths started under Jimmy Carter. Reagan's Star wars (SDI) program is the reason you can't go anywhere on the planet or use an ATM, telephone, or credit card without being tracked to the Nth degree by the NSA, Mossad, etc.

Good Cop, Bad Cop
Now we come to the Machiavellian game being played by Senator Bill Frist and other high profile members of congress. Frist is the lead Bushite in the Senate who's attempting to use the 'immigration' issue to both make himself look good (Presidential aspirant) and to assist The Decider in looking less like a corporate poodle and more like a Man of the People. Maybe you could call it Good Cop, Bad Cop. Frist fronts his version of the Immigration Reform bill to capitalize on the outrage felt by American citizens when they see scores of illegal aliens protesting in the streets of America for their "rights." Americans, unaware of the game, will then view Frist-and his 'wing' of the Republican party-as loyalists to the Constitution and identify with him as one of the 'good guys'. Sensenbrenner's House version is demonized as heavy-handed and evil, while Frist's version is seen as more just and less 'reactionary'. If the Frist version becomes the final version of the bill, then the corporate elites get the "guest worker" flim flam they wanted all along while placating the American public into thinking that 'something is being done' about illegal immigration problem. Of course, the Decider gets to look like the Settler of Disputes among his bickering congressional "family."

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, another traitor to America, played EXACTLY the same game in 2003 when he was making the rounds of TV political talk shows with a bound copy of the Constitution tucked under his arm protesting Bush's impending attack of Iraq as unconstitutional. Of course, the attack on Iraq was unconstitutional, as the U.S. Constitution requires a declaration of war made by congress, not the President, but Byrd was using the opportunity to bolster his political image and project the idea that he's concerned about abuse of the The People's Constitution and is part of the 'loyal' opposition. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Byrd is working for the Illuminati to bring about the destruction of America and to implement the satanic One World government just as as surely as Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, and Barney Frank, who also posture themselves as part of the 'loyal' opposition, are part of the congressional cabal of traitors. If you want to see the hidden side to the face of these one-eyed jacks, then read about Byrd, Kennedy, and Leahy in Brice Taylor's book, Thanks for the Memories and Cathy O'Brien's book, TranceFormation of America. If you want insights on the darker side of Barney Frank, then take a look at The Franklin Cover-Up by John DeCamp.

On October 21, 2001, when 98 U.S. senators (thank you Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the lone dissenting vote) and 356 House representatives voted in favor of the US Patriot Act, they committed treason by voting for legislation that includes provisions that are in DIRECT VIOLATION of the U.S. Constitution. When the President of the United States or members of congress take the oath of office, they swear to uphold the Constitution.

Allowing the findings of a white wash and farce called the 911 Commission to stand and thus make an utter mockery of the truth surrounding the events that took place on September 11, 2001 in order to conceal the fact that 911 was an inside job, is an act of treason that is further compounded by the covering up an even greater act of High Treason by the Executive and military.

And allowing millions of illegal aliens to flood into this country under the pretense of needed 'guest workers' is yet another treasonous decision designed to lead to the final dissolution of one of the greatest expressions of liberty and democratic ideals since the days of  Pericles.

We must rescue our children from these circumstances. The responsibility rests with us, and not with the leaders who are betraying us.

Ken Adachi

Hello Sarai,

No apology necessary. I'm glad you worte. I appreciate hearing your opinion and I'll add your thoughts to the article.

I don't think it's useful to dwell on border conditions that existed in 1840 or 1780. The past is the past; don't live it over again. Every country in the world has had shifting borders and occupation by different rulers down through history. North America rightly belonged to native Americans. It was encroached upon by Europeans from England, France and Spain. What's far more important is to live in peace and concentrate on being a good person and getting along with your neighbors.

I see the behind-the-scenes manipulation of the CIA in all the emotions and rhetoric being stirred up. The amount of effort and money and coordination it takes to mount such large rallies is only possible with the money and power of the Illuminati pushing the whole thing. What happened today is a huge manipulation by powerful and rich elitists to help bring about the disintegration of the United States as a soverign county.

Mexico, USA and Canada will be dissolved into a single North American "country" that will be a controlled police state in which everything you do will be monitored and watched and you will not be allowed to do anything without the state's permission. Liberty and personal freedom will no longer exist. Privacy will no longer exist. Mexican people will be just as controlled and miserable as Americans and Canadians. If you think that the police (Mexican or American) are abusive today, just wait until the borders no longer exists. You will see a police state that will make the East Germans Stasi or Stalinists secret police look like nice guys. The US Constituion, the US Bill of Roights and the American people are the ONLY thing that stands between freedom and a totalitarian police state that will control all of North America. The demonstation that took place today was a single scene in a long play called the Decline and Fall of the United States. The simple people who were seen marching today know none of these things. They can only imagine benfits and future prosperity flowing from these marches. They are Pawns in a game they know nothing of. They know Jose Luis, El Gigante en Sabado and Cantinflas reruns on TV, but they don't undertand this game. They are being manipulated.

Here's a quote from an article at called 'Your Nightly News, Understanding Propaganda, Part 2:'

"These encounters are a hair's breadth away from bloody violence, and that is exactly what the Puppet Masters want. That's what is really behind all the recent immigration protests in the US, the Muslim protests in France, etc. The mind controlled masses are being whipped into a frenzy, every Western nation is like a simmering cauldron about to boil over."

Here's another quote from an article:

"Bushite Neo-Cons Responsible For May Day Immigration ProtestsUS PR Firm Hired by Bush and Fox to Stage Illegal Immigrant Demonstrations

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison May 1 2006

Today's massive immigration protests which are being afforded lavish andcomplimentary media attention were orchestrated by the Neo-Cons and the Bush administration and represent a fifth columnist movement openly intent on destroying America as we know it.

The agenda is multi-faceted and includes protecting government drug-running operations, balkanizing the US and lowering the standard of living, and inciting race riots that lead to the justification of martial law and internment procedures being implemented.

As we reported last month, in late December 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox hired a lobbying firm to sweeten political sentiment in the US towards Mexicans and the immigration issue. The same PR expert and GOP political consultant helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas in 1994 and worked on both Bush's presidential campaigns."

I'm quite sure the day will come in 5 or 10 years when you will wish that the US and Mexico remained as separate countries and the emmigration rules of entering this country were respected and kept in place. You will regret when the American people are no longer an economic, political, and military force to reckon with because when that day comes, a darkness and evil will decend over the world that will exceed anything seen in modern history. I can only hope America will wake up before it's too late.

Kind Regards, Ken

What I still don't understand is why people from other countries want to come here. The US is no longer what it used to be.

Best wishes,

Hi Lauren,

We are dealing with current politics and current history.

North America was "invaded" by France and Spain as much as England. We all know the American indian was taken advantage of by the white man. What does that have to do with illegal Mexicans in the US?

Indigenous Mexicans (Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans) were decimated by Spaniards primarily. Current Mexican people are a mix of mestizos and Europeans, but they are not the original people of Mexico.

The US governemnt purchased a sizeable portion of the US from France with the Lousianna Purchase. Other parts were purchased from Russia. We had a war with Mexico and Mexico lost. That's how we acquired our current borders. So what does that have to do with illegal Mexicans in the US?

If you live in the southwest of this country, the day will come when you no longer will be able to live safely in your home because you will be a victim of south-of-the-border mauraders and you will surely reassess your mushy views on illegal Mexicans---though it will be too late by then.

Regards, Ken.

Dear Mr. Adachi,

I just read your posting "Undocumented Immigrants."

Good stuff.

Along the lines of educating oneself, there is another aspect of illegal immigration that people need to know. That is the dark side of illegal immigration that is causing massive collateral damage in the US.

As it happens, I am just finishing off a report entitled "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration" that details and documents the carnage. As I detail in my report, some of the damage and costs we are incurring to have cheap lettuce and ditch diggers is as follows:

· As of 2003, there were 267,000 illegal aliens are incarcerated at a cost of $5.6 billion per year. These criminals are not in jail for stealing IDs or simply violating our border but for serious and often violent crimes. A 2005 GAO study on 55,232 of them reports that, on average, they were previously arrested 8 times and committed 13 criminal offenses.

· 80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are still walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 4 more serious crimes before again being caught.

· Illegal aliens commit some 2,200 murders each year.

· There are as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.

· The financial impact of illegal alien crimes on assault victims is estimated at $210 billion per year.

· In 2004, illegal alien drivers were responsible for 309,050 accidents, 2,132 deaths, 139,400 injuries, and a cost of $11.5 billion and that there are indications that their involvement is actually 2-5 times higher.

I would be happy to send you a copy of the report. I believe it will provide you with some additional "educate-yourself" commentary.

About 120 pages and about 5MB. WORD or PDF format - your choice.

This is the report that was featured for an hour on the George Putman show in the last week of November and which has been extensively quoted by various internet news sources over the last three weeks.

I can guarantee you will find some "I didn't know that" which will give you some additional educate-yourself ideas when it comes to illegal immigration.

If you would like a copy, please send me an e-mail that I can send it to. Please put "Illegal Immigration" in the subject line.

Happy New Year,

Peter Wagner
Golden, CO

Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (Paperback)
by Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin shows how every component of our immigration system failed leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Ready or not, Invasion tells the truth about the dangers we face within our own borders.

In "Invasion," Michelle Malkin gives us the bad news -- terrorists are all still welcome in America -- even after Sept. 11, 2001

That is the alarming message about the gross negligence of our immigration system today.

This is a shocking expose of how America's lax immigration policies led to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

Malkin, one of America's most important young journalists and a first-generation American of Filipino descent, shows how every component of our immigration system failed: from kowtowing consular offices to unguarded borders and ports of entry to toothless detention and deportation policies.

Plagued by inertia, political correctness and corruption, the U.S. government refuses to enforce its immigration laws with consistency and common sense.

In "Invasion," Malkin reveals:

How the Sept. 11 terrorists and other menaces exploited U.S. immigration laws;
How government officials sell residency and citizenship privileges for sex, Oriental carpets and cash;
Why New York City -- despite being targeted by terrorists who violated immigration laws -- insists on operating as a safe haven for illegal aliens;
How the very people paid to protect our borders let terrorists, cop-killers and other violent criminals loose on the American public;
How millions of foreigners are rushed through airports without proper screening because of pressure from corporate special interests;
How politicians' vote pandering -- from Bill Clinton's "Citizenship USA" program to George W. Bush's courtship of Hispanics -- endangers the nation's safety;
Personalized inscriptions are unavailable for this offer. But all copies are personally autographed.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. Her twice-weekly column is published by nearly 100 clients, including the Miami Herald, Detroit News, Washington Times, Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, and New York Post. Malkin is a Fox News commentator and frequent radio talk show guest, and has appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, the McLaughlin Group, ABC's 20/20, and MSNBC. Malkin, the daughter of Filipino immigrants, was born in Philadelphia in 1970 and raised in southern New Jersey. She is a graduate of Oberlin College and lives with her husband and daughter in Maryland.
Malkin, former editorial writer for the Seattle Times and Los Angeles Daily News, writes a nationally syndicated column. She is a Fox News Channel commentator.

The Amnesty Fraud
By Thomas Sowell

Nothing is more common than political "solutions" to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.

The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is "unrealistic" to round up and deport 12 million people.

Back in 1986 it was "unrealistic" to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty -- honestly labeled, back then -- which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.

As a result of the current amnesty bill -- not honestly labeled, this time -- will it be "unrealistic" to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?

If the current immigration bill is as "realistic" as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?

We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?

Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.

Its advocates' argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.

The word is from the same root as "amnesia." It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.

Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue.

For example, there are undoubtedly thousands, perhaps millions, of unsolved crimes and uncaught criminals in this country and we cannot realistically expect to find and prosecute all these fugitives from justice.

But does anyone suggest that our focus should be on trying to normalize the lives of domestic fugitives from justice -- "bring them out of the shadows" in Ted Kennedy's phrase -- and develop some path by which they can be given an acceptable legal status?

Does anyone suggest that, if domestic criminals come forward, pay some fine, and apply to have their crimes overlooked, they can be put on a path to be restored to good standing in our society?

Just as we don't need to solve every crime and catch every criminal, in order to have deterrents to crime, neither do we have to ferret out and deport every one of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country in order to deter a flood of new illegal aliens.

All across this country, illegal aliens are being caught by the police for all sorts of violations of American laws, from traffic laws to laws against murder. Yet in many, if not most, places the police are under orders not to report these illegal aliens to the federal government.

Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country, in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken -- and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served -- would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.

Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.

The amnesty fraud, Part II
By Thomas Sowell

Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it.

The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs.

Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading.

For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.

If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job.

But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.

What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian?

Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do?

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

"What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?

The amnesty fraud, Part III
By Thomas Sowell

Whose problem is the immigration bill in Congress supposed to solve? The country's problem with dangerously porous borders? The illegal immigrants' problem? Or politicians' problems?

It has been painfully clear for years that the country's problem with insecure borders and floods of foreigners who remain a foreign -- and growing -- part of the American population has the lowest priority of the three.

Virtually every step -- even token steps -- that Congress and the administration have taken toward securing the border has been backed into under pressure from the voters.

The National Guardsmen who were sent to the border but not assigned to guard the border, the 700-mile fence on paper that has become the two-mile fence in practice, and the existing "tough" penalties for the crime of crossing the border illegally that in practice mean turning the illegal border crossers loose so that they can try, try again -- such actions speak louder than words.

The new immigration bill that supposedly secures the borders first, before starting the process of legalizing the illegal immigrants, in fact does nothing of the sort.

It sets up various programs and procedures -- but does not wait to see if they in fact reduce the flow of illegal immigrants before taking the irrevocable step of making American citizenship available to 12 million people who came here illegally.

This solves the problem of those illegal immigrants who want to get citizenship. The steps that they have to go through allow politicians to say that this is not amnesty because these are "tough" requirements.

But, whether these requirements are "tough" or not, and regardless of how they are enforced or not, there is nothing to say that the 12 million people here illegally have to start the process of becoming citizens.

Those who do not choose to become citizens -- which may well be the majority of illegal immigrants -- face no more prospect of being punished for the crime of entering the country illegally than they do now.

With the focus now shifted to the process of getting citizenship, those illegal immigrants who just want to stay and make some money without being bothered to become part of American society can be forgotten, along with their crime.

This bill gets the issue off the table and out of the political spotlight. That solves the problem of politicians who want to mollify American voters in general without risking the loss of the Hispanic vote.

The Hispanic vote can be expected to become larger and larger as the new de facto amnesty can be expected to increase the number of illegal border crossers, just as the previous -- and honestly labeled -- amnesty bill of 1986 led to a quadrupling of the number of illegals.

The larger the Hispanic vote becomes, the less seriously are the restrictive features of the immigration bill likely to be enforced.

The growth of the illegal population is irreversible but the means of controlling the growth of illegals are quite reversible, both de facto through the watering down of the enforcement of "tough" requirements and de jure through later repeals of requirements deemed too "tough."

One of the remarkable aspects of the proposed immigration "reform" is its provisions for cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Employers are to be punished for not detecting and excluding illegal immigrants, when the government itself is derelict in doing so.

Employers not only lack expertise in law enforcement, they can be sued for "discrimination" by any of the armies of lawyers who make such lawsuits their lucrative specialty.

But no penalties are likely to be enforced against state and local politicians who openly declare "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. Officials sworn to uphold the law instead forbid the police to report the illegal status of immigrants to federal officials when these illegals are arrested for other crimes.

This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians' problems, not the country's.

Gop Candidate Pledges To Build Border Fence
by Dr. WC Douglass (

By now, you know how I feel about illegal immigration. The Readers Digest version of my view: It's dangerous, it's ruining our country, and I don't like it. And based on the emails I've received on this topic, I'd say that most of you agree with me. And now -- finally! -- it appears that someone in the U.S. Congress agrees with me, too.

Common sense from a member of the United States Congress? I know it's hard to believe, but it's true! Read on!

Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California kicked off his presidential candidacy by pledging to begin construction of an 800-plus-mile stretch of fence along the U.S./Mexico border that was authorized in a 2006 bill that he sponsored. As you know, I'm a longtime advocate of a border fence. Even at the high-end price of $8 billion, it's still a damned sight cheaper than dealing with the atrocious negative impact that's caused by just 1.5 percent of the illegals already here in the States.

Hunter has faced the peril of the freeloading foreign hoard first hand -- he represents a district in San Diego, a city that because of its proximity to Mexico is on the frontline of the illegal immigration debate. Better still, he's already had proven success with a security fence built in his district which he says "cut down on the smuggling of people and drugs by more than 90 percent."

It's a credit to him that he's already stood his ground and proven the politically correct naysayers wrong. A fence not only can work -- it could be the last hope we have in stemming the tide of the Mexican Invasion -- the "Reconquista" as the illegals themselves have termed it.

Hunter is a Vietnam veteran -- one of the few presidential candidates to have served in the armed forces -- so it's no wonder that he treats the concept of American rights and freedoms with more care than the standard politician. "I have worn the uniform -- I've been the chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee -- I understand what it takes to keep this country strong," Hunter says.

Unfortunately, both you and I know that Congressman Hunter has the proverbial snowball's chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination -- let alone the presidency in the 2008 election. But at the very least, maybe his tough and determined stance can get some of the other dunderheads in Washington to treat the illegal immigration issue with the seriousness that it deserves. And maybe -- just maybe -- someone in Washington will finally do something about it. 

An Immigration Dilemma
By Rabbi Shea Hecht
December 19, 2007

When I read about Beth Keathley and her immigration problem it spotlighted how much political correctness has over taken common sense.

Beth Keathley of Bloomington, Illinois, was so close to becoming a permanent U.S. citizen that she already enjoyed some of the benefits; she got a Social Security number and an official state identification card. As far as she could tell citizenship would not be far behind. But she made a mistake - one that trips up hundreds of immigrants each year.

Keathley, who has lived in the U.S. on a marriage visa since 2003, was not a citizen when she went to get her state ID card. She probably should have brought a lawyer with her. While in the government office getting the ID card she mistakenly ended up registering to vote. The voter registration form shows she checked a box indicating she was a citizen. She said she does not specifically remember checking that box, though she obviously did. Yet I could understand the confusion. Keathley had her Social Security number and her appointment with immigration, so when someone from the government offered her the chance to vote, why would she think it's illegal to do it?

When she told an immigration officer about it, she was charged with breaking the law and she lost her job. Her mistake could also derail her citizenship, and unless a judge rules in her favor, she could eventually be deported -- uprooting a family that includes her 9-month-old daughter, Sheina.

Keathley had no idea that what she did was illegal. In fact, on the day the Filipino immigrant took part in her first U.S. election last year, she proudly sported an "I voted" lapel pin on her uniform when she showed up for her job.

What bothers me about what happened is that Keathley's alleged crime took place at the secretary of state's facility in Bloomington. In what can only be called a very bad case of political correctness, state employees are prohibited by federal law from seeking confirmation of citizenship before registering people to vote, so a clerk invited Keathley to register to vote as part of the "motor voter" program. Keathley said the clerk saw her Filipino passport as part of the application for the state identification card.

She figured that if a state employee offered her the opportunity to register, it must be all right.

Before the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "motor voter" law, registration took place before a sworn elections official, usually inside a local election board office or voting precinct -- places hard to find for even native-born citizens.

Today, in addition to voter registration materials being available at driver's license facilities and other public agencies, you can literally be registered while walking down the street - since there are volunteers with clipboards full of mail-in forms meant to boost voter turnout.

Many immigrants, like Keathley, fall into this trap. The person registering them to vote doesn't ask them if they are citizens or tell them they can't register if they are not and they end up breaking the law. Others are confused, and leave the question unanswered and still receive voter registration cards.

The Keathleys' attorney, Richard Hanus, contends that federal immigration law doesn't consider the possibility that such actions are done by mistake. He hopes to convince a judge that Keathley is of good moral character.

"We're talking about a family unit with a child and a woman with no previous criminal behavior whatsoever who has followed immigration laws to the T," Hanus said. "What took place is, at worst, an innocent mistake and not an act that was done in any malicious way."

Keathley is filled with regret for her actions.

"I think about how this affects us financially and how we have a baby. I'm losing my job, and we don't have enough to eat," she confided, during a moment when her husband was out of the room. "John (her husband) says, 'Just don't think about it.'

Personally, I am stymied by the fact that we have laws that forbid those who register people to vote from questioning their eligibility to do so. I think that mix-ups like Beth Keathley's should be a message that this country, in all fairness, has to rethink its voter registration and immigration laws and base them more on common sense than political correctness.

The Incredible Disappearing Border Fence
By Michelle Malkin
December 19, 2007

Do you know the story of the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence? It's an object lesson in gesture politics and homeland insecurity. It's a tale of hollow rhetoric, meaningless legislation and bipartisan betrayal. And in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, it's a helpful learning tool as you assess the promises of immigration enforcement converts now running for president.

Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the "Secure Fence Act." Did you question the timing? You should have. It's no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections. Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors" at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles.

GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.

On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed." Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act -- now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act -- 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline -- a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona -- passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."

More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected -- but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.

Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.

GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."

But so totally, totally predictable.

GOP Minority Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority." But it's border state Republicans who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens.

Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland security promises. Why would theirs be any different?

Daily Dose - Illegals getting free pass on diseases
Disease of illegal immigration spreads to America's poor

It's all over the news these days: Exotic diseases are on the rise here in the U.S. And although nasty tropical ailments like dengue fever, brucellosis, and schistosomiasis are common in the wilds of Africa, Asia, and South America, they're becoming hot topics here in States as well.

Why? Well, illegal immigration, of course. But no one -- especially the media -- is willing to come out and tell this truth to the American public. No, that would be offensive to the criminals who stream across our border every day. These diseases from antiquity have no place in 21st century America, but thanks to the unsanitary practices of people from the Third World (liberals would call this part of their "culture"), they're thriving.

And you'll just love the politically correct euphemism for them: "neglected infections of poverty." If it didn't make me so spitting mad, I'd find it hilarious. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that these ailments thrive in conditions that arise from unsanitary living and poor dietary habits. And if that's offensive to you? well, sorry. It just happens to be the truth.

A list of 24 so-called "neglected infections of poverty" were recently listed in a Public Library of Science journal. Many on the list already pose a significant health issue in the U.S., affecting as many as 1 million people.

An L.A. Times article I read said that, in the Los Angeles area, the tapeworm infection cysticercosis (which originates with pork, and spreads in crowded, unsanitary conditions) accounts for 10 percent of all seizures that result in emergency room visits. It doesn't take a huge leap to figure that illegal immigrants in the LA area live in crowded and probably unsanitary conditions.

What drives me crazy is that the media is presenting these diseases as though they are diseases of the poor. That's only partially true.

Don't trudge through your day! Get the energy you need naturally - without jitters or crashes.

Let's face it, everyone could use a little extra energy to get through the day. And now, you can get the energy boost you need to play all 18 holes, keep up with the kids (or grandkids) and make it all the way through the 9 o'clock movie - without nodding, dozing or napping!

The fact of the matter is that they are typical of the Third World poor, not the American poor.

Consider of the source of these diseases: brucellosis is a bacterial infection that comes from unsanitary dairy products. Recently, I wrote to you about the prevalance of "queso fresco" or "bathtub cheese" that's popular in the immigrant community. That's where this stuff comes from. Schistosomiasis comes from exposure to water that's contaminated with freshwater snails. It's common in South America. I ask you: How many poor folks in the inner cities of the U.S. have had exposure to water contaminated by freshwater snails?

The media and the left are playing a dangerous game with the nation's public health with their touchy-feely misplaced compassion. Diseased criminals are streaming over our borders and burdening our already overburdened healthcare system with foreign maladies -- and no one wants to do anything about it. No one wants to speak the truth or state the facts for fear of being called a racist or a xenophobe.

Sadly, I think we all better get used to having these diseases around. After all, neither of this year's presidential candidates seem particularly concerned with the problem of illegal immigration beyond the usual pandering. The wrong-headed political lightweight Obama even suggested that Americans should be worried less about people who can't speak English, and more about Americans who can't speak Spanish!

It's time to wake up to the realities of the true dangers of illegal immigration -- before it's too late.

Urging you not to drink the snail-infested Kool-Aid of Political Correctness,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

By Lynn Stuter

In her myriad of articles concerning the illegal alien criminal families of Reyes/Quiroz/Hernandez (hereafter known as the Reyes Gang), Lornet Turnbull of the Seattle Times has made various assertions concerning the illegal alien population in the United States. Two of those assertions are that illegal aliens are of greater benefit to the U.S. economy than detriment; and that the illegal alien population is roughly 12 million.

Both of these assertions are, to put it bluntly, outright lies asserted by an individual who supports the criminal illegal alien invasion of the United States. I shall address the second assertion first as it is rather straight-forward: In October 2007 the estimated number of illegal aliens residing in the United States was revised. The figure went from an estimated 12 million to an estimated 38 million. Yet six months after the initial release of these revised figures, Turnbull is still using the old figure; quite obviously to give the criminal illegal alien invasion of the United States a less threatening face, a less ominous presence.

Now to Turnbull's assertion the illegal aliens benefit the U.S. economy.

As people have become more cognizant of the sheer number of illegal aliens residing in the United States, the question has been whether they are a benefit or a detriment to the U.S. economy. President George Bush, because he supports a completely open border policy (in complete contradiction of his claim that we must secure America against terrorists), claims they are a benefit; that they "do jobs Americans won't do."

The truth, however, is something quite different. Americans have watched as illegal aliens have taken jobs away from Americans in the construction industry, food processing industry, manufacturing, etc. These are not "jobs Americans won't do;" these were high-paying jobs that Americans workers have watched the wages being depressed on because employers are hiring illegal aliens at a lower hourly wage while Americans are left at the curb unable to find work, watching their unemployment benefits run out with no job prospects in sight that will pay the bills. The repercussion is two fold: 1) wages are being depressed while American workers cannot make ends meet because the illegal aliens have taken over the job market; and 2) the price of the product resulting from the depressed wage isn't being sold for less; it is being sold for the same price with the employer pocketing the profit. That profit, in part, then goes to buy politicians to keep the borders open and the flow of illegal aliens unimpeded.

The illegal alien work force, depressing American wages, is very much a part of pushing the United States into the third-world status of the very rich and very poor with no middle class; the feudal state -- the goal of the global economy -- must eradicate the middle class in America in order to achieve absolute power and control of the masses. That politicians like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton don't want to remove the 38 million illegal alien criminals from this country is not because they do jobs Americans won't do but because middle class America must be destroyed for the global third world economy to reach fruition.

And counter to the claims of Bush and Company, the cost of the 38,000,000 illegal alien criminals far exceeds any economic benefit. With the criminal illegal alien invasion has come crime (rape, murder, sodomy, dope, racketeering, gangs) and related costs; disease heretofore eradicated in America; degradation of entire neighborhoods; economic recession due, in part, to the depressed wage market; and the costs to educate, house, and address the health issues (including the costs of anchor babies) of the criminal illegal alien population at the expense of legal American taxpayers.

Yet these people do nothing to better society. The picture below, taken recently in Oceanside, California, is of an illegal alien zipping up after relieving himself on the sidewalk along a busy street in broad daylight. He was picked up by the Oceanside Police Department.[1] The following is not the exception in the illegal alien presence in the United States. For obvious reasons, the name of this writer is being withheld.

"...An example is how most Mexican illegal aliens urinate and defecate anywhere. In the buildings where they live, they throw the trash outside the trash bin, etc. I heard of one instance when they had live chickens in the apartment. They had the chickens nesting in the kitchen cabinets. They had removed the doors for the chickens to roost there![2]

"...When my husband had open heart surgery, he shared the room with a Mexican in the hospital. The Mexican's family visited 12 hours a day; in a small room there were from four to six people around the man's bed. They ate their tacos and tortillas there; the wife would lie down on the bed next to her husband and they all used the patient's bathroom which they made filthy instead of the guests' bathroom down the hall! I wanted to complain, but my husband begged me not to. He felt very vulnerable in that bed and he simply was afraid.

"...I used to go to the Spanish Horse Show in the Los Angeles Equestrian Center every year. It was a very elegant and beautiful event with mostly English speaking audience. I missed one show... The next year I went and was shocked to see all of Mexico there! Moreover, they were selling hard liquor and one could smell metabolized booze outdoors! When the Mexican flag was paraded there was a roar from the crowd and just a smattering of applause for the U.S. flag. I was scared that some gangs might start shooting. I swore never to go back. That was five years ago."

All one need do, to realize the culture of these criminal illegal alien invaders, is to look at pictures of the trash strewn along the American side of the border with Mexico, where illegal aliens have crossed. According to Lornet Turnbull, these people are seeking a better life; yet they don't seek to fit in anywhere they go; they expect Americans to accept their trashy third world way of life; exemplified by all the people living in Ana Reyes small apartment in Burien when she was picked up by ICE.

Edwin Rubenstein of ESR Research has produced a report, The Fiscal Impact of Immigration, in which he took a conservative look at the cost of immigration in fifteen areas:

Department of Homeland Security
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Justice
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of State
The Social Security Administration
Department of Labor
Department of Commerce
Department of Treasury
Energy/Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Agriculture

For the purposes here, I am going to tally an approximate conservative estimate of the cost to the American taxpayers of the Reyes Gang of illegal alien criminals.

Ana Reyes' husband walked across the border in 1988/1989; she followed him in 1990; their two sons in 1991. In 1998 her husband walked out and Reyes and her children moved in with Arturo Hernandez, also an illegal alien criminal. Altogether, the Reyes Gang comprises six illegal alien criminals: Ana Reyes, her husband (?) Quiroz, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Quiroz, Arturo Hernandez and Luis Hernandez. How long the Hernandez brothers have been in the United States illegally isn't known.

According to Rubenstein's report, the combined cost (in the 15 areas noted above) for one illegal alien for one year, is $9,139 in 2007 dollars. This amount represents the economic impact (cost exceeding benefit) of each illegal alien. The economic impact to American taxpayers of six illegal aliens for one year would be $54,834 (2007 dollars).

Ana Reyes and her husband have been here at least 17 years. Using a conservative annual inflation rate of 2%, the approximate conservative cost of just these two for 17 years would be $278,616. Their two illegal alien sons, Christian and Carlos, were in the United States illegally for 16 years; their conservative cost for those 16 years would be approximately $265,650. Because exactly how long Arturo Hernandez and his brother, Luis, have been in the United States illegally isn't known, we will approximate that time at ten years for an approximate conservative cost for the two of them of $167,178. Just these costs total $711,444.

Rubenstein's report also states, on page 18:

In a word, criminal aliens are not casual lawbreakers. Most are recidivists -- that is, career criminals. The economic burden they impose on victims, including loss of income and property, uncompensated hospital bills, and emotional pain and suffering, has been estimated at $1.6 million per property and assault crime offender. (Source: Anne Morrison Piehl and John J. DiLulio, "Does Prison Pay?")

Following is the conservative approximation of the number of crimes committed by the Reyes Gang (source: Washington Court Records):

Ana Reyes: 14 [3]
? Quiroz: 1 [4]
Christian Quiroz: [5]
Carlos Quiroz: [5]
Arturo Hernandez: 25 [5]
Luis Hernandez: 3 [6]

In total, the Reyes Gang has committed at least 53 crimes, most involving criminal traffic, non-payment of debts, and property loss or damage. Recidivist would be an understatement. At $1.6 million per property or assault crime offender, the Reyes Gang has racked up a conservative approximate cost to American taxpayers of $9.6 million just in criminal acts committed.

In the course of the last four years, Lornet Turnbull has written a myriad of articles for the Seattle Times concerning illegal aliens. Unfortunately, in not one of those articles has she made any effort to write the truth about the criminal illegal alien invasion of the United States. Her bent has been to portray these people as just poor, down-trodden, down-on-their-luck, underprivileged souls looking for a better way of life.

I have challenged Lornet Turnbull to write about ...

1 - the crimes committed by the Reyes Gang;
2 - the cost to American taxpayers of the Reyes Gang being in the United States illegally;
3 - the effect on Ana Reyes' two daughters of her living, out of wed-lock and in a state of adultery, with a man and bearing his illegitimate child.

I also challenged her to fill her home to capacity with these illegal alien criminals and support them, and to walk through the barrios of California where cops won't even go. Not one of my challenges has been accepted. As is usual with people like Lornet Turnbull, putting her money, her home, and her financial security where her mouth is isn't in the cards; she wants to keep what she considers hers but truly believes you should be gladly give up all that is yours to further her agenda! She talks the talk but she doesn't walk the walk. In short, she's a hypocrite!

Turnbull stated, in one of her articles, that Joe Kennard, benefactor to the Reyes Gang, has an "urge to give back." Maybe he should start by paying the American taxpayers back all the money the Reyes Gang has cost the American taxpayers in the years they have lived in the United States illegally. That sum is, conservatively, $10.3 million. If the Reyes Gang re-enters the United States illegally, Kennard should be charged with aiding and abetting or complicity for moving them within walking distance of the U.S. border after they have made it very clear that they intend to re-enter the United States illegally.

Mexican Hurricane

A category 5 hurricane just hit MEXICO. Two million Mexicans died and over a million were injured. The country has been totally ruined. The government doesn't know where to start and has asked for help to rebuild. The rest of the world is in shock.

CANADA is sending troops to help the Mexican army control the riots.

SAUDI ARABIA is sending oil.

Other LATIN AMERICAN countries is sending supplies.

The EUROPEAN community (except FRANCE) is sending food and money.

The UNITED STATES, not to be outdone, is sending two million Mexicans to replace the dead ones.


Near Fredericksburg, Texas, where there is a large German-speaking population. A farmer walking down a country road noticed a man drinking from his pond with his hand.

The farmer shouted: 'Trink das wasser nicht. Diekuhen haben dahin gesheissen', which means: 'Don't drink the water, the cows have s--- in it.'

The man shouted back: 'I'm from New York and just down here campaigning for Obama, I can't understand you. Please speak in English.'

The farmer replied: 'Use two hands, you'll get more.