FUNGAZI.COM

While the Democratic presidential candidates blather on about the American tax payer’s need to shoulder the burden for the estimated 43 million people in America who do not have medical insurance because of it’s increasing cost, very little has been said about who these people are or why the cost of medical insurance continues to increase.
 
A new report from the Center For Immigration Studies entitled “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” is now available online to help clarify some of these questions. 

According to this report, the immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007 and immigrants now account for one out of every eight U.S. residents.  Overall, one out of every three immigrants now in the U.S. is an illegal alien and more than 50% of all immigrants from Mexico and Central America are illegal aliens. Thirty-one percent of all adult immigrants currently in the U.S. have not completed high school compared to 8% of the native population.

33 percent of immigrant-headed households use at least one welfare program, compared to 19 percent for native households. Among households headed by immigrants from Mexico, the largest single group, 51 percent use at least one welfare program.

The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.

Overall, 33.8 percent of the foreign-born lack insurance compared to 13 percent of natives.

Immigrants now account for 26.8 percent of all uninsured persons in the United States. This compares to their 12.6 percent of the total population.

When the young (under 18) U.S.-born children of immigrants are included with their parents, the share without health insurance is 29.9 percent. The share of children who are uninsured is lower than for their parents mainly because the U.S.-born children of immigrants are eligible for Medicaid.  Thus the inclusion of the U.S.-born children pulls down the rate for immigrants slightly.

The report concludes that the low rate of insurance coverage associated with immigrants is primarily explained by their much lower levels of education. Because of the limited value of their labor in an economy that increasingly demands educated workers, many immigrants hold jobs that do not offer health insurance, and their low incomes make it very difficult for them to purchase insurance on their own.

A larger uninsured population cannot help but strain the resources of those who provide services to the uninsured already here. Moreover, Americans with insurance have to pay higher premiums as healthcare providers pass along some of the costs of treating the uninsured to paying customers. Taxpayers are also affected as federal, state, and local governments struggle to provide care to the growing ranks of the uninsured. There can be no doubt that, by dramatically increasing the size of the uninsured population, our immigration policy has wide-ranging effects on the nation’s entire healthcare system.

In very simple terms, this report validates what has been common knowledge among many American citizens for quite some time.  Illegal aliens using American hospitals and emergency care facilities as their own personal free clinics have forced the cost of healthcare to skyrocket across the nation because hospitals have little choice but to pass losses incurred by non-paying illegal aliens along to American citizens with health care coverage.  Furthermore, as the cost of medical care has increased to cover the unpaid debts of the illegal aliens abusing the system, the cost of medical insurance has been forced up to meet these increasing costs.  It would be entirely logical to assume that, with more than 8,000 new illegal aliens entering the United States every week, the problem will continue to grow worse, the cost of healthcare in the United States will continue to increase and the cost of medical insurance will get even higher.

Of the four leading Democratic candidates for president, John Edwards is the only one to pin the blame for rising health insurance costs on an identifiable group and he directs the finger of blame at the insurance companies themselves with the simple-minded allegation that their all-consuming greed and lack of competition are the primary culprits.  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson make no attempt to affix the blame for rising health insurance costs on anyone or any group.  It’s as if the rising cost of health insurance in the U.S. is entirely inexplicable – a mystery with no known cause, possibly supernatural in origin, or in the case of Bill Richardson, possibly caused by same extraterrestrials whose fellow interstellar traveling companions crashed near New Mexico’s Area 51 so many years ago.  Hillary Clinton leans strongly towards the implication that the problem is the result of racial disparity, but she avoids putting the blame for what she terms “Racial Health Disparities” on anyone in particular.  Ironically enough, even though she blames no one for the problem, Hillary does point out that one-half of foreign-born Hispanics are uninsured, and that as the Latino population has grown in the United States, their health coverage situation has deteriorated and while the number of uninsured people in every other ethnic and racial group shrank between 1994 and 2004, the number of Hispanics without a regular source of healthcare grew from 29 to 31 percent.      
 
The simple truth is that the United States has the most technologically advanced health care available anywhere in the entire world and more American citizens have health care insurance than ever before in the entire history of this country.  Interestingly enough, if you go back up to the eighth paragraph of this posting an take the un-weighted percentage indicating the total number of immigrants without health insurance (29.9%) and calculate how many people that percentage actually represents among the estimated 42 million people in this country without health insurance you will discover that the answer (12,857,000) seems to be remarkably similar to the federal government’s estimate of how many illegal aliens are currently in the United States.
      
      29.9% of 43,000,000 = 29.9/100 x 43,000,000 = 12,857,000

While it may escape the attention of the entire Democratic Party, or more specifically, the Democratic candidates for president, the obvious common sense conclusion that most of the people in this country have been aware of for years is that the presence of 12,857,000 freeloading parasites who have no qualms whatsoever about running up huge medical bills with no intention of every paying for the services they receive is definitely going to have an seriously negative impact on American health care.  The hospitals and emergency care facilities that are required by federal law to provide free treatment to these illegal aliens are not reimbursed by the federal government for the services they provide, and ultimately they have no other choice but to pass along some of the costs of treating the uninsured illegal aliens to paying customers or go bankrupt.  It logically follows that as the health care providers are forced to pass along these un-recovered debts to their paying customers (ie the American citizens), the cost of the medical insurance to cover the expanded cost of health care is going to also rise in direct proportion. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out but it certainly helps if you aren’t a politically correct Democratic politician pandering to the illegal alien/Hispanic/Latino sub-culture who may or may not vote for you.  In all honesty, I must admit that I don’t really believe the Democratic contenders are too dumb to figure this out for themselves, they are bright people who have had the benefit of a decent education and I am sure they know this information as well as anyone else.  However, by giving them the credit of having at least an average intelligence, it then becomes logically obvious that they are being entirely deceitful.

The United States government already shells out more than $2 trillion tax dollars per year on health care.  That includes the cost of health care coverage for all federal employees, elected officials, the military, Medicare, Medicaid and an assortment of tax payer funded health care entitlement programs such as the SCHIP program.  A nationalized health care program covering every person in the U.S., by very conservative estimates, would triple that expense.  Realistically, there is no credible way to estimate the increase in government spending if such a program were implemented.  However, while the exorbitant cost of such a program might be impossible to estimate, the one inescapable fact we can be sure of is that a national health care plan in the United States would be entirely disastrous and the staggering cost, which would, of course, be shouldered by the American tax payer, could reduce the after-tax wages of every working American by as much as 40%.  The quality of American health care would go straight into the toilet the instant that Doctors and hospitals no longer had to compete for customers by providing high quality care to attract customers who could easily go elsewhere for the services they needed.  In the regulated environment of a nationalized health care program there would be little reward for technological medical advancement and as innovative new treatments ceased to be a source of profit the technological slide of American health care would start to make Nigeria’s health care system more attractive.  Additionally, a nationalized health care system that supplied medical care to everyone that walked through the door regardless of their immigration status would be an attractive motivation for future illegal aliens to come here and participate in this great American free-for-all and the cost to the American tax payer would continue to escalate without control.

Obviously the answer to the problem of high health care costs is not to be had by the implementation of a nationalized health care program.  The key to resolving this problem is the same as it is for any other serious problem – first you must identify the root cause.  In the case of rising health care costs that root cause is blatantly obvious.  We have 12,857,000 freeloading parasites that have no qualms whatsoever about running up huge medical bills with no intention of every paying for the services they receive.  We can eliminate a full 30% of the cause for rising health care costs in America simply by enforcing immigration laws and enhancing border security.  If this cost the American tax payers a trillion dollars or five trillion dollars we would be money ahead in the long run.  The cost of health care would plummet, the cost of medical insurance would fall accordingly, the American tax payer would not be unduly burdened with unnecessary taxes and American medical technology would continue to advance unrestricted, and all of this would be made possible by the simple act of facing reality instead of burying our heads in the sand while pandering professional politicians make the problem even worse with stupid ideas that have obviously failed in every country where they have been implemented. 

Technorati Tags

John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, National HealthCare Plan, SCHIP, illegal aliens, Democratic Party

digg this | del.icio.us

Khartoum
More than 600 Islamic demonstrators waving swords and sticks demanded the execution of Gillian Gibbons, the 54 year old British teacher from Liverpool, England indicted by a Sudanese court on charges of insulting the Muslim religion and inciting hatred and showing contempt for Islamic religious beliefs after she allowed her seven year old students to name a teddy bear Mohammed.  While Islamic fundamentalists incited the angry mob with leaflets condemning the teacher for polluting the mentality of Muslim children, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a prominent Muslim cleric denounced the lenient verdict of the court by saying, “Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan.”  The Sudanese court found the woman guilty of insulting religion but cleared her on the two other charges of inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.  She was sentenced to spend fifteen days in a Sudanese prison after which she will be deported from the country.  If the court had convicted her on all charges she would have been subject to spend six months to a year in prison, a heavy fine and forty lashes.  Gillian Gibbons left her position as deputy head teacher at a primary school in Liverpool this summer and began teaching at the school in Khartoum in August. She was arrested on November 25th following a complaint to Sudanese authorities by Sarah Khawad, a secretary at the school.

Saudi Arabia
A court in Saudi Arabia increased the punishment for a 19-year-old gang-rape victim because of what the Arab news media is calling, “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.”  The young lady was sentenced last year to 90 lashes for meeting with an unrelated male when the pair was abducted by seven men who subsequently raped the girl.  A year after her original sentence was handed down the judges increased it to six months in prison and 200 lashes.  

Technorati Tags

Khartoum, Saudi Arabia, Gillian Gibbons

digg this | del.icio.us

Tom Tancredo has been dismissed by many as a one-issue candidate.  Many of those who have condemned him in this manner are themselves presidential candidates with aspirations in the 2008 presidential election, and yet when asked about their position on one of the really tough issues they start ducking and bobbing around the podium and ultimately sidetrack the discussion to something unrelated.  Tom Tancredo is the one candidate with the integrity and the sheer balls to voice his beliefs and opinions and stick by them without waffling all over the place.  The positions he has taken are not new to him; they are positions he has held throughout his years of service to this nation and anyone can verify that fact by checking his voting record.  While you are checking his voting record you might want to check the voting record and the stated positions of the presidential candidate you are now favoring.  I can guarantee that you will not find another candidate who has demonstrated the consistency, the common sense, the integrity or the honesty that is plainly evident throughout the political career of Tom Tancredo.   

If you are concerned about the future of this nation, if you are feeling the crushing weight of increasing federal taxes, if you are concerned about our educational systems failure to provide your children with a fundamental education, or if the general lawlessness of a nation inundated with more than 20 million illegal aliens causes you to worry about the continued safety of your family and your children then you need to learn more about what Tom Tancredo will do for this nation as our country’s president.  The 2008 presidential election may very well be the American citizen’s last chance to stop this nation’s descent to third world status. It may be our final opportunity to reverse the destructive influence of multiculturalism and the societal insanity that has brought us to the brink of our own destruction. The 2008 presidential election will determine the future of the United States of America and your vote will determine whether we go forward as a great nation or dissolve in obscurity.  Continued freedom, liberty and prosperity or lawlessness, economic ruin and political favoritism.  Tom Tancredo is the president this country needs and your vote is all that is needed to turn this country around before it is too late.    

This is where Tancredo stands on the issues – what is your candidate saying?

Immigration
Illegal aliens threaten our economy and undermine our culture. While our brave soldiers risk their lives to protect us overseas, our political elites lack the courage to defend us at home. I am 100% opposed to amnesty. As President, I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come, and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay.
 
Preserving Life
The innocent unborn enjoy a God given right to life. Roe is a scar on the moral and intellectual history of the country; but, contrary to popular belief, overturning it would merely permit and not require states to prohibit abortion. To protect life, we also need to educate the public about the second victim of abortion, the mother who is subject to potential life long medical and emotional scarring.
 
Income Tax
A growing chorus of economists and experts argue, and I agree, that the current income tax system is complex and unfair and should be replaced by a flat tax or national sales tax. That’s why I co-sponsored the FairTax legislation. Simplifying the process would dramatically reduce the costs of compliance, make American companies more competitive, and put billions back into the economy by encouraging investment.
 
Judicial Activism
The essence of Democracy is that the citizens dictate the rules by which they live. Yet in the last 40 years, on the social issues that most determine who we are as a people, decisions have been made not by elected legislatures, but by unelected judges. With decisions on abortion, gay rights, religion, sexual mores, and illegal immigration, activist judges have ripped democracy from the hands of the people on the issues they most want their voices heard. The intellectual dishonesty of activist judges has brought their profession into disrepute. As President, I would appoint strict constructionists who honor the separation of powers and respect democracy.
 
Fast Track Authority / Trade
The President’s fast track authority should not be renewed. The constitution gives Congress not the Executive the power to ” regulate commerce with foreign nations.” Those who would delegate that authority to the President argue that the complexities of negotiation in a global economy require it. But that argument has lost its force because the Presidents have abused the power. Instead of sticking to trade agreements, they make commitments on matters of domestic policy, like immigration and carbon dioxide emissions, in the guise of international accords.
 
Iraq
America’s noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President’s November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.
 
Social Security
There is no question that the system is broken. Projections show that by 2016, the only way to avert its collapse will be deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. The best suggestion I have heard is to switch from a defined benefits approach to a defined contribution approach with payroll tax funded private investment accounts. These accounts would be made available to young workers and function similarly to 401Ks.
 
Education
I spent a decade as the Department of Education’s regional representative in Denver so I do not say this lightly. Federal involvement should be limited. Educational control is best left in the hands of parents. A no-strings-attached voucher system would promote school choice, while competition for students would drive educational improvements at the institutional level. I also suggest schools return to a more traditional course of study and that the public focus shift to certain non-school factors, like parental involvement, which studies show are the most important determinants of student performance.
 
Agriculture
As a general rule, I believe the farm economy should be market oriented. This is especially true under the current system, where the subsidies flow not so much to family farms but to very wealthy ‘hobby farmers’ and large agri-business concerns. To preserve our sovereignty however, the Country’s domestic food supply should be self-sufficient. Therefore, I would not be opposed in principle to limited agricultural subsidies designed to keep farms afloat, and farming skills current, in case of national emergency.
 
Healthcare
The two major problems are the high cost of care and the number of uninsured. Tort reform and immigration enforcement would save the system billions and drive down costs. In California alone, illegal immigrants cost the system $800 million annually and have forced 84 hospitals to close.

As for the uninsured: as many as 25% of them are illegal aliens and should be deported or encouraged to leave. For citizens and legal residents who are employed by businesses which cannot afford coverage, I favor association health plans which band small businesses together to access lower cost insurance. For those out of work, state governments should be the primary source of relief, although I would not rule out federal incentives or limited subsidies to make sure families who have fallen on hard times are not without coverage.
 
Budget
The federal government is in debt because it spends too much, not because it taxes people too little. Government spending is classified as either discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary spending includes funds for things like the military and is explicitly set by Congress on an annual basis. But the major culprit in ballooning budgets is mandatory spending for entitlement programs like medicare, expenditures which are determined by the number of beneficiaries. The only way to control the budget is to reform the entitlement programs that mandatory spending funds. Those decisions on how to allocate resources are as economically necessary as they are politically and ethically difficult.
 
Homeland Security
Homeland security plans which do not include enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders are entirely inadequate. A CIS study of 94 terrorists prosecuted for their crimes in the U.S., found that nearly two thirds had committed immigration fraud. It is difficult then to justify the rigor, expense, and inconvenience of new safety measures at our airports and harbors, while leaving the door open for terrorists to slip across our southern border undetected.
 
Gun Control
I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.
 
Gay Marriage
Federalism concerns make a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage an avenue of last resort, Unfortunately, intellectually dishonest activist judges have left us no choice.

Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state’s interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.
 
Political Correctness
In rational debate, the argument against something is that it is false not that it is hurtful. But political correctness has poisoned the climate for dealing with difficult issues and has returned us to the days when a sufficient counter-argument was that an idea was contrary to doctrine. A democracy that cannot tolerate debate on controversial issues cannot function.
 

Technorati Tags

Tom Tancredo

digg this | del.icio.us

The Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on November 13 in opposition to Indiana’s new voter identification laws which would require all prospective voters to prove their identity prior to voting.  ACORN has contested the legality of Indiana’s voter identification requirement on the grounds that there is no evidence to support the belief that voter impersonation fraud poses any real threat to the credible outcome of an election. Other amicus briefs opposing Indiana’s voter identification laws have been filed by the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus. The Supreme Court is scheduled to settle disputes over the legality of voter identification laws in January and the outcome of that decision may well determine whether or not the next president of the United States is elected by American citizens or by illegal aliens, crack addicts and cartoon characters registered to vote by organizations like Acorn and others affiliated with the Democratic National Party.

ACORN has been linked to voter registration fraud in Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  In a large number of cases their workers have been indicted, pled guilty and been convicted in federal courts for filing thousands of fictitious voter registration cards.  100% of all fraudulent voter registration forms filed by ACORN indicate that the voter is intending to cast his or her ballot as a Democrat.  

During the 2004 presidential election voter registration groups associated with the Democratic National Party including, ACORN, the NAACP National Voter Fund, MoveOn.org, Project Vote, American Families United, Public Interest Research Group in Michigan, Pro-Vote, America Coming Together, Operation Big Vote and Moving America Forward (affiliated with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico), have submitted voter registration forms with faulty addresses, incorrect birth dates, forged signatures and phony Social Security numbers.  These groups have turned in voter registration forms for Mary Poppins, Jeffrey Dahmer, George Foreman, Michael Jordan, Dick Tracy, Jive Turkey, Sr. and a host of other fictitious characters.  They have turned in voter registration forms for dead people, felons doing prison time and elementary school children.  Individuals representing these groups have been caught red-handed exchanging crack-cocaine, money and alcoholic beverages for completed registration forms.   There are recorded instances where they have taken their voter registration drives into mental institutions and nursing homes filled with mentally handicapped patients and they have paid the patients off with party favors and quarters to fill out the voter registration forms and dozens of ACORN Voter Registration Forms were discovered by Albuquerque police during a drug bust of an apartment.  ACORN employees in Ohio filed a voter registration form for a known illegal alien terrorist, Nuradin Abdi, who plotted to detonate a bomb in a Columbus shopping mall.  In Defiance County, Ohio, NAACP National Voter Fund Worker, Chad Staton pled guilty to submitting hundreds of fraudulent voter registration forms for the NAACP National Voter Fund in exchange for crack cocaine paid to him by NAACP National Voter Fund employee, Georgianna Pitts.  The falsified forms were traced to the Cuyahoga County Election Board where they were submitted as the genuine article by the NAACP Voter Protection Project, located in Cleveland, Ohio.    

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) introduced a Senate non-binding Senate resolution against voter identification laws in September 2005. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D.Conn.) are co-sponsors of the measure.

Fraudulent voter registration is a serious threat to the credibility of this nation’s electoral process and the only compelling justification to oppose legislation requiring potential voters to show proof of their identity is the obvious desire to encourage more voter fraud.  This is one issue where our desire to be politically correct needs to be put aside and the sanctity of our electoral process needs to be protected by verifying the identity and eligibility of every prospective voter before they are allowed to cast a ballot and determine the future of this nation.

Technorati Tags

voter fraud, ACORN, NAACP, MoveOn.org, Project Vote, American Families United, Pro-Vote, America Coming Together, Moving America Forward, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd

digg this | del.icio.us

A November 26, 2007 news article carried in Ontario, California’s The Daily Bulletin reported that Fort Huachuca, the nation’s largest intelligence-training center, located in Arizona, changed security measures in May after being warned that Islamist terrorists, with the aid of Mexican drug cartels, were planning an attack on the facility.  The article was based on information contained in several documents, including an FBI advisory that was distributed to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, Customs and Border Protection and the Justice Department.  The FBI advisory warned that several Middle Eastern individuals known to be from Afghanistan and Iraq paid Mexican drug lords $20,000 “or the equivalent in weapons” for the cartel’s assistance in smuggling them and their weapons through tunnels along the border into the U.S. so that they could carry out an attack on the military base at Fort Huachuca.  According to the advisory the weapons the terrorists were planning to use in this attack were being brought into the U.S. through tunnels located in Arizona and New Mexico while the terrorists were being smuggled into the U.S. through Laredo, Texas.  Furthermore, the FBI report stated that a number of the Afghans and Iraqis were already in a safe house in Texas.  The FBI report contained detailed information about the two Milan anti-tank missiles, Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles, grenade launchers, long guns and handguns being brought into the U.S. through the tunnels.  However, the same day that this news article broke the FBI issued the statement to the effect that terrorist threat to Fort Huachuca was unfounded and that they could find no evidence to support the credibility of any threat.  In other words the FBI contradicted the advisory that they sent out in the first place.  

In a political environment where a large percentage of the congressional representatives, the Department of Homeland Security and the current presidential administration have been purposely ignoring border security and immigration enforcement for years while they have diligently downplayed the growing threat that more than 20 million illegal aliens pose to this nation you have to wonder whether or not a credible report of terrorist activity along this nation’s unobstructed southern border would ever be reported prior to thousands of people being killed. 

The detrimental impact that the illegal alien invasion has had on the United States is an issue that has become so heavily politicized that nothing is being reported and the American people are being left in the dark while the problem continues to escalate out of control and the politicians in Washington continue to do nothing.  Illegal aliens have pretty much destroyed the American public school system, they’ve forced hospitals and emergency care providers into bankruptcy and pushed the price of medical insurance so high that many American citizens are going without it, and illegal aliens have overcrowded our prisons, our cities and our freeways.  They are draining the life out of the American taxpayer who is being forced to support them with welfare checks, social security payments doled out to the illegal alien parents of anchor babies, food stamps, educational assistance and a hundred other entitlement programs. Not only is it politically incorrect for an American citizen to complain about this abuse, anyone who dares complain is automatically branded a racist while any American citizen ballsy enough to demand tighter border security is labeled a xenophobic isolationist by liberal hacks who are too busy learning to speak Spanish to be bothered with the growing concerns of the American citizens.

If you are old enough or lucky enough to have been raised by someone who counseled you to view people through their actions and not by their words then you probably wonder, as I do, if our government would let us know about an impending threat before it hit us or after it hit us, and if you’ve got any common sense whatsoever you already know the very obvious answer to that question because with the intense political demand for relaxed immigration enforcement and amnesty for what the Democratic Party views as more than 20 million new Democrats, the U.S. government is certainly not going to admit to anything that would alarm this country’s citizens to the deplorable lack of border security.  It is no longer a matter of if the Middle Eastern terrorists try to get into the United States because it is a well know and well substantiated fact that there are already hundreds if not thousands of radicalized anti-American Islamic fundamentalists who have entered this country illegally in the last five years and the vast majority of them were guided into this country across our unguarded southern border by Mexican soldiers, Mexican police officials and the same human smugglers that bring more than 8000 illegal aliens across that border every week.  In the meantime, our political representatives in Washington sit around very impressive tables pulling down three figure salaries at our expense while they discuss the pressing needs of illegal aliens children left behind as a result of our far too infrequent immigration raids.  

The Department of Homeland Security has admitted that there have been 231 documented incursions by Mexican military and law enforcement personnel into the U.S. since 1996 however, the DHS imparts no special significance to any of these incursions. 

On January 23, 2006, soldiers of the Mexican Army used .50-caliber machine guns mounted on the back of a camouflaged Mexican military Humvees to hold off 30 U.S. law enforcement officials including U.S. Border Patrol agents, Hudspeth County deputies and Texas Highway patrol officers, while the Mexican soldiers retrieved vehicles loaded with thousands of pounds of illegal drugs from the Rio Grande river where they were stuck.  Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security Secretary blamed the Mexican Army’s poor navigation skills for the incursion. 

In November of 2006, U.S. Border Patrol agents were forced to back down from the apprehension of a drug smuggler and a dump truck loaded with 3 tons of marijuana by a heavily armed group of men wearing Mexican military uniforms and carrying military-style weapons.

In January 2007, Hudspeth County deputies pursued three SUVs back to Mexico after spotting them driving north from the Rio Grande. The pursuit ended on the U.S. side of the border when the deputies encountered 10 heavily soldiers in what one sheriff described as battle-dress uniforms.

On September 7, 2007 that U.S. law-enforcement authorities chasing a drug smuggler in West Texas were fired on by Mexican soldiers armed with a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the back of a camouflaged Humvee.          

In every case the Mexican government denied the incursion and the Department of Homeland Security continues to claim that the incursions are not significant.

On August 21, 2006, Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas was quoted in the news as saying that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River. The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican. He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay human smugglers large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S.

On August 14, 2007, The Washington Times disclosed a confidential DEA report substantiating the link between Islamist sleeper cells in the U.S. and Mexican drug cartels. The report, which included several documented U.S. investigations into the terrorist/cartel connection, stated that Middle Eastern operatives funded terrorist groups with drug money linked to Mexican cartels.

An August 09, 2007 news item quoted Texas Republican Representative, John Culberson as saying, The DEA reported that Islamic radicals, disguising themselves as Mexicans, had hooked up with drug gangs in order to fund operations overseas as well as make use of the cartel’s established smuggling networks in order to move people and other contraband into the Southwestern United States.  Furthermore, in the same article Michael Maxwell, a senior analyst with the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee, said that the report is evidence that terrorism cells exist in the U.S. and are being aided by dangerous narco-trafficking cartels.

The American people need to wake up and pull their heads out of the sand.  The politically divided United States government is the single largest threat to our national security that we have ever faced. Millions of illegal aliens and a good number of Islamic terrorists are flocking over the southern border into the United States while tax-payer funded government agencies purposely look the other way and play down the importance of the threat these invaders pose to our continued security.  Thousands of illegal alien demonstrators brazenly flaunt their illegal status in massive protests across the nation and immigration authorities stand idly by doing nothing while these parasites pull down the American flag and raise the flag of Mexico.  The children of American citizens, the future leaders of this nation, are being denied a decent education in America’s tax-funded public schools that have been undermined by pro-illegal alien administrators who are more concerned with teaching multiculturalism than mathematics and reading.  Our hospitals and emergency care facilities are going bankrupt because 20 million illegal aliens with no intention of paying are using them as primary care providers.  Our prisons, our cities and our freeway systems are overcrowded with illegal aliens and our dwindling natural resources are evaporating at an accelerated rate as more than 8,000 new illegal aliens enter this country every week.  Despite all of this, our elected representatives continue to minimize the problem, find other things to blame it on and tirelessly work to provide more tax-funded benefits and more tax-funded entitlements to the criminal invaders who have absolutely no right to be here.  Meanwhile, millions of American citizens are still stumbling along under the blindly ignorant belief that their government has their best interests at heart and will let them know if there is a problem.  Wake Up!

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, amnesty,Mexico, Mexican Army, DHS, Border Patrol, FBI, Islamic terrorist, terrorist cells, terrorists

digg this | del.icio.us

In 1986 the United States Congress approved a general amnesty for the estimated 2.6 million illegal aliens then in the country.  This legislation was pushed as a “one time only” deal and along with tougher enforcement guidelines; it was supposed to resolve the illegal alien situation in this country in perpetuity.  The tougher enforcement guidelines were never implemented and the number of illegal aliens entering the U.S. increased by 1000%.  In the half-dozen years that followed this “permanent resolution” to the illegal alien problem, the U.S. Congress passed no less than another four or five amnesty bills and the problem continued to grow out of control.

During the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. presidential elections the immigration debate resurfaced, but despite the uncontrolled growth of the problem, the primary candidates of both major parties tip-toed around it and did everything possible to avoid having to address the situation directly.  The problem continued to grow out of control. 

By 2006 there were an estimated 18 to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, the U.S. Congress was debating several amnesty proposals, and the legal residents of this country were beginning to wake up to the serious nature of the illegal alien problem.  Both major parties resolved to put the issue on the back-burner, candidates were advised by their party officials to avoid the issue as much as possible, and the final outcome of the 2006 midterm elections was ultimately decided on everything but the illegal alien problem that continued to grow out of control.

The illegal alien revolution reached its peak shortly after the 110th session of the United States Congress began.  The Democratic National Party had made significant promises to the pro-illegal alien advocates during the 2006 midterm elections, they were impatiently waiting for their payback, and the Republican president was leaning in their direction.  From all angles, it looked like the best possible time to go for broke, push for comprehensive immigration reform, amnesty for the 20 million illegal aliens, increases for visa allotments and relaxed enforcement of the already nearly non-existent immigration enforcement laws.  The federal government released the questionable estimate that the population of illegal aliens was somewhere around 8 to 12 million, but as everyone could see for themselves, the numbers were growing out of control.        

In 2007 the illegal aliens living in the United States began crawling out from underneath their rocks in large numbers.  As the Democrats led their way into the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, massive public demonstrations attended by thousands of Hispanic aliens brazenly flaunting their illegal status began to march through the streets of America’s largest cities carrying Mexican flags.  In many well-documented instances Mexican Nationals illegally in the United States were televised pulling American flags from flag poles and replacing them with the flag of Mexico while local police and U.S. Immigration authorities stood watching.  The United States appeared to be inundated by not just illegal aliens, but by a large number of Hispanic and Latino political organizations that few had ever heard of, and an endless parade of less than articulate, Latino/Hispanic political advocates sporting tight fitting Che Guevara t-shirts, black berets and illogical, heavily rhetoric laden speeches condemning the American government and people as foreign “Gabachos” and racist pigs who stole the American Southwest from the great Mestizo nation of Azatlan which they were here to reclaim.  

Needless to say, these defiantly antagonistic outbursts by the Latino/Hispanic movement’s petulant radical element against the American people, American law and the American government resulted, quite predictably, in a substantial backlash by the legal residents of this country and the ensuing outrage destroyed, not just the carefully orchestrated plan to legitimize the presence of more than 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, but a number of other legislative schemes designed to provide illegal aliens with a variety of tax-payer funded benefits not afforded to U.S. citizens as well.  Strategically speaking, the decision to adopt a defiantly antagonistic, in-your-face approach was ill-advised and the repercussions were completely disastrous.  While demonstrations of Hispanic machismo might inspire heart throbbing reactions from the gum-smacking, Latina bimbos in the crowds, the average American Anglo who is normally a very generous and compassionate lot, felt anger and outrage.

There have been no credible studies regarding the reasons behind the Latino/Hispanic movement’s ill-advised justification for adopting a childish strategy that effectively insulted so many American citizens and there is certainly no public discussion of their seemingly stubborn refusal to adopt a less obnoxious approach despite the obvious damage their defiant antagonism continues to bring.  However, it is plainly evident that the Democratic National Party is working behind the scenes in their attempt to alleviate this glaring problem, and the quintessential question now appears whether or not the Democratic Party’s benevolent assistance and counsel to the pro-illegal alien advocates will be accepted or rejected by a movement that has no real sense of solidarity.      
The Democratic Party is the undisputed world leader in manipulative identity politics. They have long been recognized for their artistic ability in the field of fostering racial division for their own political advantage, and bagging the loyal support of the fastest growing minority group in the United States would be quite an accomplishment.  However, the leaders of the Latino/Hispanic movement are greatly divided and none of them are willing to take a back-seat or tone down their rhetorical assault on the American government or the people it represents.  While it is plainly evident that without the counsel, assistance and approval of the Democratic National Party, the Hispanic cause, such that it is, isn’t going to get off the ground, and the simple fact of the matter is, that even with the full support of the Democrats, the Reconquista crowd may once again self-destruct on the launch pad.

For many American citizens the less than articulate political advocates with their Che Guevara t-shirts, their black berets and their wild accusations look like a deranged mob of Mexican gang bangers whose brains have been irreparably damaged by lead-based candy, easily accessible drugs, cheap liquor and the sexual morality of wild goats.  The comically macho, squat bodied loud mouths venting their hysterical rage with the enthusiastic bravado of a pack of rabid Chihuahuas failed to impress the average American citizen in a positive manner.  When you consider the bill of goods these people are trying to sell us, the inevitable result was entirely expected.  The facts and the statistical evidence of the impact that illegal aliens have already had on the United States is undeniably negative and there is little the Democratic Party or the Latino political activists can say or do that will alter the facts in their favor.

12 Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens and another 13 people are killed every day by illegal aliens driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens.

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66%, 98% are illegal aliens.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are illegal aliens from Mexico.

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are illegal aliens from Mexico.

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are illegal aliens from Mexico.

More than half of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from Mexico and South America.

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

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

More than 34% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 24% do not speak English.

More than 39% of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 42% do not speak English.

More than 71% of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were stolen by illegal aliens.

Less than 2% of illegal aliens in the United States are picking crops, but 41% are on welfare.

62% of all illegal aliens in the United States are working for cash and not paying taxes.

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

Irrefutable evidence substantially supports the fact that the federal government and the American people need to resolve the serious threat that more than 20 million illegal aliens pose to our nation’s stability and security, and yet with the 2008 presidential election coming up both parties are, once again, tip-toeing around the issue.  The candidates are waffling back and forth, trying to obscure their past voting records on the issue and stressing other matters as being more important to the security of this nation and the welfare of its people.  Considering the current course of political debate, it appears that the 2008 presidential election will come and go, while more than 20 million illegal aliens quietly wait it out in the wings, their numbers continue to grow, and the problem remains unaddressed.

The current predictions for population growth in Mexico indicate that there will be more than 200 million people in that country by the end of this century and due to their strongly enforced immigration laws, less than 5% of that growth will be the result of immigration.  The country’s extremely high birth rate will sustain them despite the large number of Mexican citizens illegally entering the United States every year.  Mexico is not going to run out of people and the citizens of the U.S. can expect the unrelenting invasion of uneducated, low-skilled workers from Mexico to accelerate well beyond our capacity to sustain them with our dwindling supply of water, food, housing and other resources.  The politicians will inevitably place the burden squarely on the shoulders of the American citizens and the tax burden on the American working class will become even more unimaginable than it already is.  Ultimately, the United States as a nation will fail if this problem is not effectively and realistically addressed, and it may already be too late.  Free health care and an end to our military’s involvement in the Middle East may sound attractive to some people in this country but while we consider these enticements, realistic or otherwise, we are ignoring the high-speed, head-on collision with reality we are about to suffer if we don’t deal with the one real threat we are facing.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, amnesty, Democratic Party, 110th Congress

digg this | del.icio.us

LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN
Los Angeles, Alta California
January 23, 2007

“La Raza” stands behind Bill Richardson for US president
The National Council of La Raza as well as many national Latino civil rights organizations and pro-immigrant groups announced yesterday their solid support of New Mexico state Governor Bill Richardson for US president. The President of the National Council of La Raza, Janet Murguía, said, “This is a great and historic event for the Latino community and we should celebrate it.”

Richardson speaks perfect Spanish and his mother was born in Mexico. He is married, for over 30 years, to his high school sweetheart Barbara who was born in Nicaragua.

Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director of Movimiento Latino USA de Los Angeles, said that Richardson has a good chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination for president next year. Gutierrez added, “Even if he does not win, he will be in great position to negotiate with the victorious nominee, whether it be Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or one of the many other Democratic candidates.

Rosa Rosales, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) said that the New Mexican governor has great capacity to be an outstanding president. Rosales added, “We are proud and very happy that a Latino is today a candidate for president.”

Governor Bill Richardson is against building the US/Mexico border barrier, is for giving amnesty to undocumented Mexican workers and recently met with the new president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, to discuss issues of mutual concern.

Technorati Tags

Bill Richardson, La Raza, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, amnesty

digg this | del.icio.us

The Associated Press released the story about the rise in hate crimes yesterday morning and it predictably graced the front section of many American newspapers this morning.  The story is based on the FBI report indicating a nearly 8% rise in hate crimes between 2005 and 2006, and many American newspapers complimented their versions of the story with stock photos they deemed tastefully appropriate and statements from the Reverend Al Sharpton, the self-styled mouthpiece of Black America, whose lucrative lifestyle is entirely dependent upon the continued proliferation of hate crimes and the political leverage he can squeeze out of them.

For the benefit of any who are still somewhat confused by the term, a “Hate Crime” is a criminal act perpetrated by an individual or group of individuals motivated by the immutable characteristics of the victim, or by the victim’s association, or perceived association, with a specific social group.  These social groups are normally categorized by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.  Hate crimes are held to be different from conventional crimes by virtue of the belief that they victimize the entire social group to which the victim belongs as opposed to conventional crimes which only victimize the individual. 

While the exact logic behind questionable motive for those who created the concept of “hate crimes” remains somewhat evasive, I would speculate that it requires the perception of the actual victim of the crime committed as being symbolic of the larger group which is victimized by proxy, and that the criminal is not actually attacking the symbolic member of the group, but the entire group, which is the actual focus of the perpetrator’s hostility. 

Legislation related to hate crimes in the United States have grown out of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which essentially changed the perception that the protection of civil rights was a local function and enacted changes to the federal code necessary to bring violations of civil rights under the jurisdiction of the federal government.  In 1969 the principal federal hate crimes statute [18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2)] was enacted to permit the federal prosecution of anyone who “by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with… any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been” attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities.    

The six types of federally protected activities are:

1. Enrolling in or attending a public school or public college;
2. Participating in a service, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any state or local government;
3. Applying for employment; 
4. Serving in a state court as a juror or a prospective juror;
5. using of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier for travel;
6. Enjoying the goods or services in places of public accommodation.

Civil rights advocates welcomed the added protection of these changes, but at the same time they condemned the changes as being deficient to their needs because of the statutory requirement that a defendant be proved to have acted not only because of the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the victim’s participation in one of the six federally protected activities enumerated in the statute, which they viewed as being narrowly defined.  Furthermore, there were many who criticized the changes to the law because those changes provided no protection to those who felt that they were victimized as a consequence of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

The effort to mitigate these perceived deficiencies culminated in the passage of the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1994 by the 103rd U.S. Congress which provided a three-level sentencing guideline designed to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.  Furthermore, the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act contained the first legal definition of the term “Hate Crime.”  That definition states that a “hate crime” is “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property which is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of any person.”

The attempt to further expand federal hate crime statutes to specifically include crimes against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders is an ongoing effort and has significantly moved forward with the House passage of H.R. 1592 entitled the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007″  earlier this year.  At this point the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 has not been passed in the U.S. Senate and there is some speculation about whether or not President Bush will veto the legislation if it finally comes his way.  
All things considered, all criminal activity whether it is focused against individuals and against property should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the protection afforded by state and federal law must be applied equitably to all people without regard for the individual’s immutable characteristics for the very simple reason that this nation’s entire concept of equality is based on the Christian understanding that all of us are the children of God, equal in his eyes and therefore entitled to the equal protection of the law.

The prosecution and the implementation of increased sentencing guidelines for crimes motivated on the basis of an individual’s immutable characteristics, such as race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, and so on is inconsistent with the fundamental concept of equal protection under the law, and further divides the American people along artificially constructed lines by falsely emphasizing the importance of crimes against one group over the same crimes perpetrated against others.  Instead of pulling down the artificial barriers between racial, ethnic, religious and other social groups as true equality demands we do, hate crime legislation gives added emphasis to inequality by providing legal consideration to one group at the expense of another to which that consideration is denied.         

If there is a serious threat to the promise of equal protection to all American citizens in the U.S. today, that threat is not going to be ameliorated in the slightest by over-emphasizing the racial, gender, religious, and other differences between us because that over-emphasis is the root of separatism, and legally recognized separatism encourages and nourishes prejudice, it magnifies difference, and it fosters further antagonism by adding definition to the very division the equal rights movement has endeavored to erase.  The act of defining racial, ethnic and other boundaries in legal statutes makes it entirely impossible for people to overcome those dividing lines and become as one single entity.

Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court may view the issue of hate crimes, the cause of equal protection under the law is not furthered when the perpetrators of identical crimes are treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives. Gradual changes due to various legal interpretation and associative case law may eventually evolve to the dangerous point where even harsh criticism directed against a particular group might eventually be construed as a libelous hate crime.  The criminal penalties for those who violate our laws are, in most cases, sufficient, and whether or not a crime is considered a hate crime or a conventional crime, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. Society is not well served by dividing the actions of criminals into those who act without bias and those who act with it because doing so merely diminishes the equality of treatment that American law and American society have struggled to establish.

In today’s heavily polarized political environment it is all too common for minority factions to gain political power and status by real or imagined claims of oppression and victimization.  Status as an oppressed group, more commonly than not, leads to special protections and special considerations being offered by politicians who view this sort of identity politics as an opportunity to develop further support.  The legislation of hate crimes turns criminal activity into a political football.  It provides incentives to minority groups to pressure elected representatives for more hate crime prosecution, which they can then submit as further evidence of their specific group’s oppressed status and justify their need for additional special laws, special consideration, and special treatment.

Our society expresses the outrage of our communal pain and suffering when individuals are violated through our established criminal justice system.  If our laws are not sufficiently tough or are penalties too light to placate our communal need for justice and vengeance, then we should make them strong enough to fill that need, but we should not give greater legal importance to the grievances of one group over those of another because doing so erodes the core values that have unified our country and promotes separatism over equality.

Technorati Tags

hate crimes

digg this | del.icio.us

Bill Richardson, the chubby liberal governor of the illegal alien infested, crime ridden state of New Mexico, and decidedly handicapped 2008 presidential wannabe, condemned the Republican presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo as “an extremist” and a “one-issue candidate” shortly after the Colorado Congressman’s presidential campaign team released a 30 second television ad linking the threat of terrorist attack to our nation’s obvious lack of border security.

It is fairly safe to assume that Bill Richardson’s low opinion of Tom Tancredo will come as any great surprise to the Colorado Congressman.  He has been branded as an extremist by better men than Bill Richardson, and in the overall lineup of politically correct presidential candidates, anyone demonstrating more than a meager half-ounce of patriotism would stand out as an obvious extremist. 

If you take a hard look at the presidential front runners from both the Democratic and the Republican parties you are not going to find much in the way of extremism.  If anything, they all appear to be pretty much alike.  Aside from the meaningless campaign statements each of them has issued, they have all demonstrated a historic propensity for relaxed immigration enforcement and a general willingness to swing in either direction on just about everything else.  If you took the top three from each party and rendered them down to a point of distilled essence, there wouldn’t be sufficient substance remaining to create even the weakest of human personalities.  You could carve a more solid human being out of lump of Cool Whip.  There is nothing even remotely close to extreme about any of these wispy, nearly transparent front-runners.  Essentially they are entirely interchangeable, regardless of party affiliation.  While each may hold some deeply repressed, secret desire for greatness, none have the capacity for it, and minimal mediocrity will be the highest peak any of them will ever achieve if elected.

The United States of America that will be placed in the hands of the winning 2008 presidential candidate will be a nation that is more than $9 trillion dollars in debt.  It will be a nation that is entirely overrun by more than 20 million illegal invaders from every foreign nation on the planet.  It will be a nation threatened by radical religious fundamentalists with a demonstrated willingness to kill innocent civilians in massive numbers to achieve their political goals.  It will be a nation that is deeply divided and politically polarized by manipulative forces within and without, and a nation where far too many people have become too entirely dependent on governmental largess for their every personal need.  A nation standing at the crossroads facing the ultimate decision of going forward to an even greater future, or sliding backwards into obscurity, gradually increasing instability and eventual disintegration. 

The growing masses who see the U.S. government as the world’s largest milk-engorged tit will inevitably vote for the candidate who promises them the most, and the burden of funding the small number of promises kept will fall directly on the shoulders of the most productive members of our society.  Being a thoroughly optimistic sort of individual, and knowing history as I do, I possess a veritable bottomless well of infinite faith in the American people’s innate ability to make the worst possible selection at least nine out of every ten chances they are given.  Bearing this in mind, I feel secure in the prediction that we are facing a 99.8% chance of our next president being the most unmitigated disaster conceivable, and while this realization may summon forth images of Bill Richardson in the minds of many, I seriously doubt that he will be elected no matter how stupid the American people have become.

Bill Richardson is absolutely correct about Tom Tancredo, the man is an extremist.  Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were also called extremists in their day and if those men were alive to give us their counsel today, I can only wonder what they might have had to say about politicians like Bill Richardson.

Tom Tancredo may be a one-issue candidate, but the one issue he is prepared and qualified to deal with is the most pressing concern now facing the American people.  Illegal aliens are sucking the lifeblood out of this nation.  They are destroying our educational systems and our health care systems.  They have over-crowded our cities, our highways and our prisons, raped, abused, molested and murdered thousands of innocent American citizens and interfered in the political process of our nation.  Tancredo is the only candidate now running for president who has the qualifications, the dedication and the backbone necessary to stop the influx of illegal aliens into this nation, eliminate the ones that are here and hold the criminals accountable for their actions.  Tancredo may be a one issue candidate, but at least that one issue is the one that counts.

Tancredo may not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected by the crossways, slackass, apathetic bleeding hearts that make up this nation’s sorry population, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t the best man for the job, it doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t be the best president this nation could hope for under the current circumstances, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t vote for the guy, maybe three or four times.

Technorati Tags

Tom Tancredo, illegal aliens, Bill Richardson

digg this | del.icio.us

Jane Harman’s controversial bill, “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″, passed the House vote 404-6 last month and is currently awaiting almost certain acceptance by the U.S. Senate.  While it has been dubbed the “Thought Police Bill” by those who oppose the legislation, my initial review of the language exposed nothing that any American citizen should be particularly alarmed about.  The act, as it is written, actually does not prevent or prohibit anything and there are no provisions within it outlining or establishing any sort punishment or penalties.  Essentially the act would establish within the legislative branch of the Government a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.  The purpose of this commission would be to examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States.  In simpler terms, the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism is a study group and not an enforcement agency.

While the primary focus of this commission is undoubtedly identical to that undertaken by various research groups affiliated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement groups around the country, the commission created by Harman’s bill would have no power to arrest and detain suspected terrorists or violent radicals.  Their job would be to compile information from other groups and issue reports and while that may be an entirely redundant pastime in an over bloated government where redundancy is commonplace, I see no viable threat in the creation of such a commission beyond the obvious waste of taxpayer dollars.

Contrary to my perception of H.R. 1955, the bill has been greeted by many as a full blown threat to the constitutional rights of American citizens, and it has been compared to Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt for communists and the hearing conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Cold War.  However, after my review of the proposal I can’t help but voice the opinion that these comparisons seem vastly exaggerated and the camel’s nose argument is just as illogical when used against this proposal as it is when used elsewhere.  To be as clear as possible on this – unsubstantiated hysterical allegations do not constitute a valid argument.

While I will admit that there is a tendency among conservatively inclined individuals to attack anything proposed by the more liberal segment of our society as being silly, unwarranted and possibly dangerous, the fact remains that not every idea coming from the skull of a Democrat can be considered as being without merit.  If there is no agency in the United States government that serves as a collection point for information on domestic terrorism, there probably should be.  After all, it isn’t like it isn’t a problem, or that that it doesn’t need to be addressed and just because a Democrat came up with it doesn’t make it a bad idea.

Until someone can show me some substantial justification to oppose the Act as it is written I see no valid reason to attack it or the person who sponsored it.  Besides that, it is entirely possible that by studying the causes of domestic terrorism within our own country, the United States government will eventually realize that their own deceitful, dishonest and corrupt practices have created more desperation among U.S. citizens than any aberrant ideology could ever accomplish.

Technorati Tags

Jane Harman, H.R. 1955

digg this | del.icio.us