FUNGAZI.COM

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included rapes, murders and child molestation crimes committed by illegal aliens. Approximately 41 percent of the crimes were sexual homicides and serial murders.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to 2006 statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens – more than the U.S. death toll of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That’s more than 30,000 Americans killed by illegal aliens since Sept. 11, 2001.

Read More

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens

digg this | del.icio.us

On August 21, 2008 The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article about another beneficiary of San Francisco city official’s policy of shielding juvenile felons who are also illegal aliens from possible deportation. This time it was an illegal alien from Mexico with at least two prior arrests as a juvenile for gang-related assaults. His name is Eric Antonio Uc-Cahun, he is now 19 years old, he is still an illegal alien and he was still on probation for his other criminal offenses when he and several other gang members jumped a man they thought was a member of another gang as he waited for a ride on the 2700 block of Bayshore Boulevard in Daly City. Uc-Cahun and his fellow gang members beat their victim bloody with a broomstick, stripped off his jacket and Uc-Cahun attempted to finish the victim off with a box-cutter. Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County stated that Eric Antonio Uc-Cahun “basically gutted him, like you gut a pig to get to the meat.” Fortunately, the man survived and later identified Uc-Cahun as the man who attacked him with the box cutter.

Uc-Cahun’s history of violent juvenile offenses in San Francisco is similar to that of Edwin Ramos, the 21-year-old Salvadoran native facing triple-murder charges for the June slayings of a San Francisco man and two of his sons on an Excelsior district street. Both Ramos and Uc-Cahun benefitted from the San Francisco’s sanctuary laws and were shielded from possible deportation that would have resulted if the city had notified the federal immigration authorities when they were previously arrested.

After being arrested for this latest attempt to kill someone, Uc-Cahun managed to smuggle a note out of his jail cell to one of his gang friends providing the name and address of the man they had assaulted and the suggestion that his friend “take care of things” for him. The San Francisco police got wind of the smuggled note and executed a search warrant at the house being used by gang members where they found the letter. Eric Antonio Uc-Cahun has been charged with witness intimidation along with attempted murder, robbery and other gang-related counts.

It is not known how many other violent felons the city of San Francisco has shielded from deportation like they did with Eric Antonio Uc-Cahun and with Edwin Ramos. The residents of San Francisco will have to wait until they are victimized by one of these predators before discovering where the next one will strike because the city officials aren’t talking.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, sanctuary, San Francisco

digg this | del.icio.us

The latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey indicates that Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President.  John McCain is now leading the race by a 46% to 41% margin.

The Full News Release

Technorati Tags

John McCain, Barack Obama

digg this | del.icio.us

If you’ve been thinking that every African-American voter in this nation is planning to vote for Barack Obama then I’ve got a surprise for you. Here’s one black man, a minister, who is not afraid to speak his peace about Obama, and pretty passionately as well.  If you haven’t seen this, you should – it’s a joy to hear.

The Last Hundred Days

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama

digg this | del.icio.us

I‘ve got no burning love for Wal-Mart. I don’t shop there regardless of what they might be selling or how cheap it is. If they offered something that I really wanted at a price $20 bucks cheaper than their competitor, I would buy from their competitor and be more than happy to pay the extra money. I really don’t like Wal-Mart. I’ve personally seen how they treat their employees, and it is with absolute conviction that I say that, if I were facing starvation and homelessness, I would resort to robbing Wal-Mart Stores long before I would consider going to work for them. In the late 90′s I witnessed the impact one Wal-Mart had on a small Arizona community. They supplied quite a few low-paying jobs and relatively cheaper prices but they destroyed most of the town’s small retail outlets, and the family owned and operated businesses that had served the area honestly for decades simply couldn’t compete. Destroying all of the small competitors in town is not the full extent of the impact suffered. By moving into a small close-knit community and throwing up a big-box store that offers similar goods at drastically lower prices, Wal-Mart not only destroys their competition, they enter a new area with the conscious determination to undermine the loyalty of their competitor’s customer base, and in many cases, that loyalty was the accumulated result of faithful service over a long periods of time. Selling similar good at cheaper prices is a well accepted business practice that few would find fault with, however, setting out with the conscious intention to destroy the long-term trust and friendly relationships built up over many years between small but very dedicated family owned businesses and their neighborhood customers is purposely devious, and regardless of whether or not it is perfectly legal to do so, it is still unethical. Wal-Mart does not compete, they destroy, and after they’ve destroyed, they gloat about their ability ruin their competition. As I said, the impact of Wal-Mart goes beyond the destruction of their small competitors because the success of their effort is contingent on dividing the community, destroying long term relationships, undermining trust and tempting the morally challenged, weak-minded customers with cheap goods at even cheaper prices. Having a Wal-Mart move into a small town is the economic and psychological equivalent of being invaded by vampires. I am not a fan of Wal-Mart.

Regardless of what I think about Wal-Mart stores, I found myself supporting them when I read this morning’s newspaper article about how the AFL-CIO and three other labor groups have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether Wal-Mart acted illegally when they forced their employees to attend meetings with store managers and supervisors for the purpose of lecturing them on the evils of electing liberal politicians. Apparently, Wal-Mart is concerned that if the Democrats prevail in the November elections they consider it very likely that they will pass legislation to remove the National Labor Relations Board requirement for secret ballot elections with respect to labor union organizing campaigns.

The final determination of whether or not a labor union can organize a company’s workforce is reached by a secret ballot election overseen by the National labor Relations Board. The labor union only needs to collect the signatures of 30% of a company’s employees to file a petition with the NLRB and force a vote. If the majority of the employees vote for union representation, the company really has no recourse in the matter. In states where there is no “Right To Work” protection, the employees who do not want to belong to the union also have little recourse in the matter. Once the ballots are counted and the union is found to be the victor, then all of the employees in job classifications claimed by the labor organizers either become union members and pay their monthly dues accordingly, or the become agency members and pay their monthly dues accordingly. Union members are the active rank and file body of the union along with the officers or administrative personnel who run the operation. Agency members are those who object to the union. Agency people are not considered members of the union by the “real” union members, even though they are required to pay the same monthly amount as the regular membership. The NLRB, in their infinite wisdom many years ago, determined that forcing employees into joining a union violated their constitutional rights, however, since agency members and union members were both regulated by the working agreement and benefit agreement negotiated between the labor union and the employer, it was determined that agency members should pay an equivalent amount in dues rather than get a free ride at the expense of the union members who did pay. The representatives of the NLRB approach union organizing drives and these secret ballot elections with serious intent.

The secret ballot election is designed to give the prospective union members their one final chance to determine their future. When the individual employee steps into the booth to cast his or her ballot there is no pressure from other workers, union officials or company supervision. No one will ever know how the individual employee voted and it is a classic demonstration of democracy in action. Unfortunately, for the labor unions, most secret ballot elections turn out against them and the vast majority of organizing drives conducted by labor unions fail in the secret ballot elections.

According to the labor unions, the reason so many organizing efforts fail during the secret ballot elections is that employers put an incredible amount of pressure on their workers in the days and weeks leading up to the election. Companies are allowed to conduct mandatory meetings with their employees prior to these elections. During these meetings the company’s are given extreme latitude with regard to how they approach the topic of a unionized workforce. They are free to make all sorts of subtle and not so subtle threats, they can make every attempt to discredit the union, its officers and it’s practices, they can lie to their employees with near total impunity and they can make promises they have no intention of keeping. In one on one meeting between supervisors and workers, the company can work to divide the employees, pitting one group against the other and fracturing their sense of cohesiveness. In many cases, employers have resorted to tactics of outright bribery targeting key workers known to be influential. However, in reality, most company’s do not resort to such drastic measures and, more often than not, if mandatory meetings are called, it is simply an opportunity for the company to advise their employees that if they chose to become union members it will alter the employer/employee relationship in ways that are not always beneficial. Ultimately, when the employee steps into the voting booth to cast his or her ballot, everything the employer has said, as well as everything the union has said, is put aside and the employee makes the decision. If the employer runs an operation that is cheap, dangerous and tends to be heavily oppressive towards the workers that supervision regard as being somewhat less than human, then there is a distinctly high probability for the union’s success. On the other hand, when the company is not that bad, attempts to treat their workers fairly, pays their people fairly and treats them with respect then there is a distinctly high probability that the union’s organizing drive is going to go down in flames.

The established procedure for reaching the determination of whether or not a company should allow it’s workers to become collectively organized is both efficient and equitable. The employees who will be have to live with the decision to join a union are the ones who make the choice and the secret ballot election is the best possible mechanism for each individual to express his or her desire in this regard. As I stated above, it is a classic demonstration of democracy in action and nothing could be more fair than the accurately tallied results of a secret ballot election. That is, unless you are a union organizer on the wrong side of the employee’s decision.

The legislation that Wal-Mart spoke out against is the same legislation that is fully endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the other three complaining parties. This proposed law is an abridgement of the National Labor Relations Act that would effectively eliminate the democratic secret ballot election now required by law. The elimination of the secret ballot election would allow labor organizers the ability to organize a company’s workers and force that company into contract negotiations once the union got 30% of the workers to sign a petition. In other words, once the union managed to intimidate, threaten or cojole 30% of the company’s workers into signing their petition, the entire workforce would union represented and no vote would be necessary or required because the democratic process for making the determination would be scraped entirely. Thirty percent of the employees would make the decision for 100% of the work force and the AFL-CIO ludicrously believes that this would be the epitome of fairness for all parties concerned.

Eighty-five cents of every dollar collected by American labor unions eventually finds its way into the campaign coffers of the Democratic National Party or the candidates they support and the rank and file union members have little or no say in the matter. Union members who are registered as members of the Republican Party and union members who are registered as members of the Democratic Party all pay the same amount of union dues. A small percentage goes to pay for the operation of the union’s office and the wages for their staff members, and the rest of it (in some cases up to 85%) is used to make contributions to Democratic politicians and political action groups supporting Democratic politicians. Every year American labor unions funnel more than $500 million from their union treasuries directly into Democratic campaign coffers. As a reward for their dedicated service ( and funding) to the Democratic Party, the Democratic politicians routinely promise the labor unions everything they ask for, and when the AFL-CIO approached them about legislation to eliminate the NLRB’s requirement for secret ballot elections, the Democrats were all too happy to oblige. This is not some half-cocked conspiracy theory, this is an easily substantiated fact of public record.

The misleadingly named “Employee Free Choice Act” ( S. 1041) was carried to the floor of the U.S. Senate by none other than God’s own liberal, the Democratic Senator, Ed Kennedy. The bill boasted 46 co-sponsors including the uber-charismatic senator from Illinois and current Democratic candidate for U.S. President, Barack Obama. The House or Representative version (H.R. 800) quickly passed by a vote of 241 to 185 but when the U.S. Senate voted on the motion to invoke cloture the vote came back 51 against and 48 in favor. Because 60 positive votes were necessary to invoke cloture in the Senate and none of the senatorial representatives were inclined to change, it was determined that the the misunderstood Democrats would not be able to deliver on their promise to the labor unions during the 110th United States Congress and the union organizers would just have to put up with things the way they are until the congressional balance could be changed and the Democrats gained full control over the entire United States government.

Orrin Hatch, the U.S. Senator from Utah summed up the entire escapade perfectly in his press release following the introduction of the bill by Senator Kennedy, when he stated, “This bill is unionization by intimidation, we wouldn’t allow politicians to bully voters at the ballot box, and we shouldn’t allow unions to do the same to employees. It seems obvious that big labor just wants to rebuild its membership rolls – and its bank account – through a forced unionization process.”

Senator Kennedy was trying to fulfill the Democratic Party’s promise to it’s union fund raisers by giving them the elimination of the Democratic secret ballot elections, and that was just the icing on the cake. The Employee Free Choice Act also contained the provision that, if the labor union and the company couldn’t reach an agreement within 90 days the government would step in and impose a generic labor agreement (developed with the assistance and guidance of the AFL-CIO) mandating the wages, terms and conditions of employment for two years and entirely denying the employees any chance to ratify or reject the terms of this agreement. Furthermore, even if the majority of employees were opposed to the agreement and the union representation, they would be prohibited from initiating a union decertification election for the entire two year period. This is what the Democratic Party and the labor unions who pay their way consider the ultimate in employee “Free Choice.”

Wal-Mart might be entirely lacking in ethics, they might be the biggest carnivore in America’s business environment, and they might be the last retail store company on the planet that I would endorse, but they are obviously not stupid. They realize that if the American voters elect a Democratic president in 2008 and the Democratic Party assumes full control over the United States government following that election, the American labor unions will, most assuredly, be granted their every desire, and the Employee Free Choice Act will be just a small part of the atrocious pro-union legislation passed for their benefit. With the changes wrought by the employee Free Choice Act the labor unions would finally be able to force Wal-Mart and every other union-resisting employer in the U.S. to their knees before the altar of collective bargaining. The ranks of the labor unions would swell to hundreds of times their current size. The union treasuries would overflow with the union dues taken from their members hard earned wages and, as the Democratic Party well knows, the vast percentage of that increased cash flow would end up in the pockets of Democrats where it would virtually guarantee them a strangle hold on American politics far into whatever future this nation might have remaining.

Wal-Mart stands in opposition to the Democratic Party and to legislation like the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act for their own self-serving reasons, and while the enemy of my enemy might not be exactly my friend, I reluctantly am forced to admit that, despite their motivation, Wal-Mart is correct when they tell their employees that if this nation falls to the control of the Democrats in November, life for American workers is going to become very difficult and any benefit, derived from the changes they and their friends in the labor unions impose, will not only be hard to discern but will result in substantial hardships and a reduction of personal rights for most American workers.

American workers have precious few actual rights guaranteed to them by law and the right to secretly cast their ballot during the determination process of a labor union’s organizing drive is something that should never be given away without a strong and determined fight. America’s workforce can not increase their strength by voluntarily reducing their own legal rights in the workplace, it can only make them that much weaker and any labor union or union official that suggests otherwise is a charlatan who is allowing their personal desire for power and control to outweigh the best interests of the union members.

If labor unions want to increase their membership they should do it by offering better and more honest service to their membership, and not by going behind their member’s backs to disreputable politicians who are willing to eradicate the few existing rights that American workers now have so that even more disreputable union leaders can enlarge their sense of power as well as their already lavish financial lifestyle at the forced expense of the unwilling.

Technorati Tags

AFL-CIO, labor union, Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Orrin Hatch, Edward Kennedy, NLRB, Wal-Mart

digg this | del.icio.us

Cleves, Ohio police officers picked up 33 year old Jose Manuel Sanchez-Rojaz for questioning in regard to a car theft that took place on Tuesday, August 12, 2008. In the process of questioning Sanchez-Rojaz the deputies discovered that the man had given them a false name and date of birth. Subsequent to this discovery, Sanchez-Rojaz was charged with giving false information to a police officer during an investigation and obstructing justice. At this point Sanchez-Rojaz advised the deputies that he was an illegal alien. It is speculated that his motivation for this admission was related to his belief that he would be turned over to the federal immigration authorities and deported to Mexico instead of having to do prison time in the United States. After the investigators began asking him for more information regarding his immigration status, Sanchez-Rojaz told one of the deputies that he could find out everything he wanted to know by contacting the U.S. immigration officials because, he stated they “know me very well.” When the investigators asked him to clarify this comment Jose Manuel Sanchez-Rojaz told them in a very matter of fact way that it was because he had already been deported from the United States at least 24 different times in the past.

Subsequent to this interview Sanchez-Rojaz was taken to the Hamilton County Justice Center where he incarcerated pending further investigation and possible trial for the criminal charges filed against him. Officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement were notified.

It goes without saying that Sanchez-Rojaz should probably be included in the Guinness Book of World Records for having been deported from the U.S. more than any other illegal alien in recorded history, but having said that, I don’t believe that this is a world record that we should encourage. To this end, I believe that the United States government should make an example of Jose Manuel Sanchez-Rojaz by either giving him a minimum prison sentence of at least 20 years, turn him over to medical school students for experimentation and eventual dissection, or by taking him down to the border and ventilating his forehead with a large caliber pistol. The last thing we should do is to deport this scum-bag to Mexico so he can return to the United States again a few weeks later.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens

digg this | del.icio.us

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved an ordinance yesterday that will require new big-box home improvement stores built in the future to provide illegal alien day laborers with shelter, drinking water, bathrooms and trash cans. This ordinance would mandate that all proposed retail outlets fitting the description would receive conditional-use permits requiring them to construct day-labor centers adjacent to their facilities to accommodate the illegal alien laborers routinely attracted to loiter near these business establishments.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who first proposed the ordinance four years ago, said that this was just the first phase and that he planned to address existing home improvement stores next. He stated that the businesses needed to be held accountable for their role in attracting day workers.

Los Angeles City Councilman Eric Garcetti stated that “This is an example for the nation.”

Home Depot officials commented that they were disappointed by the L.A. council’s vote. I can only imagine. They probably flipped completely out when they heard the news.

When Councilman Eric Garcetti said that this was “an example for the nation,” he couldn’t have been more accurate, and the only problem with his statement is that he meant it as being a positive thing when it is actually far from it. Garcetti and Parks, like 99.999% of the remaining Los Angeles City Council members, have their heads so far up the butts of LA’s plentiful supply of Hispanic advocates that their brains have died from the lack of oxygen.

The city of Los Angeles, like San Francisco and a good many large metropolitan cities in the US are drowning in economic problems due, primarily, to the fact that they have been overrun by unskilled illegal aliens, and if anyone should be held accountable for the presence of so many illegal border hoppers, it certainly isn’t Home Depot or any of the other big retail outlets, it’s the city officials who pass sanctuary ordinances, laws that permit illegal aliens to receive welfare and educational policies that benefit illegal aliens more than American citizens. Anybody that thinks these characters are flocking across the border so they can hang out in a Home Depot parking lot looking for an occasional odd job simply does not have a functioning brain. Los Angeles attracts illegal aliens because Los Angeles is willing to hand out more than 500 million tax dollars every year to them, no questions asked. Los Angeles attracts illegal aliens because Los Angeles is willing to overlook their illegal immigration status when they are caught raping a six year old child, and every illegal alien caught committing a crime in the city knows that when they are eventually released, it will be back to the streets of LA. Los Angeles attracts illegal aliens because Los Angeles refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities except on their own terms or in especially egregious criminal cases where multiple dead bodies are left in the streets.

For the record, I have personally witnessed Home Depot security guards chasing illegal alien day laborers off of their store’s property, and I know that most of these home improvement stores do not allow them to congregate in their parking lot. Having a gaggle of illegal aliens trolling around in your parking lot is bad for business. Women shopping for flowers and landscaping items aren’t going to wade through a bunch of illegal alien half-wits to get into your store. Customers are not going to park in your lot if they think someone is going to break into their car or piss all over it as soon as they walk off. If an illegal alien trips over his shoe laces and falls on his face in your parking lot, you can bet your lumber department that you will get sued by him and by his wife and kids. You could also find yourself getting sued by anyone who hires one of your illegal aliens and ends up getting robbed for the effort, after all, as a responsible business man you should have known the danger you were creating by offering that service.

While I am not a lawyer, I can think of two perfectly sound reasons why any store wouldn’t want to comply with the Los Angeles City Council’s less than brilliant idea.  If you, as the owner of this store, supply these illegal aliens with shelter on your property, drinking water, bathroom and trash facilities, and you are the person who creates the rules they are supposed to follow while they are using your property to find odd jobs then you are setting yourself up for some real savvy lawyer to make the argument that you are actually their employer and owe them benefits and back wages. The federal government has around thirty different definitions for the word “employer” depending on what federal agency you are looking at, and some of these definitions are extremely flexible. Even a mediocre lawyer could probably wrap one of them around you if you voluntarily chose to cooperate with this insane idea.   The other good reason is that, if the federal government, which is not always that impressed with California’s liberal laws, decides that what you are doing with your “Day Laborer Center” is actually nothing more than harboring illegal aliens, you are in deep Bandini. Aiding an illegal alien is a federal crime and it is a felony punishable by up to five years in a federal prison. All it takes is one federal bureaucrat with nothing better to do that day and you could end up with an extended vacation in someplace like Lompoc or Terminal Island, and if you think the Los Angeles City Council is going to rush in and save you then you are either dreaming or you’re an idiot. Just because the Los Angeles City Council or the state of California passes something they call a “law”, it doesn’t mean that the feds can’t throw you in jail. The sale of marijuana was legalized in the state of California for medicinal purposes and you can find a lot of the people who opened up pot dispensaries in the state now residing in federal prisons around the country.

If I were the owner of one of these stores I would just pack it all up in a bunch of large moving vans and move my entire operation (and my portion of the tax revenue) to Arizona. Hell, the state of Arizona might even pay the moving expense to get me there. It might be a little warmer there but no matter how warm it gets in Arizona, it still beats a federal prison cell.

Technorati Tags

illegal aliens, Los Angeles, sanctuary, Bernard Parks, Eric Garcetti

digg this | del.icio.us

Barack Obama may be the most popular guy in America today, at least according to the news media, but he appears to be losing ground in his bid for the U.S. presidency. During the Pennsylvania primary it was discovered that Obama lost by 40 points among the state’s Catholic voters and speculation at the time seemed to point towards his pro-abortion stance as a member of the U.S. Senate as being the cause.

Since Barack Obama is first, last and foremost, a politician it can be safely assumed that he would realize that the loss of support from this nation’s Catholic voters could be a real problem for him. After all, there are nearly 70 million Catholics in the U.S. and they make up approximately 20% of the electorate. Not only that but the Catholics have a fairly good track record for picking winners, which they have successfully done in eight of the last nine presidential elections. In a close election, Catholics can tip the scales one way or the other and Barack Obama is very aware of the fact that his chances for a successful outcome in November are going to be seriously reduced if he doesn’t gain the support of the Catholic leadership.

In the effort to mitigate this problem, the very cunning Barack Obama has tried to confuse his stance on the issue somewhat. As worried as he might be about the Catholics, he is even more concerned with keeping the pro-choice crowd happy and he knows that he can only backpedal so far without risk. To this point Obama has been reduced to playing word games with the abortion issue. On the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision he stated “I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies.” He goes on to cover his pro-abortion record using some simple misdirection to avoid speaking of his voting record on abortion. “In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I’ve worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis’ bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.” Contraceptives are one thing but abortion is a completely different animal. While Obama admitted in the Roe v. Wade celebration speech that, “Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America,” but he did not address the true depth of his support for America’s abortion industry.

The Obama campaign have repeatedly called foul on every assertion that Barack Obama opposed the Illinois state legislation that would have protected infants surviving the attempt to kill them during an abortion. For the sake of clarification, this bill was designed solely to protect the life of infants that have somehow managed to survive the abortion process and would remain alive outside their mother’s womb if given the opportunity. This is a lot more common than most people would believe, and rather than suffer the embarrassing consequence of trying to figure out what to do with these children, the doctors and nurses working in the abortion clinics and hospitals routinely drown the child by submerging it face first in the medical waste pan or they leave it to die of neglect on a storage room shelf. The Illinois state Born Alive Infant Protection Act was designed to protect the lives of these survivors and Barack Obama opposed it. In fact, Barack Obama has voted to oppose no less than three similar acts of legislation aimed at protecting infants that survived abortion procedures. To be very clear, these are not unborn children still in their mother’s womb, these are children that have been born alive during the abortion procedure and children that would remain alive if given even the slightest chance to do so.

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. This statement earned Barack Obama the full support of The National Organization for Women who view it as a positive because it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. Furthermore, it may well be that Obama’s Freedom of Choice Act might very well solve the problem of infants being born alive during abortion procedures by effectively reversing the congressional ban on partial-birth abortions which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. During a partial-birth abortion, the doctor penetrates the brain of the child with scissors to create an opening for a suction tube. After the child’s brain matter is suctioned out the skull can easily be crushed to ease the child’s passage through the birth canal and into the waste bin. No children survive a partial-birth abortion, and if Obama can lift the congressional ban on this procedure, which he views as a “legitimate medical procedure,” the problem of infants being born alive during abortion procedures would become effectively resolved forever.

To say that Barack Obama strongly supports a women’s right to chose abortion is to understate the candidate’s stance on the issue. During Barack Obama’s entire political career he has resolutely opposed every attempt to regulate or restrict the practice of abortion regardless of when it occurs during a pregnancy and obviously even extending it to include children who manage to survive the abortion procedure.

The Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate has gone further than any U.S. senator has ever dared go with respect to a women’s right to kill her unborn child, euphemistically referred to as abortion, and while his proclivity for social welfare programs and his support for illegal aliens may earn him some headway with this nation’s Catholic voters, Obama’s radical support for abortion practices that cross the border into the realm of infanticide will prove to be a massive stumbling block for the millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama, abortion

digg this | del.icio.us

The Los Angeles city council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee unanimously approved an ordinance that will effectively force all home improvement stores in the city to violate federal immigration laws against harboring illegal aliens and place the owners in serious jeopardy of being fined, imprisoned and possibly losing their businesses to government seizure and forfeiture of their property.

The ordinance, if approved by the full city council would require home improvement stores that are 100,000 square feet or larger to set aside space for illegal aliens seeking employment from the store’s customers. Furthermore, the store owners would be required to provide the illegal aliens they are being forced to harbor with drinking water, bathrooms, tables and chairs and trash facilities.

The term “Harboring” as it relates to U.S.C. Section 1324 of Title 8 is defined as any conduct that tends to substantially facilitate an alien to remain in the United States illegally. Specific knowledge by the store’s owners that individuals using the supplied space for day laborers are, in fact, illegal aliens is not required. Under the provisions of federal law if a reasonable person could logically suspect that any of the individuals who are using the store’s supplied day laborer space are illegal aliens and the owner takes no action to impede the illegal alien’s use of his or her property, the store owner’s failure to act appropriately can be considered as reckless disregard of federal law. Store owners acting in reckless disregard of the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that their facilities are being used by individuals who have violated federal immigration law by entering the country without legal authorization, or by individuals who have entered the country with legitimate visas that are now expired, is committing a federal felony and may be subject to criminal fines, imprisonment up to five years, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Furthermore, private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions and treble damages against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). The pattern of racketeering activity is defined as commission of two or more of the listed crimes. A RICO enterprise can be any individual legal entity, or a group of individuals who are not a legal entity but are associated in fact.

The city of Los Angeles has encouraged illegal aliens to enter the United States by offering them sanctuary from federal immigration authorities for 29 years. The city’s implementation of “Special Order 40″ was the result of the city council’s hysterical fear that the Los Angeles Police Department would target individuals of Hispanic descent with arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement activity, and it precludes police officers from asking a person about his or her alien status and from notifying federal immigration authorities about a person’s undocumented status. Furthermore, the Los Angeles police officers are prohibited from arresting and/or booking criminals who have violated Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Code and in most cases, even when an known illegal alien is arrested for a serious felony such as rape, murder or sex crimes against children, the LAPD has a long historical track record of not notifying the federal immigration authorities. As a consequence of the LAPD’s failure to notify the INS when illegal aliens are arrested for serious felony crimes, the perpetrators of those criminal offenses are routinely released from prison and allowed to remain in California where they pose a serious danger to the legal residents of the state.

Ninety-five percent of all outstanding arrest warrants for homicide in the city of Los Angeles are for illegal aliens and more than two thirds of all fugitive felony arrest warrants in the city are for illegal aliens. In 1995 a confidential California Department of Justice study revealed that more than 60% of the estimated 20,000 members belonging to the violent Southern California 18th Street Gang were illegal aliens and local police have stated that the percentage is actually much greater than alleged in this report. Luis Li, the former chief of the criminal branch of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney stated in 2002 that the leadership of the Colombian Lil’ Cycos street gang, which uses murder and racketeering strategies to control the drug trade around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was made up of about 60% illegal aliens. Both of these illegal alien street gangs have well substantiated ties to the Mexican Mafia, a dominant force in California’s prisons, both have well established records for extortion, drive-by assassinations, assaults and robberies committed throughout Los Angeles County on a daily basis, and both are known to be involved in smuggling rings that bring illegal aliens into Southern California and force them to pay off their transportation debts by selling illegal drugs on the Streets of Los Angeles and nearby Hollywood. Despite the knowledge that these very predatory criminals are, in fact, illegal aliens any police officer who would place one of them under arrest, or even notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service of their residence in the area would face severe disciplinary action for violating Special Order 40.

The city of Los Angeles, like the other 29 sanctuary cities in California, gives the usual excuse for implementing their sanctuary ordinance, this being that sanctuary policies encourage illegal-alien crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops without fear of deportation, and that they encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of city services like health care and education, (at the expense of the legal tax-paying residents who are forced subsidize those services). There has never been any empirical attempt to validate the theory that sanctuary laws like Special Order 40 actually accomplish their intended goal, however, there is a significant and growing body of evidence supporting the belief that sanctuary laws allow violent illegal alien street gangs the ability to retaliate easily and savagely against any potential witnesses who might speak against them. In fact, an expose on the criminal activities of the 18th Street Gang, published by the Los Angeles Times in 1996, included a description of innocent bystanders being murdered by laughing illegal alien gang members while witnesses turned their heads to avoid seeing the faces of those involved in the crime. Following the same logic offered by the advocates of illegal alien sanctuary laws, our police should avoid enforcing drug laws for fear of intimidating drug addicted crime victims. Logically, the usual excuse given for implementing illegal alien sanctuary laws simply does not hold water.

The actual justification for implementing illegal alien sanctuary laws which prohibit police from reporting immigration violators is not to encourage witnesses to come forward or to encourage illegal aliens to participate in city services for which they pay little or nothing in return. The actual justification for implementing these insane laws and jeopardizing the safety and well-being of their legal residents is acquiescence to the hysterical demands of illegal alien advocacy groups like La Raza who threaten expensive legal actions based on imaginary allegations of discrimination targeting Hispanics. Another justification is the simple fact that, as a direct result of the city’s tolerant attitude towards illegal aliens, millions of illegal aliens have been encouraged to take up residence in the county and the population of illegal aliens in Southern California has grown so large that public officials are terrified to death of alienating these criminal invaders. It should also be noted that the Los Angeles city council is primarily comprised of liberally inclined politicians with known aspirations of higher office and they have self-servingly fought to benefit illegal aliens with everything from driver’s licenses to voting rights for the obvious reason that they want the support of these criminal invaders in future elections. Then again, the very obvious relationship between liberal politicians and the illegal aliens who support them is not limited to California alone, it is clearly evident in every state in the nation as well as it is evident in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.

To the best of my knowledge, the Los Angeles ordinance requiring privately owned home improvement stores in the city to harbor illegal aliens is the only extension of a city’s sanctuary policy that would effectively force American citizens into a position where they were required to violate the federal laws against harboring illegal aliens. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future, and especially so if the federal government decides to step in and enforce the existing immigration laws by arresting or convicting home improvement store owners and seizing their property, which is entirely feasible under the provisions of U.S.C. 1324. Furthermore, there is the distinct possibility that private citizens residing in the city and outraged by this ridiculous ordinance will file civil actions against store owners complying with the city’s ordinance, and very possibly, reap lucrative financial rewards for their efforts.

The 29 sanctuary cities existing in the state of California have served as the welcome mat on the front porch of our nation for the estimated more than 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. The encouragement these cities have offered to illegal aliens is one of the primary attractions for the increasing number of illegal entries across our southern border with Mexico and it can be directly related to the abysmal economic situation of the entire state as well as similar economic hardships being suffered by other large cities around the nation. It has been estimated that nearly half of the illegal aliens in the United States are residing in California and it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the state of California serves as the nation’s primary distribution point for illegal aliens spreading across the country. Additionally, it has been further established the spread of illegal aliens across the nation from California and more specifically, from the city of Los Angeles, has resulted in the spread of street gang activity and an increased rate of violent crimes all across the nation.

The city of Los Angeles boasts the image of being the most luxurious and progressive city in the nation, but the reality is far different. The filthy streets of downtown Los Angeles are a hotbed of criminal violence, moral depravity and corruption where violent street gangs prey on the innocent with impunity and law enforcement officers struggle to function in fear for their lives. There are more convicted sexual predators per square mile in Los Angeles County than any where else in the nation and it leads the country in the production of the vilest pornographic films even the most debased mind could ever hope to imagine. The public schools of Los Angeles serve as large open-air marketplaces for every conceivable form of illicit narcotics and their reputation for failing to impart any useful knowledge to their students has earned them the well-deserved reputation for being some of the most incompetent schools in the nation. Despite the glamorous image the city portrays and the millions of dollars spent in marketing efforts aimed at pulling in tourists from all across the planet, Los Angeles is a veritable and irrefutable cesspool threatening to spread its infectious contagion across America.

Technorati Tags

Los Angeles, Special Order 40, illegal aliens, sanctuary cities, sanctuary, La Raza

digg this | del.icio.us

There has been a lot of discussion about how important it is for voters to properly research the presidential candidates prior to making any decision about who they will vote for, and it has been suggested that visiting each candidate’s web site, reading their views on the issues and spending time reading articles published by credible information sources about each candidate and their stand on important issues, is a good way to build an informed perspective. While I believe that this would be a good starting place for anyone, I have serious doubt that this alone will be sufficient to give anyone an accurate picture of any given candidate. For one thing, there is a great deal of debate about what exactly constitutes a “credible information source” in news media and for another, what a candidate talks about during a campaign, including his or her statements of policy, officially expressed positions on important issues, and campaign promises made to various groups encountered during campaign speeches, are often found to be diametrically opposed to what that candidate has expressed in the past, and in some cases are entirely contradictory to the position that candidate has actively supported as indicated by his or her recorded voting record while in office. Admittedly, while this raises a quandary over whether or not you believe what someone says today or what they have actually done in the past, the age old adage about actions speaking louder than words quickly comes to mind, and the innate knowledge that a politician will say virtually anything to get elected seems to indicate that, as far as politicians are concerned, what they have done in the past is a good measure of how they will act in the future.

An in-depth investigatory strategy is especially enlightening when the focus of that research is turned to the Democratic candidate Barack Obama. He has given numerous very eloquent speeches across the United States, the Middle East and Europe and has spoken on a widely diverse selection of topics. In fact, he has given so many speeches that a person could spend months just trying to read them. Fortunately, Barack Obama’s voting record as a U.S. Senator is readily accessible on the net and his actions as an Illinois state senator, while a bit more difficult to ferret out, are available to any resourceful individual with a good search engine and the intelligence to use it.

Sadly enough, when it comes to deciding who to vote for in an election, most American voters won’t bother going to the trouble of doing their homework and will rely solely on what they hear on the radio, the television or read in their local papers and this doesn’t begin to cover what an individual actually needs to be considered functionally knowledgeable. While this is true for the supporters of both primary candidates, it seems to be especially true for a large percentage of the people supporting Obama and a lot of the Obama supporters I have spoken with have no idea what his position is on many of the issues but staunchly support him against John McCain of whom they are equally ignorant. I am not a big fan of “blind faith” when it comes to political candidates and talking to glassy-eyed Obama supporters whose knowledge is limited to their candidates campaign slogan is a bit like talking to a gaggle of Hare Krishna freaks on Hollywood Blvd. Honestly speaking, my concerns with respect to Barack Obama are founded on his historically recorded and well substantiated actions since he first entered into American politics, and how those actions directly contradict much of what he is now saying in his campaign speeches.

One of Barak Obama’s strong campaign positions has been his call for extended healthcare benefits for American soldiers wounded in action while serving their nation’s military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, when Public Law 110-181 (The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act), which included a section that required the inspector general to file regular reports on inspections of military health facilities, was voted on in the United States Senate, Barack Obama was absent and did not bother to vote one way or the other. While this bill was passed into law with more than 90 votes to support it, none of those 90 supporting votes came from Barack Obama because he was not present for the vote.

On September 1, 2004, The Chicago Tribune described Michelle Obama by saying that, “One of her passions, public service work, led her to leave what could have been a lucrative career in law for public service. But making lots of money was never her goal.” However, right after her husband was sworn in as a U.S. Senator, Michelle Obama received a pay increase of $195,000 (Chicago Sun-Times September 26, 2006) from the non-profit hospital where she was working. This raise increased her annual salary from the non-profit hospital to $316,962. At the same time she was added to the Board of Directors at Treehouse-Bay Valley Foods as a part-time director. Her compensation for that position, along with the stock-options she received from Treehouse added another $100,000 a year to her income. While her husband is telling us he wants to make healthcare more affordable he has neglected to tell us that his wife is one of thirteen vice-presidents at the non-profit University of Chicago Hospital that in 2005, reported more than $103,642,743 million dollars in profits, or that a good percentage of those profits were the result of charging uninsured minorities three and a half times more for their services than they charged their insured white patients.

Barack Obama has articulated the horrible plight of this nation’s uninsured minorities numerous times throughout his campaign for president and yet he has consistently failed to do anything at all about the non-profit University of Chicago Hospital that sits directly in the Senator’s own district. In 2005 he eloquently and passionately described how “hospitals terrorize the uninsured,” but instead of doing anything about it, he has stood idly by while the non-profit University of Chicago Hospital pulled in astronomical profits made by price-gouging the uninsured minorities. Over the past two years alone, the non-profit University of Chicago Hospital has spent more than $10 million dollars on collection fees aimed at terrorizing their uninsured patients into paying bills that have been marked up 350% over what they charge for the same exact care given to insured white patients. Furthermore, the non-profit University of Chicago Hospital is one of the only hospitals in the nation that refuses to give their uninsured minority patients any sort of a discount on medical services. As the U.S. Senator for the district in which the University of Chicago Hospital exists, it would have been relatively easy for Barack Obama to use his influence to get them to implement real changes that would benefit Chicago’s poor and uninsured minorities, however, he has done nothing at all about this situation. When Attorney General Lisa Madigan attempted to get the Illinois state legislators to require the state-funded non-profit hospitals to provide more free care to the poor and uninsured Barack Obama offered her absolutely no support.

In 2005 Barack Obama told a group of union members protesting Wal-Mart’s low employee compensation and the fact that the Wal-Mart CEO had pulled in more than $10.5 million in total compensation during that year, that there is a “moral responsibility to stand up and fight for a better economic future with adequate wages, healthcare and retirement benefits.” What he neglected to point out to these union members is that, in the same year, the CEO of Treehouse, where his wife sits on the board of directors, took in more than $26 million in total compensation and the total revenues for Treehouse were 409 times less than those of Wal-Mart. As a side note – Treehouse closed one it’s food processing plants in 2006 and laid off all of the employees, most of whom were illegal aliens and unskilled Hispanic laborers earning minimum wage and receiving no benefits. By the way, Treehouse is a major supplier to Wal-Mart, and Jason Furman who is now Obama’s economic policy director published a 16 page paper in 2005 titled, “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story,” in which he argued that the huge cost savings that Wal-Mart has delivered to its low income customers far outweighs any impact the chain may have had on wages.

It comes as no big surprise that Barack Obama essentially chose to ignore his own Chicago constituents. According to Carol Marin of The Chicago-Sun Times as well as a good number of other local Chicago news personalities, the senator appears to be completely out of touch when it comes to anything going on in Illinois and has offered no comments about that states budget funding crisis or the very controversial issue of Illinois gambling casinos. He stated he had no knowledge of the political meltdown going on in Springfield and Cook County where he served as a state senator for eight years and where Obama’s friend and compatriot, Todd Stroger, Cook County Ward President, pushed through a law that effectively doubled the county’s sales tax, hired numerous friends and associates into county government jobs for which they were unqualified and during a hiring freeze no less, and outraged the residents of Palatine, Illinois so thoroughly that they have started a serious secession movement to get themselves out of Cook County altogether and join Lake County. Despite all of this, Obama continues to support his friend, Todd Stroger, who also happens to be one of the Democratic Party’s “Super Delegates” and has fully endorsed Barack Obama since his campaign for U.S. President began.

In 2006, Barack Obama spoke before a group of college students telling them that opportunities abound after graduation, “and it’s very easy to just take that diploma, forget about all this progressive-politics stuff, and go chasing after the big house and large salary…” What he didn’t tell them is that in 2005 he purchased a $1.65 million dollar mansion from political-fundraiser Tony Rezko. Tony Rezko and several others were indicted on federal charges in October 2006, for using their political connections to Illinois state boards to demand kickbacks from businesses that wanted to do business with the state. Rezko alone plead not guilty to the charges filed against the group and he was found guilty of 16 of the 24 charges filed against him. Oddly enough, the Democratic candidate’s long relationship and business dealings with Tony Rezko is one subject that Obama seems to avoid like the plague, and regardless of how many times he is asked to clarify this matter, he refuses to address it. If there is nothing to hide . . .

Barack Obama stood at the pulpit of the historic Brown Chapel A.M.E. church in Selma, Alabama and staked his claim to a place in the American civil rights movement of the 1960′s by telling the audience before him about how his parents were brought together during the famous “March on Selma” and that he was born as a direct result of that event. “So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama,” he thundered to the audience during the March 4, 2007 speech that was quickly picked up by the American news media and used to validate Barack Obama’s claim to blackness. Unfortunately, none of the reporters bothered to check Obama’s birth date or they would have discovered that he was born on August 4, 1961 and the march on Selma began on March 7, 1965, four years after the candidate was born. Barack Obama’s connection to the American civil rights movement is as phony as Obama himself. Genealogical research on his father’s side of the family indicates that the candidate is the direct descendent of the Arab slave traders who were given the express right to continue their trade by Queen Victoria after they helped the British Army defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region and the truth of this matter is that while the descendants of America’s slaves were busy breaking the chains of slavery, Barack Obama’s ancestors were the very people that placed those shackles on them in the first place. Oddly enough, this little fact has escaped the attention of the American news media. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s claim to African-American descent is a complete fabrication on his part and it is a lie that has been entirely discredited by reputable authors and researchers employed by a daily news publication of international reputation in New York City. Their investigation has irrefutably proven that the documentation of Barack Obama’s actual ethnic background clearly demonstrates that he is an Arab-American and not an “African-American” as defined in United States law.

This is a candidate that has devoted an entire web page to the claim that he has never been a practicing Muslim and yet his registration forms filled out by his parents when they enrolled him at Jakarta’s Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School indicate that Barack Obama was then a Muslim. The fact that he attended a Catholic school in Indonesia is not inconsistent with his being a Muslim because the Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students, and exempt them from studying the Catholic religion. Furthermore, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama’s school while Barack Obama was enrolled there, said she recalls the child studied the Quran in Arabic as did the other Muslim children. In fact, in Obama’s own autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama acknowledges studying the Quran in school, describes the school as being a Muslim school and at one point he even related an incident where his teacher wrote a note to Obama’s mother after he was caught making faces during Quranic studies. While it shouldn’t make a twit of difference what his religion was when he was a child or, for that matter, what it is today, the bottom line here is not about religion at all, but about the need to lie about it. Can we expect honesty from an individual that has so completely fabricated his entire past life?

Barack Obama portrays his book “Dreams From My Father,” as an accurate portrayal of his real life experiences but there is a huge and growing body of evidence to support the belief that there is little in the books contents that can be considered accurate by any standard of the truth. If everything that Obama has said about himself and his past are nothing more than a collection of fabricated stories then we need to be asking ourselves who this character really is and why is he so intent on portraying himself as something he is not. When it comes to Barack Obama, if you want to know the real truth you need to be a very devoted expert in the fine art of investigative research because when it comes to being a pathological liar, Barack Obama makes William Jefferson Clinton look like a rank amateur. Despite the hardship and long hours required by anyone wanting to find the real truth behind Obama’s fabrications, this is one challenge that, hopefully, many will take up, because the very obvious fact in this case is that Barack Obama is an unmitigated con-artist and his predilection for falsifying his past history is a very good indication that there is a lot that he doesn’t want us to know.

Technorati Tags

Barack Obama

digg this | del.icio.us