One might think that guns going to Mexican cartels would be used to murder rival gangsters in the ongoing regional skirmishes over turf in the country. That supposition is not entirely true, according to a recent investigation by Univision, which discovered gunwalked weapons were used in the terrible 2010 Juarez massacre where 16 people, mostly teens, were murdered during a birthday party.
In the United States, the death of Border Agent Brian Terry, pictured below, in a shootout with Mexican cartels in Arizona put a face on the gunwalking scandal. At least one Fast and Furious firearm was found at the crime scene about 10 miles north of the border.
The Univision network researched the F&F guns from a list obtained from the Mexican government to see how many of those weapons were used in crimes that killed Mexicans.
Incidentally, Univision’s report was broadcast on Sunday night, though it did not have English subtitles as had been reported earlier.
Fox had a pretty good report, although the network persists in using the adjective “botched” to describe the operation, which remains an unproven characterization.
For the first time, Mexican victims of crimes tied to the botched Operation Fast and Furious are being identified, including teenagers killed in a 2010 massacre.
A new report finds dozens of weapons recovered in Mexico have been connected with the ill-fated and ill-conceived anti-gunrunning program. While some Mexican authorities estimate 300 of their citizens have been injured or killed by Fast and Furious guns, little has been known about those weapons south of the U.S. border until now.
Through the Mexican Freedom of Information Act, Spanish-language network Univision and Fox News obtained a list of 100,000 weapons recovered in Mexico in 2009 and 2010. The guns were then compared with the serial numbers of the 2,000 guns sold in Fast and Furious.
Univision identified a total of 57 more previously unreported firearms that were bought by straw purchasers monitored by ATF during Operation Fast and Furious, and then recovered in Mexico in sites related to murders, kidnappings and other actions by Mexican hit men and drug cartels.
In an investigative special that aired Sunday, Univision revealed one such massacre that was later found to be linked with Fast and Furious.
It happened in January 2010 in Juarez, Mexico, where cartel members burst into a home killing 16 people — mostly teenagers — at a birthday party. While the gunmen were targeting members of a rival gang attending that party, some of the victims were innocent bystanders. Continue reading this article
Ranchers are the first responders in the alien invasion, and they say it’s still violent and dangerous for all concerned.
The Texas Department of Agriculture has recorded a number of interviews with ranchers and officials and posted them on its own Youtube channel, to inform the public and Washington. The agency also runs a website titled Protect Your Texas Border.
Following is the Introductory Video which provides an overview of the situation, dated September 5, 2012:
Rancher Doctor Mike Vickers of Brooks County says, “The border is not secure; it’s dangerous. We’re in a war zone here. Washington is just a mass of deception. There’s absolutely no truth to what they’re saying.”
A local news report emphasized the DIY aspect of citizens’ position of having to defend the border because Washington’s efforts are not adequate.
FORT HANCOCK, Texas – Border security has not been much of a presidential campaign issue but it’s still a hot topic in Texas where the agriculture commissioner launched the latest episode in a web series called “Texas Traffic.”
The 16-part series is described on the Texas Department of Agriculture web page as “true stories of drug and human smuggling” and features border ranchers and farmers as well as local law enforcement.
In Texas, most of the 1,241 miles of border is private property and much of it is along the Rio Grande.
“Our property is from here to the river,” said Jim Ed Miller standing in his cotton fields where yellow flowers are in full bloom.
His family has had to deal with people illegally crossing the border and cutting through farmland.
“My homeland security wife and daughter only saw three coming by the house. By the time I got here, I assume two already got in the sand hills. One was in the cotton patch, “said Miller describing a recent incident on a call to the Border Patrol. Continue reading this article
However, the “ambivalent” attitude cited refers to the number of poll respondents who chose “path to citizenship” on the question of what to do with illegals versus all the other responses that showed disapproval of awarding privileges and benefits to lawbreaking foreigners.
There’s no surprise to the skew: the choices given on what to do with illegals omitted the best choice, namely attrition through rigorous law enforcement. Self-deportation clearly avoids the unpleasantries of being busted and then deported, and gets the foreigner home the same way he got here — how empowering! Self-esteem is left intact.
In the survey a random sample of California registered voters were first told “as you may know, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, including approximately two and a half million living in California,” and then asked which policy option came closest to their view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. The three alternative approaches offered were mass deportation, temporary work permits, and a path to citizenship. In this setting, the large majority of California voters (67%) support a path to citizenship. This compares to 14% who favor allowing temporary work permits and 13% support deportation.
When the choices were reasonable and had to do with costs dumped on taxpayers, Californians were much less forgiving on spending tax money on lawbreakers. Poll responders also rejected handing out state drivers’ licenses (also accepted as universal ID) to sketchy foreigners.
By a 56% to 40% margin California voters oppose allowing illegal immigrants living in the state to get a California driver’s license. However, there are a number of differences in views about this across subgroups of the voting population. [. . .]
Majorities oppose granting illegal immigrants the same entitlements that legal residents of the state get in two other areas – receiving tuition discounts at the state’s public universities (61% to 33%) and having access to government health and financial assistance benefits (65% to 27%).
Unsurprisingly, the media took the more liberal path-to-citizenship characterization, as indicated by headlines, although that spin is not entirely accurate:
On Friday, Canadian broadcaster Ezra Levant introduced the Blaze’s new documentary that investigates the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the highest levels of the US government. The basis of the film is a written plan that was discovered during a 2001 raid by police in Switzerland of a jihadist hideout.
Called “The Project” by its authors (also the name of the critical film about it), the document is a roadmap for how Muslims can accomplish Civilizational Jihad, and many of its strategies can be seen in action today, successfully chipping away at foundational the freedom of speech in the name of sensitivity and presenting Islam as not an enemy.
Of particular interest in the film is the detailed explanation of the FBI scrubbing its instructional materials of all critical references to Islam because the agency’s Muslim “advisors” insisted they be removed.
Such feeble-minded political correctness from federal law enforcement endangers us all. As military strategist Sun Tzu recommended, “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.”
You can see the documentary online for the time being at least:
In California, the diversity keeps increasing but the peace and love promised by multicultural acolytes in a less white state still hasn’t materialized.
Schools in particular have been the petri dishes showing the difficulty of different tribes getting along, as occurred this week in diverse Victorville, California, east of Los Angeles. The city’s Silverado High School has experienced rioting between blacks and hispanics for two days running.
It doesn’t help when the United States takes economic fleebags who have made it as far as Malta or Lampedusa because it sends the message that a welfare-filled future in the first world awaits lucky foragers. They could stay home and work to improve their own societies, but when liberal western governments hand out an array of free stuff, it can be irresistible. On a planet of seven billion residents, an all-welcoming first world is an irresponsible message to impart because the numbers don’t work.
A total of 27 Somali and Eritrean migrants, including three families, yesterday left Malta for the US under the US Refugee Resettlement Programme (USRRP). This brings the total of refugees relocated in the United States since 2007 to 985.
US Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley and Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici bid them farewell on the start of this new journey in their life. [. . .]
Below, Africans head for outlying islands of Europe, like Malta and Lampedusa.
Even the diversity enthusiast New York Times noticed the problem on Malta. The island’s response of setting up even rudimentary refugee centers demonstrates that “If you build it, they will come.”
VALLETTA, Malta — On a recent evening, the immigrants living in the steel shipping containers out by the abandoned airport here began to bed down for the night, pulling their mattresses outside to escape the suffocating heat.
Some had lived at this government-run “open center” for several years. Others had arrived more recently. Most shared a sense of defeat.
“Really, it’s very bad,” said a Somali man who gave his name as Z. Mohamed. He had fled war in Somalia, was imprisoned in Libya as he made his way north and now finds himself in this grim complex, with its communal water taps and bathrooms. “You can see with your eyes how it is and every week I go to the employment center for a job, but there is nothing. They never call.”
Perhaps nowhere are the consequences of the European Union’s one-size-fits-all immigration rules more apparent than here in Malta, a tiny archipelago in the Mediterranean between Libya and Italy, which now has the highest ratio of immigrants per capita of any European Union member. Many of its immigrants are caught in a limbo, unable to find jobs or afford housing — and unable to move off the island.
It’s not that Mr. Mohamed and the other new arrivals wanted to come to Malta. Most had never heard of the place until their flimsy boats foundered on the way to Italy, and the Maltese coast guard rescued them from the sea. For that they are grateful.
But now what, they ask. This densely populated nation, 400,000 people in an area a tenth the size of Rhode Island, has little to offer them. But under European rules, because they first landed here, they are pretty much stuck here. Continue reading this article
It was disgusting to see the President of the United States say to the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander Islam.” Besides disrespecting our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, the remark disregards that millions of Americans distrust the religion and its practitioners. It’s funny how a history of murders and terror in the name of Islam have a way of creating suspicion.
Plus, “slander” to Muslims covers any and all criticisms, the sort of thing that is written daily in dozens of blogs like this one.
On Wednesday, Canadian free speech defender Ezra Levant interviewed George Igler, who warned of how easily rights we thought safe can be rapidly eroded when not vigorously enforced.
Igler listed three measurements that indicate politicians are blowing off free speech rights, when protecting them becomes too inconvenient:
1. A change in values where truth become less important than the emotional response of the recipient: Complaining that a statement is offensive is now accepted as a rebuttal.
2. Incitement is redefined from urging physical attack to committing the thought crime of spreading hatred.
3. The media goes from examining an event to questioning the motive of the person stating a controversial opinion.
Here in northern California, we have a case of censorship/punishment of two local radio guys Armstrong and Getty over a rip on Muslims going nutso worldwide over an unfriendly video, and suggesting that a thousand Mohammed videos should bloom for a massive desensitization project. Actually, plenty already exist, like Geert Wilders’ Fitna and The Third Jihad.
Armstrong and Getty were removed from broadcasting for one day because of the following rant:
Incidentally, I disagree with the underlying supposition that Muslims simply have issues with anger management, which can be handled by western strategies of apology (Obama’s choice) or desensitization (Armstrong & Getty here). Another exponent of the latter approach is Islam scholar Daniel Pipes who thought a major print-in of cartoons by the press would create a “routinization” that would wear out the unfriendlies: A Muhammad cartoon a day.
Unfortunately, the MSM’s cowardice about defending free speech makes Pipes’ suggestion unlikely to take root.
The deeper problem with Muslims is the violent supremacism that comes from the Koran’s religious teaching. The book of Islam has over 100 verses calling for violence against unbelievers. If there’s instruction about how to graciously accept apologies from infidels, I haven’t heard of it. Mohammad told followers to offer Islam to outsiders, but if they refused, then they should be killed.
Most Muslims don’t want the secular state with free speech that we in the West understand as democratic governance, as a Pew poll of several countries shows.
A more reasonable approach for America would be to give up on the idea of Islamic democracy and even having friendly relations. Washington should work hard to expand domestic energy supplies with the possibility in mind that a Middle East flare-up could severely reduce oil. Elites must realize that dar al-Islam is a separate, irrational universe where being nice is seen as weakness.
Above all, end Muslim immigration to this country. It is crazy to endanger American society and safety by following Europe’s descent into hell.
Here are more details about Armstrong and Getty’s enforced day off:
Popular talk radio show hosts Armstrong & Getty were absent from Clear Channel’s live programming Tuesday amid controversy around one of the hosts’ on-air comments about Muslims.
KSTE (650 AM) aired a previously recorded “Best Of” morning show on Tuesday instead of its regularly scheduled live program featuring Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Officials for the Sacramento station and its owner, Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, offered no explanation for the change, sparking questions and heated comments among fans on the show’s Facebook page.
During an on-air discussion Monday, Armstrong criticized the United States for what he characterized as apologizing for a crude YouTube video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and sparked anti-U.S. uprisings around the globe. He urged listeners to make their own “anti-Muhammad ads” and post them to Al-Jazeera, the Arabic news network. “We need to bombard them with ads until they grow up,” he said. Continue reading this article
Back before Obama was elected, he had rather expansive ideas of what his special charm could accomplish in the world. Specifically, he thought his Muslim childhood brought unique insight to the 1400-year clash between the West and dar al-Islam, a problem he could solve. (No shortage of self-esteem here!)
During a November 21, 2007, radio interview, he predicted that his election would end a millennium of Islamic violence:
I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently… If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view… My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world… then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer…
Since then, the administration’s fawning attitude toward the increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups has only encouraged the worst elements of Arab society. Violence in the Middle East and beyond against America has been a practically a daily event since the 9/11 terror attack in Libya that killed the Ambassador and three others.
Obama’s entire policy toward the Middle East and Islam has gone up in flames, while the President has avoided the subject, aided by his loyal servants in the Opravda media.
Nearly half of American voters – 45 percent — think relations between the United States and Muslims worldwide have deteriorated in the past four years, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday.
Only 18 percent said relations had improved in the four years since Barack Obama became president, while 31 percent said U.S.-Muslim relations are about the same.
The poll found 68 percent of all voters believe there is a global conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations, up five points since May. Just 15 percent say there is no conflict. Continue reading this article
But don’t worry about Abdi being deported to some dangerous backwater: his sister in Minneapolis is confident about Nuradin’s success, because of Somali culture’s well known clan structure, remarking that “his whole family … will be there to get him start his new life.”
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Federal authorities are preparing to deport a Somali immigrant who federal prosecutors say plotted to attack an Ohio shopping mall.
Nuradin Abdi completed his prison sentence last month and is in federal custody in Louisiana while final preparations are made to return him to Somalia.
The Justice Department accused Abdi of suggesting a plan to shoot up an unidentified Columbus shopping mall during an August 2002 meeting at a coffee shop with two friends, both of whom were later convicted of terrorism charges. Early reports indicated the threat might also have included bombing a mall.
When investigators learned of the threat in spring 2003, authorities conducted top-to-bottom searches of Columbus malls late at night after shoppers had left, looking for possible explosive devices. None was found.
One of Abdi’s friends at the coffee shop that day, Columbus truck driver Iyman Faris, pleaded guilty in May 2003 to terrorism charges stemming from allegations that he scoped out the Brooklyn Bridge for destruction at the behest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks. Continue reading this article
Normal American minds may have a hard time imagining how radical Obama’s second term will be when he is freed from re-election constraints, if recent behavior is any guide.
Closing Gitmo has long been a liberal hobby horse, but the idea ran into trouble when it was noticed there was no better place to store hundreds of captured battlefield jihadists: the NIMBY factor was strong against a local prison filled with Islam-inspired killers. Plan B is to “transfer” them to home countries where they can be quietly freed from the local hoosegow in a few weeks.
So the idea that the President will release one-third of the remaining prisoners — who are the worst of the worst because the lightweights have already been let go — to return to fighting for Allah is rather shocking. Particularly when Sufyan Ben Qumu, the leader of the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens, was a Gitmo release beneficiary.
Below, showing weakness to Islam is not a good idea, because numerous Muslims work for a worldwide caliphate of sharia law under Allah, and they only respect strength, not foolish acts of “generosity.”
President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too “unsettled” at the time.
A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who’s winding down the war in the Afghanistan?
The ACLU has praised the releases as “a partial victory for transparency.”
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.