Presidente Calderon Booked for Washington Whiner

The boss-man of the crackhouse next door, Presidente Felipe Calderon, will be paying Mr. Obama a visit next week and will even be addressing a joint session of Congress on May 19. Won’t that be a memorable occasion?

We already know that Calderon (pictured) will complain up a storm about the prospect of actual immigration enforcement, courtesy of the state of Arizona. Obie will bow and apologize profusely that we still have a border at all, which is so inconvenient to Mexico (which enforces its own sovereignty rather severely).

I’m guessing that some high-stakes mooching will go on behind closed doors, and Calderon’s hurt feelings (stemming from Arizona’s border enforcement) will be assuaged by either cash or some nice military hardware to fight Mexico’s failing war against the drug cartels.

Mexico’s Calderon to protest Arizona law to Obama, Reuters, May 14, 2010

Mexican President Felipe Calderon will protest to U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington next week about Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, Calderon told Reuters Thursday.

Calderon said a law that will come into force in Arizona in July, requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the United States illegally, was already affecting relations between the two neighbors.

“It contains elements that are frankly discriminatory, terribly backward,” Calderon told Reuters in an interview.

He said he would bring Mexico’s protest over the law to a meeting with Obama and in front of the U.S. Congress during an official visit to Washington next week.

“The fact the law has introduced, regardless of all the nuances being used, the possibility of detaining, arresting somebody on the grounds of their physical appearance implies one of the most serious reversals that I remember,” he said.

The move by Arizona, which borders Mexico, has sparked outraged protests, pushed some U.S. states to seek economic boycotts of Arizona and pushed the immigration debate in the United States into the political foreground.

There are an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants, mostly from Latin America, in the United States.

Mexico, which sends 80 percent of its exports to the United States and has millions of citizens working there legally or illegally, has condemned the legislation, issued a warning for Mexicans living or traveling there, and asked its consulates in Arizona to offer Mexicans legal protection.

Right, we Americans are “backward” because we want to keep Mexican chaos OUT. One example: on Thursday, a candidate for mayor from Calderon’s own party was murdered apparently by cartel gunmen.

Illegal Alien Costs Considered

Former Republican and current Governor of Florida Charlie Crist has joined the ranks of the extreme innumerate by claiming a massive amnesty would be a fine strategy to rescue Social Security (which has been the government’s extra piggy bank for decades).

Common sense alone would reveal that adding millions of uneducated foreigners to the legal workforce would be a loser deal for federal coffers. They are poor people and therefore make little money.

But in politics, common sense is a rarity.

Crist: Immigration reform can help Social Security, AP, May 13, 2010

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who’s running for Senate as an independent, said Friday that providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will help keep Social Security solvent — an idea he favors over his opponent’s suggestion to raise the eligibility age for benefits.

Crist told The Associated Press there are as many as 14 million illegal immigrants in the country as part of an underground economy. If they paid into the Social Security system, it would help increase the worker-to-retiree ratio.

Fortunately, Rep. Lamar Smith has been following the costs of illegal immigration for years and recently wrote up an analysis for Investors’ Business Daily:

Contrary To Amnesty Supporters, Illegal Aliens Drain Social Security, IBD, May 12, 2010

A recent Rasmussen Reports survey revealed that voters remain concerned about Social Security and whether the system can deliver what the government has promised.   According to the survey, 58% of U.S. voters lack confidence that the Social Security system will pay them their future benefits.

Advocates for amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants like to claim that amnesty will “save” Social Security. They also claim that dramatically increased immigration levels will safeguard our retirements and those of our children because more people will pay into the system.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

During the last Congress, I asked the Social Security Administration (SSA) to calculate the value in today’s dollars of the payroll taxes paid by typical illegal immigrants and their employers as well as the value of their retirement benefits should they receive amnesty.  Not only the typical illegal immigrant but any low-skilled immigrant will affect the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Illegal immigrant workers, often with false identities, can’t avoid paying into Social Security but are not eligible to receive retirement benefits for their illegal work. But if they receive amnesty, they can qualify for Social Security retirement benefits based on their earlier illegal work.  And those benefits will amount to much more than what they paid into Social Security!

A single male illegal immigrant who works for very low wages and is now 25 years old will receive (at today’s value) $15,596  more in Social Security retirement benefits. A similar female illegal immigrant will receive $20,936 more in retirement benefits.

A married illegal immigrant couple in which one spouse works can expect $52,460 more. And a married illegal immigrant couple where both spouses work will receive $39,037 more.

What would be the fiscal impact on the Trust Fund of the legalization of 5 million illegal immigrant couples who both work for very low wages? A staggering $500 billion!  That would jeopardize the solvency of Social Security and threaten everyone’s retirement.

Of course, Social Security is not the only way in which illegal immigrants negatively impact American taxpayers. Continue reading this article

Arizona Polling Remains Overwhelmingly Positive

Polls over the last little while have been unanimous that Americans are supportive of Arizona’s attempt to bring immigration anarchy under control. It’s a testament to the common sense of the American people that the media’s barrage of outright lies about the Arizona law has not dissuaded the majority of citizens that immigration anarchy must stop. The law is also strictly enforcement, with no morally repugnant amnesty.

Mainstream surveys from CBS/New York Times, Investor’s Business Daily and Rasmussen have all shown the public to be positive toward Arizona’s crackdown.

More recently, the Pew pollsters released a similar report of general agreement with Arizona’s enforcement-only approach.

Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, May 12, 2010

The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 6-9 among 994 adults, finds that Democrats are evenly split over Arizona’s new immigration law: 45% approve of the law and 46% disapprove. However, majorities of Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%).

Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the law and three provisions tested. Similarly, among independents there is little difference in opinions of the new Arizona law (64% approve) and its elements, which are viewed positively.

See the complete Pew report here.

And that’s not all. The Wall Street Journal‘s new poll headlined party politics, but drilling down into the paragraphs revealed still more agreement with Arizona, except for a certain ethnic group. The WSJ survey broke out the opinion of hispanics, who are not friendly to American sovereignty. (Poll data here.)

Voters Shifting to GOP, Poll Finds, WSJ, May 13, 2010

The poll also showed sharp divisions among voters on the subject of illegal immigration.

Among all adults, support is high for the new Arizona law that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires law enforcement officers to question people if they have reasonable suspicions about their immigration status.

Some 64% said they strongly or somewhat supported the law, compared with 34% who strongly or somewhat opposed it.

Divisions were even sharper between whites and Hispanics. Among Hispanic respondents, 70% opposed the law, while 69% of whites in the survey supported it.

The survey oversampled Hispanics to increase accuracy.

Hispanics also held a different view of immigration generally than did white respondents.

In the survey, 58% of Hispanics said that immigration helped the U.S. more than it hurt, while 56% of white respondents said that immigration hurt more than it helped.

The survey found that, at the moment, Hispanics greatly favored Democrats over Republicans, particularly among Hispanics under age 40.

That stands as a danger sign for the GOP given the rapid growth of that voter bloc.

How typically self-serving that illegal aliens and their pals think they are improving America by their uninvited presence. Someone should tell them them lowering the average educational level and creating a permanent underclass are not usually considered to be advantageous.

Vietnamese Translators Sought for Gulf Oil Spill

How long have Vietnamese been residing in the United States? It’s been more than 30 years since the fall of Saigon and the influx of more than a million refugees.

But the most basic act of assimilation, namely learning English, seems to have eluded many.

We learn this only because Vietnamese fishermen in the Gulf are complaining that they are not able to avail themselves of replacement jobs during the oil clean-up. Whose fault is that? You snooze, you lose, bub.

And the rush of politicians to supply translators only exacerbates the problem. Why should any foreigner bother to learn English when they can get whatever they want from the government without it?

Local Vietnamese fishermen battle oil, language barrier, Fox 8 TV, New Orleans, May 7, 2010

Because of a language barrier, a large number of Vietnamese fishermen have been out of the loop when it comes to the latest on the oil disaster in the gulf.

Due to language access issues and bad representation, these fisherman are not really sure what to do two weeks after officials discovered the oil well was leaking a mile underwater.

Community leaders hope to clear up some confusion.

Vietnamese fisherman from across the Gulf Coast – from Texas all the way down to Florida – packed the community center at Mary Queen of Vietnam Church in New Orleans East, hoping to finally get some good information.

“The language barrier, you know so they cant understand so well,” said Hung Tran, a local fishermen.

A critical language barrier that has left thousands of Vietnamese fishermen in the dark.

“If we can get somebody from the community to help us, we’d love to hire up that resource to specifically help with this community,” said U.S. Senator David Vitter.

Vitter, along with Congressman Joeph Cao and several local and federal officials, offered help to Vietnamese speaking fishermen.

“And I know a big issue with that vessel of opportunity program is that language issue,” Vitter said.

Boo hoo, we demand help.

Meanwhile, the New York Times scoffed at a small community which decided to make English the language of town business.

Small New York Town Makes English the Law, NYT, May 12, 2010

It’s about 2,500 miles from this green, rural town in the rolling hills near Vermont to the Mexican border at Nogales, but that hasn’t stopped Jackson from making a bid to be New York’s small version of Arizona in the immigration wars.

Or that’s how it is beginning to feel two months after Jackson — which has 1,700 people, no village, no grocery store or place to buy gasoline, no church, no school, two restaurants and maybe a few Spanish-speaking farm workers — decided it needed a law requiring that all town business be conducted in English.

One nearby town, Argyle, has since passed a similar resolution. A third, Easton, is likely to consider one at its Town Board meeting in June. The law has already put Jackson at odds with the New York Civil Liberties Union, which says it violates state and federal law. But in the great American echo chamber, every mouse gets to roar, so Roger Meyer, who proposed the law, feels he is making progress toward protecting the English language from threats near and far.

In California, the drivers license exam is given in 32 languages, but the New York Times thinks that language assimilation is no problema in 2010 America.

Poll: Massachusetts Soundly Rejects Benefits for Illegal Aliens

Interesting poll results from the uber-blue state of Massachusetts — they are nuanced, shall we say.

According to the Rasmussen pollsters, a stunning 70 percent of those polled reject taxpayer-funded goodies for illegal aliens, while only 41 percent support Arizona’s enforcement law.

(Of course, many rank-and-file Democrats dislike immigration anarchy as much as anyone, unlike the D-elites, although at lower levels than Republicans and independents.)

70% in Massachusetts Favor Ban on Public Benefits For Illegal Immigrants, Rasmussen Reports, May 12, 2010

Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.

The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters in Massachusetts oppose a boycott of Arizona like the one just passed by Boston City Council to protest that state’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration. Thirty-four percent (34%) favor such a boycott, while another 16% are undecided.

But just 41% favor a law like Arizona’s that empowers local police to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. Forty-eight percent (48%) oppose such a law. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Nationally, 58% support a law like the one recently adopted in Arizona. Continue reading this article

Employer of Houston Cop Killer Sentenced

In 2006, previously deported criminal Juan Quintero shot and killed Officer Rodney Johnson (pictured) after a traffic arrest in Houston, a sanctuary city known for protecting dangerous foreign criminals.

In 2008, Quintero was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison — quite a disappointment for us citizens who expect cop killers to pay the ultimate price, particularly in Texas.

Lurking around as a background element was the killer’s employer, Robert Lane Camp, the owner of a landscaping company, who was more than helpful toward an illegal alien with a long rap sheet. Quintero must have been a heck of a gardener.

Details were provided in a 2008 article:

Employer of murder suspect arrested, Houston Chronicle, January 10, 2008

Court documents show that Robert Lane Camp, 47, went to considerable lengths to help Juan Leonardo Quintero and keep him on the job at his Deer Park landscaping company before the September 2006 killing of officer Rodney Johnson.

In August 1998, Camp posted a $10,000 bond for Quintero after he was jailed on an indecency with a child charge and hired an attorney to defend him. After the worker was deported in May 1999, Camp sent him money in Mexico and later bought him a plane ticket from Phoenix to Houston after Quintero re-entered through Arizona illegally, according to an affidavit by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. Camp then purchased a house in Houston and rented it to Quintero.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do move along. This week Robert Lane Camp was sentenced to prison. Not a very long sentence, mind you, but how often does an employer ever face the big house?

Prison for boss of immigrant who killed Houston officer, Houston Chronicle, May 10, 2010

Landscape business owner Robert Lane Camp was sentenced this morning to three months in prison and another three months under house arrest as part of a federal five-year probation for harboring an illegal immigrant who later murdered a Houston police officer.

Camp, 48, pleaded guilty to employing and harboring Leonardo Quintero, the Mexican laborer convicted of shooting Rodney Johnson four times in the head after a traffic stop in 2006.

Camp told U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore that he thought it was just a civil violation that he employed Quintero, who he knew was illegally here, so he paid his salary to the worker’s wife, who had a Social Security number.

“I never for an instant thought I would be here,” Camp said as he stood before the federal judge. He said it’s hard to hire people with legal documentation to help in his landscaping business because “it’s hot, it’s dirty and it’s long hours.” But he also said he’s kept up his business using legal workers since his employee killed a policeman.

“I’m very sorry and apologize to the court and my family and friends. I’ve shamed a lot of people, including myself,” Camp said to a courtroom half filled with his supporters.

Also in court was Houston police Sgt. Joslyn Johnson, the widow of Officer Rodney Johnson. “It was a slap in the face,” she said. “He’s just as guilty as Quintero in my eyes and just as guilty as Carter’s Country for selling the gun.”

Rep. Ted Poe: the Border Is a War Zone

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) recently described the dangerous conditions which Americans who live near the Mexican border must endure:

During Rep. Poe’s speech, he mentioned an article that he used as a reference, probably the following one, which focused on the murder of Robert Krenz:

The Krentz Bonfire, Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010

Last week, Rob’s brother, Phil, described how surprised and heartened the family has been at the outpouring of support they’ve received from around the country.

“It has really woken people up to what’s going on,” he says. “But I don’t know if anything will be done about it. It’s too early to tell. Meantime, we’re coping any way we can.”

Rob’s sister, Susan Pope, says, “This has really taken legs, and I think some things will change for the better. But I don’t think it’ll ever get to where we feel secure.”

The Popes’ home in the Chiricahua Mountains has been broken into three times. Susan works as a bus driver and teacher at the one-room Apache Elementary School, which has been hit so often that nothing of value remains inside.

“When was the last time you felt secure?” I asked.

Susan let out a joyless laugh and said, “I can’t remember, honestly.”

What has to be noted first is the inevitability of what happened. Something like the Krentz murder was coming, and everyone knew it.

Life in the Chiricahua Corridor north and east of Douglas, as the Tucson Weekly has been reporting for two years, has become a nightmare of break-ins, threats, intimidation and home invasions. […]

Around Nogales, where arrests are down 20 percent, Susie Morales—who lives 2 1/2 miles from the line in the national forest west of Interstate 19—has seen no letup in crossings.

As she cooks dinner in her kitchen, she can look out and see mules backpacking drugs on a trail 75 yards from her front door. Another trail runs 50 yards behind her house.

These trails are so close that when Susie spots incursions, she runs into her bathroom with her cell phone and shuts the door. She has to keep her voice down so the crossers can’t hear her calling for help.

“There are more Border Patrol agents around, but the tide hasn’t abated,” says Morales. “It’s amazing. They’re still coming. We need active-duty military here, because we’re just outnumbered.”

She carries a .357 magnum everywhere she goes.

Foot traffic still pours over the Huachuca Mountains, south of Sierra Vista, to the tune of 1,500 a week, according to a citizen who places game cameras on trails there and counts crossings.

East of the Huachucas, John Ladd tells me that in the 18 days prior to April 10, he counted some 350 illegals on his San Jose Ranch. Every one had climbed the fence.

Ladd’s property near Naco has been fenced since 2007, with the barriers ranging from 10 to 13 feet. But fencing just west of Ladd’s, across the San Pedro River, stands 18 feet tall, so why would anyone bother with an 18-footer when you can walk east and climb a 10-footer?

“I’m on the phone to Border Patrol on average three times a day, seven days a week, to report groups,” Ladd says. “I don’t know what normal is anymore. I’ve become cynical, untrusting and pissed off.”

And so it goes. Read the whole thing.

Rasmussen Poll: English Should Be the Official Language

Are Americans sick of pressing one for English? Perhaps the glorious multicultural multilingual future doesn’t look as good as diversity cheerleaders had promised. Or maybe citizens are alarmed by encroaching foreign influence, e.g. students being sent home from school for wearing American flag clothing so they wouldn’t offend Mexicans; or the shrieks of criticism Arizona has received for cracking down on illegal aliens.

Whatever the reason, Americans still believe in traditional assimilation where immigrants learn English as a primary duty.

87% Say English Should Be U.S. Official Language, Rasmussen Reports, May 11, 2010

Americans continue to overwhelmingly believe that English should be the official language of the United States and reject by sizable margins the idea that such a move is racist or a violation of free speech.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 87% of Adults favor making English the nation’s official language. This is the highest level of support yet but in line with what voters have been saying for several years. Just nine percent (9%) disagree.

Eighty-three percent (83%) say a company doing business in this country should be allowed to require its employees to speak English. Eleven percent (11%) say companies should not be permitted to require their employees to speak English on the job. These views are unchanged from a year ago.

Only 10% of Americans say requiring people to speak English is a form of racism or bigotry. Eighty-four percent (84%) disagree and say that’s not true.

Twelve percent (12%) believe that declaring English the official language would limit free speech in this country, but 78% feel otherwise and see no limits being placed on free speech.

The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on May 7-8, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The findings come at a time when President Obama and major Hispanic groups, among others, are protesting Arizona’s new law empowering local police to stop those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. Despite national protests and threats of boycotting Arizona, 59% of U.S. voters continue to support the state law, which Arizona officials say is necessary because the federal government is not doing its job to halt illegal immigration. Fifty percent (50%), in fact, have an unfavorable opinion of those who protested the law in marches and rallies two weekends ago.

Support for English as the official language is high across all demographic groups.

However, Republicans consistently support it more strongly than Democrats and adults not affiliated with either party.

Ninety-five percent (95%) of those who work in the private sector think companies should be allowed to require their employees to speak English on the job, a view shared by just 69% of government employees.

Over 80% of whites, blacks and those of other racial and ethnic backgrounds agree that requiring people to speak English is not a form of racism or bigotry. These groups also agree by similar percentages that such a requirement is not a limit on free speech in this country.

Eighty percent (80%) of voters believe that those who move to America should adopt American culture. Again, this level of support has remained largely unchanged for years.

The president in remarks last July said that “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,” Americans “need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” But Americans strongly disagree: Eighty-three percent (83%) place a higher priority on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language. Just 13% take the opposite view and say it is more important for Americans to learn other languages.

Yet it’s important to note that most Americans favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only “national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system.”

Anyway, that multilingual Babel thing in the Bible didn’t work out so well. The inability for people to communicate was believed to be a curse from God, not a benefit of diversity to be celebrated.

Sorcerers' Butchery of Albinos Continues in Africa

Of all the reprehensible diversity afflicting the world today (e.g., honor killing, slavery, FGM, polygamy, sharia stonings), somehow butchering people to use their body parts in witchcraft seems particularly depraved.

Albinos come in for particular abuse in Africa. In some places, adults and children are hunted down like animals to be chopped up for sale to witch doctors. Their unpigmented skin is highly valued as an ingredient for spells, potions and good luck charms to bring wealth. (See my blog Canadian Takes On Tanzanian Slaughter and article Diversity Is… Witchcraft.)

Criticism of the practice pushed Tanzania into prosecuting some of the killers last year, but the trial was stopped part way through because of “lack of funds.”

One of the critics has been Canadian Peter Ash (pictured), an albino himself who has campaigned against African brutality against non-pigmented persons. He visited Tanzania earlier this year and conditions appeared unchanged:

Hunted for body parts, Tanzania’s albinos get help from B.C. man, Globe and Mail, April 26, 2010

When people passed by their home, she heard them shouting “dili dili” -– the Swahili word for “deal” — a reference to the lucrative profits they could make by selling her body parts to witch doctors. It’s a word that Tanzania’s albinos hear every day.

On the night of Feb. 7, a machete-wielding man crept up to her hut in darkness. When she stepped outside, carrying her infant daughter on her back, the man slashed viciously at the baby, trying to sever her leg. He pursued them into the hut, slashing Ms. Khalfani on the forehead, leaving her with blood pouring over her face.

It was the 60th reported attack on Tanzanian albinos since 2007. It was followed by two more attacks this month, including the killing last Sunday of a four-year-old girl whose right arm and leg were chopped off. At least 56 albinos have been killed in the attacks, and many more are believed to have died in unreported cases.

Another country where atrocities occur is Burundi, as a recent news story explained:

Activists: Mother, son albinos killed in Burundi, AP, May 7, 2010

Attackers in Burundi chopped off the limbs of a 5-year-old albino boy and pulled out his mother’s eye, killing them over the belief that their body parts would bring wealth and success, human rights activists said Friday.

Those deaths and other recent attacks in Tanzania are part of long pattern of violence against African albinos. At least 10,000 have been displaced or gone into hiding since attacks against them spiked in late 2007, the International Federation of the Red Cross says.

Since then, 57 albinos have been killed in Tanzania and 14 in Burundi, said Vicky Ntetema with the rights group Under The Same Sun.

The killings are fueled by superstitious beliefs that human albino body parts will bring others wealth and success, Ntetema said.

“Body parts are sought for their supposed miraculous powers,” she said. “Some use them as human sacrifice as advised by witch doctors.”

Despite the human rights horrors that occur in Burundi and Tanzania as part of their cultures, the US State Department welcomed more than 300 from the two nations in its 2010 Diversity Visa Lottery.

According to the all-knowing liberal nanny state, diversity is the highest good and we little citizens should get used to that ideology to survive the glorious multicultural paradise.

A Tale of Two Jurisdictions: Arizona vs. New York City

Consider: two wildly different communities face an escalating crisis of violence against public safety. Both conclude that the federal government’s response to the foreign source of the worsening chaos is insufficient, so they decide to ramp up local enforcement.

One, Arizona, is condemned in the most excoriating manner by liberal elites and media for taking pro-active posture in fighting illegal immigration and concurrent violent drug smuggling. The other, New York City, is praised by the same voices as being exemplary in protecting its people even though it similarly moved onto federal turf because Washington hasn’t done the job.

Recent remarks from the Stratfor intelligence company emphasized how New York City police have taken on federal responsibilities against foreign and Islamic terrorism (my transcription below):

Quick Take: The Politicization of the Time Square Investigation (Youtube), May 3, 2010

(0:45) The New York City police decided a long time ago not to depend upon the federal government to protect them. In many ways, one can’t blame them. The federal government has failed on many occasions to thwart plots and attacks that have unfolded in New York.

So you have a police department that is very aggressive and has detectives stationed in many cities around the world that frankly infuriates the State Department and the FBI because they are running outside the US government. The US government can’t control who they meet with and the information flow.

The New York City police department could care less; their mission is to protect the city.

Funny, when Arizona leaders decided their mission was to protect the state, they got nothing but condemnation.

And at the head of the pack of Arizona scolds… New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who warned of dire consequences in an April 28 op-ed:

How Arizona’s Law Will Hurt America, New York Daily News

While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.

But if some of them stop visiting and investing in America, and if other states follow Arizona’s lead — as some are now discussing — the economic consequences will be felt in middle-class communities across the country.

American citizens would lose jobs as businesses downsize, and governments with lower tax revenues would lay off teachers, firefighters and police officers. As a result, our country would have a harder time climbing out of the national recession.

So New York assures one and all that public safety is job #1 in the city (to keep the tourists coming), but Arizona should not be allowed the same right to knock down crime and terrorism, according to the Mayor.

That’s both wrong and hypocritical. Both visitors and Arizona residents deserve public safety as much as New Yorkers.

Who Undermined the Search for Faisal Shahzad?

If you thought the information regarding the Times Square bomber was unusually detailed even before the perp was arrested, you were right.

The media released far too many facts while the police were still trying to locate Faisal Shahzad, who learned from the media that authorities knew his identity. Of course, when the press gets even semi-confidential information, someone will blab and then everyone follows. So the facts of the case were revealed, and that’s why the bomber booked the next flight to Dubai.

Curiously, NPR had a thoughtful piece on the subject:

How Media Coverage Crimped The Times Square Case, National Public Radio, May 6, 2010

Law enforcement officials usually say they can’t talk to reporters about an ongoing investigation, but there were leaks in this case from the beginning — partly because of the dynamic between two powerful law enforcement forces in New York City.

While the NYPD and the FBI talk publicly about how seamlessly they work together, the truth is there’s a lot of professional rivalry. Get detectives or agents out for a beer and one of their favorite pastimes is griping about something the NYPD did or something the FBI missed. Because of that, there tend to be a lot of leaks.

Details about the Times Square investigation were all over the local newspapers, even as authorities were still trying to puzzle out who was responsible. Any element of surprise that law enforcement might have had was evaporating.

To be fair, law enforcement was partly to blame. In many cases, it was the source of the information and leaks. But there seemed to be an extra level of frustration about the leaks in this case. As one law enforcement official told NPR, “Our operational plans were being driven by the media, instead of the other way around. And that’s not good.”

He said they watched in horror as news organizations started talking about the fact that the vehicle identification number on the Nissan Pathfinder used in the botched bombing had been taken off the windshield. Then another report said that wouldn’t matter, as authorities could find the VIN on other parts of the car. A short time later, the fact that they had found the number was reported. The coverage was providing a lot of clues about the direction the case was going.

On Monday afternoon, basically a day-and-a-half after the attack, a news organization reported that law enforcement officials were looking for an American citizen of Pakistani descent from Shelton, Conn. (NPR also had the information but didn’t report it out of concern that it would affect the investigation before Shahzad’s arrest.)

The NPR reporter may be quite right that inappropriate information burbled out as a result of agency rivalry.

But there is another possibility, namely that one of the 1500 Muslims in the uber-diverse New York Police Department wanted to help a fellow Islamist. I’m not saying that I believe that scenario to be the case, but it is a possibility that no one else has mentioned.

Whatever the truth, it was a very close thing that Faisal Shahzad was nabbed at all because he was rapidly scurrying out of the country as a result of knowing that police were hot on his trail.

Jihadists Grow in Brooklyn

Apparently it’s not that hard for determined Muslims to recruit their Koran-infused fellows from middle-class American lifestyles into the world of active jihad. For example, the foreclosure of his house drove Faisal Shahzad to plant a bomb in Times Square last Saturday following a lengthy trip to Pakistan, according to some in the media.

Using that logic, Muslims are far too psychologically fragile to survive in our rough-and-tumble society, and shouldn’t be admitted as immigrants for that reason alone. The idea that Islamic ideology might be a powerful inducement never seems to occur to liberal scribblers, but their excuse du jour doesn’t speak well of Muslims either.

In fact, hostile Islam influences many Sons of Allah who unfortunately reside here. Consider the fascinating details in an article describing life undercover in Brooklyn among the aspiring killers:

Infiltrating Jihadis’ World, Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2010

After the failed attempt to bomb Times Square, New York police are dispatching more officers to be seen on the streets, around landmarks and on subways.

But there’s one tactic they hope won’t go noticed at all: getting inside the bands of terrorists-in-the-making.

That’s why a young Bangladeshi immigrant working undercover found himself among a dozen men at an Islamic bookstore in Brooklyn one day in 2004 to watch videos of U.S. soldiers being slain.

“That made these guys pumped up and happy,” the officer said. “It’s like a party at a club. They were hitting the walls with excitement. One guy even broke a chair.”

Among the revelers: Shahawar Matin Siraj, who would be sentenced in January 2007 to 30 years in prison for an August 2004 plot to blow up Herald Square. “He loved talking about doing jihad,” said the officer. […]

The officer said he fit the profile of the young men he sought to meet: middle-class, first- or second-generation Americans in their late teens or early 20s. He said he watched the radicalization process of dozens.

At times, it was so rapid that a year or two could separate clubbing in Miami from prayer five times a day.

The officer described Mr. Siraj’s path. It unfolded in Brooklyn mosques, on local basketball courts and at an Islamic book store in Brooklyn that served as a gathering spot for radicals. The video, for example, that the officer said he watched with Mr. Siraj showed the “top 10” killings of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

What have we learned from this report?

Not only are would-be mass murderers excited by Islamic snuff films showing American soldiers being violently killed, but Muslims can flip from outwardly assimilated to radical jihadist in “a year or two.”

A country that was serious about national security would have ended Muslim immigration long ago.

Page 257 of 262« First...102030...255256257258259...Last »