Border Indicators Show There’s No Let-Up in Drug and People Smuggling

The pundits and political suits have been telling us that fewer aliens are crossing because of better policing and the bad economy. Reporting of border violence is the trumped-up hysteria of crazed conservatives, according to Washington columnists.

But today’s death count shows that aliens are still coming in great numbers despite high unemployment numbers (at least for citizens) and despite the brutal desert heat of mid-summer.

Perhaps the crossers are exhibiting a reasonable response to President Obama’s repeated references to comprehensive amnesty. They may well be hoping to be amnestied if they can get established in America in time.

Immigrant deaths in Arizona desert soaring in July, AP, July 16, 2010

The number of deaths among illegal immigrants crossing the Arizona desert from Mexico is soaring so high this month that the medical examiner’s office that handles the bodies is using a refrigerated truck to store some of them, the chief examiner said Friday.

The bodies of 40 illegal immigrants have been brought to the office of Pima County Medical Examiner Dr. Bruce Parks since July 1. At that rate, Parks said the deaths could top the single-month record of 68 in July 2005 since his office began tracking them in 2000.

“Right now, at the halfway point of the month, to have so many is just a very bad sign,” he said. “It’s definitely on course to perhaps be the deadliest month of all time.”

From Jan. 1 to July 15, the office has handled the bodies of 134 illegal immigrants, up from 93 at the same time last year and 102 in 2008. In 2007, when the office recorded the highest annual deaths of illegal immigrants, 140 bodies had been taken there through July 15.

Parks said his office, which handles immigrant bodies from three counties, is currently storing roughly 250 bodies and had to start using a refrigerated truck because of the increase in immigrant deaths this month.

He said many of the bodies seem to be coming from the desert southwest of Tucson, where it tends to be hotter than eastern parts of the border or the Tucson metro area.

Authorities believe the high number of deaths are likely due to above-average and unrelenting heat in southern Arizona this month and ongoing tighter border security that pushes immigrants to more remote, rugged and dangerous terrain.

Another recent measure of the continuing invasion is CIS’ film compilation of illegals trooping by concealed cameras within the United States:

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns and 850 Illegal Aliens

The hidden camera footage, acquired from a variety of sources, indicates that there is an unfortunate lack of federal law enforcement presence on Arizona’s federal land on the border in Nogales, in the Coronado National Forest (15 miles inside the border), and the Casa Grande Sector (80 miles inside the border). Also significant to the story are responses received as part of Freedom of Information Act requests made by Janice Kephart, the Center’s Director of National Security Studies, in August 2009. Featured in the film is a 2004 federal government PowerPoint showing the near-complete devastation of a borderland national park due to illegal-alien activity, highlighting the disconnect between the situation on the ground in Arizona and Washington rhetoric.

Victim Visas Are Ba-a-a-a-ck

In 2007, I wrote about one of Washington’s more idiotic immigration programs: Victim Visas—How America Stupidly Rewards Misfortune and Fraud.

The policy is yet another example of how immigration is an upside-down universe of reversed values, rules and behavior; where lawbreaking is rewarded and citizens who demand laws be enforced are accused of racism. The government will not protect citizens from foreign predators who enter our open borders by the thousands, but illegal alien victims get the red carpet treatment.

Now the Victim Visa program has re-awakened under the Obama administration after a few years of relative somnolence: this year’s quota has been filled, and immigration lawyers are demanding an unlimited number of Victim Visas because the attorneys sense another strategy to ship mass numbers of lawbreaking aliens into American communities.

All 10,000 crime victim visas issued, AP, July 15, 2010

The government has issued all 10,000 visas available this year for immigrant crime victims who help authorities investigate and prosecute perpetrators.

The last of this fiscal year’s supply of visas was approved Thursday morning, marking the first time the government has hit the statutory “U” visa limit since the program became active two years ago.

The visas were created as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. They are given to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes in exchange for cooperation with law enforcement.

In 2007, attorneys for immigrants who had been victims of crime sued the federal government for failing to issue any visas. Only 52 were issued in 2008. About 6,000 applications were approved last fiscal year.

Alejandro Mayorkas, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, said that an increased focus on U visa processing, as well as increased outreach and resources to crime victims groups and law enforcement, have contributed to increased applications.

“We will not turn our attention away from victims of crime,” Mayorkas said.

Another 10,000 visas will be available in October, when the 2011 fiscal year begins. Until then, the federal government can grant interim legal status to non-citizens whose applications are approved for the visas so they can work.

Most visas are given to people not allowed to be in the country, but some are given to people with some sort of permission to be in the U.S.

Crystal Williams, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said she is pleased the government “has turned its own situation on U visas around so thoroughly.”

“I hope this shows that the years of benign neglect of this visa are behind us,” she said.

The milestone highlights challenges law enforcement officers face in investigating and prosecuting crimes involving mostly illegal immigrants. Many are too afraid of deportation to report crimes. Critics of a new Arizona immigration law fear the law may affect immigrants’ willingness to assist law enforcement.

The use of all 10,000 visas indicates the visa’s efficacy to law enforcement, said Gail Pendleton, co-director for ASISTA, a group that advises the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women.

The next step is for Congress to eliminate the 10,000 limit, which Williams called a self-defeating quota.

The re-energizing of this portal for illegal aliens (“Most visas are given to people not allowed to be in the country”) is an indicator of the left’s infatuation with victimhood, particularly of third world persons (although the activists’ concern does not extend to the the crime victims of illegal aliens). Immigration lawyers get to feel generous, but the program adds thousands more onto the welfare rolls at a time when states can hardly afford to import more poverty.

There are no statistics given for the home countries or educational levels of those receiving Victim Visas, but it is likely they are mostly young and uneducated. The number of sex workers is not mentioned, but the program is part of an anti-trafficking law, so the skill set of some recipients was learned at massage parlors.

For an actual case study, see the San Francisco Chronicle‘s 2006 series Diary of a Sex Slave which ends “happily” with the victim remaining in the city on a T-1 trafficking visa rather than being deported home to Korea. Such is the diversity we are supposed to celebrate uncritically.

Shahzad's Terrorist Video (Sleeper Agent or Failed Assimilation?)

When Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was first arrested by law enforcement, the press did its usual bang-up job of reporting, using its favored narrative of just another Muslim in the neighborhood, nothing to worry about; the neighbors were shocked, shocked that such a nice family could be connected with terrorist activity, etc.

Neighbors Recall Faisal Shahzad as Quiet, Normal, NBC Connecticut, May 5, 2010

Many people who knew Faisal Shahzad said they are surprised he is accused in the Times Square attempted bombing.

The 30-year-old son of a retired official in Pakistan’s air force had a master’s degree from the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, a job as a budget analyst for a marketing firm in Norwalk, two children and a well-educated wife who posted his smiling picture and lovingly called him “my everything” on a social networking website.

But shortly after becoming a U.S. citizen a year ago, he gave up his job, stopped paying his mortgage and told a real estate agent to let the bank take the house because he was returning to Pakistan.

Shahzad was charged Tuesday with trying to blow up a crude gasoline and propane device inside a parked SUV amid tourists and Broadway theatergoers. Some say he seemed quiet, but normal. Others say that, as they look back, there were some red flags.

However, at some point before he built his failed bomb, he filmed an explanatory video about the joy of jihad for Allah, which appeared recently.

It’s possible that the guy could have gone Islamo-wacko after he arrived as an immigrant. Such things do happen, as was pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article (Infiltrating Jihadis’ World) about an undercover operation that noted, “At times, [the radicalization process] was so rapid that a year or two could separate clubbing in Miami from prayer five times a day.”

More details in my blog item, Jihadists Grow in Brooklyn.

But either way — sleeper agent or radicalized here — Faisal Shahzad illustrates what a dumb idea Muslim immigration is. Muslims can go off the deep end into violent jihad anywhere, including nice American suburbs, so let’s not admit them in the first place.

Rasmussen Poll: Majority Say Political Class Ignores Voter Opinion

The Rasmussen quiz-masters tend to ask more interesting questions than some polling organizations, and today’s item is enormously fascinating: a great majority of voters believe the country’s rulers don’t give a rat’s ass about the opinions of the electorate.

And — no surprise — one of the most indicative issues in this regard is immigration.

68% Say Political Class Doesn’t Care What Most Americans Think, Rasmussen Reports, July 14, 2010

The frustration that voters are expressing in 2010 goes much deeper than specific policies. At a more fundamental level, voters just don’t believe politicians are interested in the opinions of ordinary Americans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% believe the nation’s Political Class doesn’t “care what most Americans think.” Only 15% believe the Political Class is interested in the views of those they are supposed to serve. Another 17% are not sure.

Skepticism about the Political Class interest in voters is found across just about all demographic and partisan groups. However, self-identified liberals are evenly divided on the question.  Eighty-eight percent (88%) of conservatives and 64% of moderates reject the notion that the Political Class cares. […]

Over the past couple of years, most Americans have opposed, in many cases strongly, initiatives by the Political Class including the bailouts of the auto and financial industries. Most voters still favor repeal of the national health care plan and by a two-to-one margin disagree with the Justice Department’s decision to challenge Arizona’s new immigration law in court. Sixty-four percent (64%) believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the controversy over Arizona’s law than state officials are for passing it.

Washington Post political columnist Dana Milbank recently wrote a column about Arizona’s response to illegal immigration and called it a “pariah state.” However, voters nationwide are far more embarrassed by the Political Class and its behavior than by Arizona’s response to illegal immigration.

In fact, 55% don’t even think most members of Congress pay all the taxes they owe.

One reason for skepticism about the Political Class is that 70% believe Big Government and Big Business are on the same team working together against the rest of us.

Below, the joy of treason — From left, Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC), and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) enjoyed a bipartisan yuck in 2007, probably about destroying America with their illegal alien amnesty bill — which failed due to the outrage of the citizens.

California: Whitman Goofs on Immigration

In California, E-bay billionaire Meg Whitman is running for governor as a Republican, and spent more than $70 million of her own money to win the primary. In that primary, Steve Poizner increased his poll numbers by campaigning against illegal immigration and its huge cost to the state, and Whitman responded by claiming she was “tough as nails” on the issue.

After that win, Whitman rapidly backpedaled in the language of the invader: see Weasel Whitman Quick to Go Spanish.

Today’s report shows that Whitman is still unclear on the concept that the majority of California voters want their immigration laws enforced.

Whitman says she and Brown are similar on illegal immigration, Los Angeles Times, July 14, 010

The gubernatorial candidates continued to spar over illegal immigration Wednesday, with Republican nominee Meg Whitman insisting her positions are not so different from those of her Democratic rival, Jerry Brown, and Brown countering that their views are as different as night and day.

Whitman began the back-and-forth, publishing an op-ed piece in several Spanish-language newspapers that criticized the harsh rhetoric surrounding the debate and noting that she received flak in the Republican primary because of her opposition to Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants.

She says she and Brown opposed that law, as well as driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities and Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that would have denied most taxpayer-funded services to those in the country illegally.

“Clearly, when examining our positions on immigration, there is very little over which Jerry Brown and I disagree,” Whitman wrote for the Eastern Group Publications in East Los Angeles, which distributes 11 newspapers. “Latinos seeking a candidate who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants won’t find one on the gubernatorial ballot this year.”

Whitman declines to say what should be done about illegal immigrants in the country, saying such a discussion cannot be made until the federal government secures the border. However, her words suggest she is not in the camp that supports deporting all of them.

“We must find a fair and practical solution to the status of the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States,” she wrote.

Whitman has gotten into trouble in this area before. Last fall, while visiting the border, Whitman said, “Can we get a fair program where people stand at the back of the line, they pay a fine, they do some things that would ultimately allow a path to legalization?”  The last three words are precisely those derided as “amnesty” by Republicans who have argued for stricter controls. A spokeswoman later said the candidate was referring not to citizenship but to a “temporary guest worker program.”

In the GOP primary, as rival Steve Poizner hammered her for those words, Whitman brought out her campaign manager, former Gov. Pete Wilson, a man celebrated by many conservatives and reviled by many Latinos because of his highly visible support of Proposition 187. Wilson appeared in a radio ad called “Tough as Nails,” in which Whitman said, “Illegal immigrants should not expect benefits from the state of California.”

Democrats point out that such a denial of benefits was the aim of Proposition 187. Whitman’s campaign, which has aggressively and expansively courted Latinos since the primary, says that in the ad, Whitman is referring only to the benefits that appear in the next sentence in the ad, driver’s licenses and admission to state-funded universities and colleges.

Jerry Brown must be having a good laugh at Whitman’s rookie screw-up. After all, the whole point of a political campaign is to point out the idiot positions of your opponent and then use them as a club to pummel him.

Large numbers of hispanics will never vote for a Republican, but if Whitman campaigned hard on tough immigration enforcement, she might convince disaffected white voters to choose her. Oh well.

Nevada's Senator Reid Snubs Jobless Citizens

Senator Reid may think that he can squish his Tea Party opponent flat as a tortilla, but remarks like this on local Nevada media won’t win him any votes.

Reid Declines Vote on Illegal Worker Plan, 8 News Now, Las Vegas, July 13, 2010

LAS VEGAS — In this election season, Senator Harry Reid’s campaign events often include claims of how many stimulus funded jobs he’s created. But how many of these construction jobs are going to workers in the country illegally?

E-Verify is a computer program many employers use to determine if job applicants are U.S. citizens. Construction companies are not forced to use the official E-Verify system to determine if construction job applicants are in this country legally.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions introduced an amendment in 2009 that would have made E-Verify permanent and mandatory for all construction companies. Senator Reid did not allow the idea to come up for a vote.

“The reason: we need to do comprehensive immigration reform. We cannot do it piecemeal,” said Reid.

That’s the Dems’ answer for everything immigration related: comprehensive amnesty with hispandering politics set on High.

Hey, Harry, if the country had more immigration enforcement, there would be a lot fewer jobless Americans. But traditional citizens and their need for employment get little attention from the current government.

And anyway, we citizens are still owed serious border and workplace control as promised in the 1986 amnesty, which didn’t come with an expiration date. It was a carrot-and-stick compromise (the kind that Obama denies he is holding out for now), but the aliens got their reward while we citizens never got the increased policing.

And now the Dems want to run the same play yet again, like we’ve never seen it before.

France: Lower Parliament Votes to Ban Burqas

After jawboning for a couple years about perhaps making public face-covering illegal, the French have taken action. The lower house of the legislature passed a bill and it is thought the legislation will become law in September.

There has also been also movement in Belgium to disallow burqas in the public space: Belgium ban burqa-type dress; Law cites public security, securing emancipation of women.

This follows a referendum in Switzerland last year where voters chose to ban minarets.

So Europe has not completely caved to the Muslim demographic onslaught.

French parliament approves ban on face veils, AP, July 13, 2010

France’s lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burqa-style Islamic veils Tuesday, part of a concerted effort to define and protect French values that has disconcerted many in the country’s large Muslim community.

Proponents of the law say face-covering veils don’t square with the French ideal of women’s equality or its secular tradition. The bill is controversial abroad but popular in France, where its relatively few outspoken critics say conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy has resorted to xenophobia to attract far-right voters.

The ban on burqas and niqabs will go in September to the Senate, where it also is likely to pass. Its biggest hurdle will likely come after that, when France’s constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it. Some legal scholars say there is a chance it could be deemed unconstitutional.

Spain and Belgium have similar bans in the works. In France, which has Europe’s largest Muslim population, about 5 million of the country’s 64 million people are believed to be Muslim. While ordinary headscarves are common in France, only about 1,900 women are believed to wear face-covering veils. […]

France’s government has sought to insist that assimilation is the only path for immigrants and minorities, and last year it launched a grand nationwide debate on what it means to be French. The country has had difficulty integrating generations of immigrants and their children, as witnessed by weeks of rioting by youths, many of them minorities, in troubled neighborhoods in 2005.

Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has been collecting instances of the burqa being used for criminal or terrorist purposes, and has compiled quite a list: Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats. On that subject, he astutely remarked, “The niqab and burqa should both be banned on security grounds, as one cannot have faceless persons walking the streets, driving cars, or otherwise entering public spaces.”

Obama's Adoring Coalition Melting Away

Aren’t Chicago pols supposed to be slick wheeler-dealers, who can trade seats and manipulate the electorate with great expertise? Obie must not be quite the smooth operator we were led to believe, judging from his klutzy handling of tough political sledding of late.

Interestingly, the public’s image of the ideal Obama, carefully crafted during the campaign by spinmeister political consultants, has been under assault by reality. The idea that he was perfect, a messiah who walked on water fell steadily into amnesia and is now little mentioned by embarrassed former acolytes.

Now we are seeing that the image of brilliant politician, a man able to combine various ethnic tribes and interest groups effectively, is similarly false

The fading embers of Obama’s coalition, Washington Post, July 13, 2010

With midterm elections less than four months away, Republicans are fired up and ready to go. But they are not the only ones upset with Barack Obama. The president has also angered many of the key Democratic constituencies he needs to keep control of the House and Senate, and now Democrats are blowing furiously on the fading embers of their electoral coalition, hoping to stave off disaster this November. In the process they are abdicating their responsibilities to govern — failing to pass a budget or any of their annual spending bills, while using their executive and legislative powers to appease their special interests instead. It is a far cry from the hope and change they promised two years ago.

Take organized labor. Unions are incensed with Obama and congressional Democrats for their failure to deliver on key priorities such as card-check legislation. Gerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, complained earlier this year, “We can’t get anything done for the people we represent.” The White House made things worse by publicly ridiculing the AFL-CIO for supporting a primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), prompting the union to fire back: “Labor isn’t an arm of the Democratic Party.” […]

Another disenchanted constituency is Hispanics. Latino support for Obama has dropped 12 points since the start of the year, as anger has grown over the Democrats’ failure to make immigration reform a priority. Instead of putting forward legislation, Obama delivered a speech this month in which he laid the blame for his failure to act on Republican demagoguery. Then last Tuesday, the administration filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law. This was unnecessary, according to Kris Kobach, the former Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law, because the law was already being challenged by the ACLU and other groups: The issue was already tied up in the courts. The Justice Department doesn’t add anything by bringing its own lawsuit. These actions were designed to bolster Hispanic support, but they doomed any hope of bipartisan cooperation on immigration. Democrats appear more interested in posturing to win Hispanic votes than getting something accomplished for Hispanic voters. But the strategy may backfire if Latinos see through the charade, and the Arizona lawsuit ends up bringing down Democrats facing tough reelection battles in the West.

During the campaign, candidate Obama promised full amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. Instead, they are getting a substitute prize of a lawsuit against Arizona. Does he really think that anti-American amnesty-supporting hispanics will go to the polls in November in gratitude? It seems unlikely to me.

Obama's Arizona Lawsuit Not Popular among Democrat Governors

I’ve long enjoyed the twice-yearly meetings of the National Governors Association, which are shown on C-SPAN. The 50 members get together to share ideas and consider important topics like education and healthcare. The ambiance is normally one of adult problem solving, where the party differences are less important than exploring policies that work in the real world. Governors are executives who make decisions that have discernible outcomes, unlike legislators in Congress who can coast along for years without authoring any important bills.

Governors’ opinions are also a revealing reflection of what’s going on politically away from the Beltway. How interesting that Obama’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona was a hot topic among the governors, and was viewed unfavorably by the Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration, New York Times, July 11, 2010

BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.

At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.” […]

The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.

The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.” […]

But Mr. Bredesen said that in Tennessee, where the governor’s race will be tight this year, Democratic candidates were already on the defensive about the federal health care overhaul, and the suit against Arizona further weakened them. In Tennessee, he said, Democratic candidates are already “disavowing” the immigration lawsuit.

“Maybe you do that when you’re strong,” he said of the suit, “and not when there’s an election looming out there.”

Oops, Obama’s ethnic strategy is not looking quite so brilliant out in the country as seen by the Democrats who have to deal with the fallout.

Brutality as Defined by Dinosaur Media

The liberal press has taken some notice to the death sentence by stoning for an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, for adultery. The execution has been postponed for review after the international uproar; however it still may be carried out.

In order to burnish its appearance of caring about justice (so important to liberal media), Newsweek (July 9) has presented a list of brutal punishments in response to the Iranian stoning case. So virtuous.

Since many of the truly cruel punishments occur in the Muslim world under sharia law, Newsweek threw in an American execution by firing squad to promote the diversity fable that all cultures are morally equal.

The article did note that the man to be executed actually chose death by firing squad, but nevertheless included shooting as one of its brutal punishments, along with the everyday punishments of beheading, amputations and stoning so favored by Islam.

The World’s Most Barbaric Punishments:
Stoning is not the only cruel and unusual measure courts around the world—and in America—hand out.


In 2003 an Indian citizen working in Saudi Arabia took part in a brawl, wounding a man’s eye. Puthan Veettil Abd ul-Latif Noushad was eventually sentenced, in 2005, to have his own right eye gouged out as punishment. It was, according to charity Human Rights Watch, the third eye-gouging sentence handed down within a year. HRW was unable to confirm whether any of the gougings had actually taken place. In Noushad’s case, the Indian government made an appeal for clemency. It is not clear if the appeal was successful. The State Department, on its website, still lists eye-gouging as a punishment that can be handed down by courts in Saudia Arabia.

Iran also allows chemical blinding. In 2005 a 27-year-old man named only as Majid had been stalking a woman, Ameneh Bahrami. When she refused his advances he poured a container of sulphuric acid over her. Bahrami was blinded and disfigured. Majid was sentenced to have five drops of hydrochloric acid dripped into each open eye, blinding him. […]


Ronnie Lee Gardner, a convicted murderer who elected to die by firing squad, was strapped to a chair at a prison in Draper, Utah, and shot with .30 caliber bullets just after midnight on June 18 this year.

According to the Associated Press his head was “secured by a strap across his forehead. Harness-like straps constrained his chest. His handcuffed arms hung at his sides. A white cloth square affixed to his chest over his heart—maybe 3 inches across—bore a black target.”

Among some in the military, death by firing squad is considered more honorable than hanging. One example was Nazi Hermann Göring, who requested that form of execution, but was denied and managed to commit suicide rather than be hanged.

There’s no nice way to be executed, of course, but according to Newsweek, a firing squad is right up there with a Saudi sword removing the head.

In Somalia, stoning is a popular form of do-it-yourself execution by sharia enthusiasts.

Democrats Plan Post-Election Surprises for Voters

There has been concerned discussions going around about how Obama and his Congressional henchpersons might use the post-election lame-duck session to push through various unpopular items of legislation, in particular an amnesty for millions.

Today’s Wall Street Journal noted the interest of powerful Democrats to jam through legislation they regard as vital to their agenda such as card check for unions and a massive energy tax. Author John Fund didn’t mention any immigration bills, but he is something of an open-borders guy.

From the sound of these politicians quoted, insulting the will of the voters by abusing the lame duck session does not appear to faze the Democrats one little bit.

The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy, Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2010

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they’re leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won’t return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal’s Charlie Cook, the Beltway’s leading political handicapper, predicted last month “the House is gone,” meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That’s why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

“I’ve got lots of things I want to do” in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama’s deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. “It could be a huge deal,” he told Roll Call last month. “We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path.” By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like “card check”—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—”the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future.”

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that “to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again.” He told Mr. Press “we’re still trying to maneuver” a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending. […]

It’s been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn’t faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

That list is ugly enough, but former Congressman Tom Tancredo is concerned about a massive amnesty rammed into law against the will of the voters:

Obama’s national suicide via amnesty, World Net Daily, July 3, 2010

The larger question is what will the Republican leadership in Congress do to block Obama’s plan for national suicide? If Obama goes ahead with the plan devised by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – a plan to enact amnesty over the objections of the American people in a lame-duck session of Congress – what can be done to stop it?

There are two ways to defeat the enactment of amnesty in a lame-duck session of Congress. The best and surest way is to force the 40 to 50 so-called “Blue Dog Democrats” to disavow the plan and pledge to vote against it if they hope to be re-elected in November.

A second way is open for citizens who see a rogue government intent on destroying their constitutional liberties. We might see 1 million Americans descend on Washington, D.C., to physically obstruct the enactment of amnesty legislation by a lame-duck Congress.

It is often said that in a time of crisis, new leaders rise to the occasion. Now would be a good time for new leaders to arise from Republican ranks, because we are not seeing much leadership from the current gang.

So voting out Obama’s open-borders globalists may not be the end game this year. Stay tuned.

Farewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson

I was stunned yesterday when I got the news that Terry Anderson had died. I didn’t know he had pancreatic cancer, so it was a terrible shock.

I admired him for many fine qualities, but most of all for his total fearlessness. When many black Americans were hunkering down, scared to voice misgivings about the alien invasion, Terry was not afraid. Saving the country was always more important to him than obeying PC rules to “say no evil” about minorities.

From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.

Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.

Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists Fighting Immigration Anarchy to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.

Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.

CAPS interviewed Terry last summer, and he explained the current situation of black Americans living in southern California, that parts of Los Angeles are dangerous no-go areas for them, and most good jobs formerly held by black folks in the trades have been taken by hispanics, many of whom are illegals.

Following is Part 2 of the CAPS interview, where Terry noted how the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to the detriment of black citizens.

For Terry the fiery orator, see him stir up the audience at the 2007 Feet to the Fire rally near the Capitol.

Roy Beck commented generously on Terry’s life and work, DEATH: Terry Anderson, Radio Host Champion of Black Americans Against Unfair Immigrant Competition. In addition, Digger’s Realm has a remembrance of Terry centered on when he travelled to Phoenix on June 5 to speak in support of Arizona’s new immigration law, which turned out to be his last public speech (Watch.)

He was one of a kind. Irreplaceable. He will be much missed by all who knew him.

Page 257 of 270« First...102030...255256257258259...270...Last »