Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Happy Halloween!

Just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Halloween.
Personally, I have never liked the holiday, even going back to being a little kid. In college it was a lot more fun, but otherwise I could do without. But, I hope you all enjoy, and if you have any little kiddies running around that they enjoy it too.
Be safe and enjoy!

Thirty-one years ago

Having some trouble sleeping, I was up watching TV tonight, and caught the last few minutes of the cult classic The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Can you believe it was made in 1975? I knew it was an older movie, but I as actually shocked when I saw just how old it was.

Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Standing Firm

Associated Press, October 30, 2006

DURHAM, N.C. - The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case has heard the criticism from experts and armchair lawyers, and said Monday he is comfortable with nearly all the decisions he has made and confident about taking the case to trial…
Nifong, running for election against two challengers who have attacked his handling of the case, obtained an indictment against three athletes accused of raping a stripper at a team party in March. They have strongly declared their innocence.
In the early days of the case, Nifong granted numerous newspaper and TV interviews, at one point calling the players "hooligans" and declaring that DNA would identify the guilty. DNA failed to connect the players to the accuser.
Nifong said Monday that granting so many interviews was his only regret…
The latest questions about Nifong's handling of the case came last week, after he said he and his staff have yet to interview the accuser about the facts of the case, leaving that work to police. He said Monday his responsibility is to direct the investigation, not conduct it…
Nifong declined to comment on an interview, aired by ABC on Monday, with Kim Roberts, a second stripper at the party. Roberts said the accuser was clearly impaired and "talking crazy" after they left the party and drove to a grocery store.
Roberts said she was unable to get the accuser to leave her car, and pushed on the woman's arm and leg to try to force her out. Roberts quoted the accuser as saying: "Go ahead, go ahead. Put marks on me. Go ahead. That's what I want. Go ahead."
"And it chilled me to the bone," Roberts said…

So the DA has never even talked to the accuser? I said from the beginning this was nothing more than someone seeking reelection and playing the race card to win. According to one report I saw on TV, there is now the possibility that Nifong might be prosecuted due to his handling of the case. He should be prosecuted for ruining the lives of three people, only this time, there is enough evidence to prosecute.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

America at 300 Million

I know not all of you get Time Magazine, so I wanted to share some of the more interesting parts of the cover story on America with a new population of 300 million, and counting (Time, October 30, 2006).
I wanted to split them each into separate posts so that if there is any discussion, no one gets confused about which part we are on in the discussion. SO away we go. According to the Time study about the 300 million American citizens (illegals not included):
80.1% of the population is white
12.8% of the population is black
4.4% of the population is Asian
0.2% of the population is Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander
1.0% of the population is American Indian and Alaska Native
1.6% of the population is two or more races
And 14.8% of the population is Hispanic of any race.

Whereas Time separated Asians from Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and from American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanics were not separated by race, and instead given a quasi-category based on language. But, Muslims and Indians were not given separated and instead most likely classified as Asian.

America at 300 Million

In 1850, 9.7% of the US population was born outside the US
In 1890, 14.8% of the US population was born outside the US.
In 1970, 4.7% of the US population was born outside the US.
Today, 12% of the US population was born outside the US, or 14.6% of the US population was born outside the US if an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants are now living in the US. However, if estimates of 20 million illegal immigrants living in the US are correct, this means that there is a greater percentage of foreign born people living in the US than at any other time in our nation’s history. This would mean that immigration numbers are larger than at any other point in our history including the Irish immigrations after the Potato Famine.

America at 300 Million

Average Annual weeks of work:
U.S. 46.2
Italy 41.1
Britain 40.8
France 40.7
Germany 40.6

Vacation Required by Law
U.S. 0
Italy 4
Britain 4
France 5
Germany 4

America at 300 million

50% of the US population makes less than $30,000.
70% of the US population makes less than $50,000.
90% of the US population makes less than $100,000.
9.7 million make between $100,000 and $200,000.
2.3 million make between $200,000 and $500,000.
9,677 make more than $10 million a year.

America at 300 million

34% are Evangelical Protestant
22% are Mainline Protestant
21% are Roman Catholic
11% are unaffiliated
5% are Black Protestant
2.5% are Jewish
The remaining follow Islam or Buddhism
According to the study, 5% are atheist.
But then no, the numbers don’t add up: 61% Protestant and 21% Roman Catholic equals 82%, when the religious with no affiliation are added we have 93%, and then by adding Jewish we come to 95.5%. Obviously these numbers are rounded, but it only leaves room for 4.5% of the population that are atheist, Buddhist, or follow Islam.

America at 300 million

41% of the US population believes ancient civilization, like Atlantis, once existed.
37% of the US population believes places can be haunted.
25% of the US population believes some UFOs are probably spaceships from other worlds.
18% of the US population believes creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster will one day be discovered.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Here’s a question

Are you disgusted with the Republican Party or your Republican representative? That is if your Representative or Senator is up for reelection. I keep hearing in the news how the Democrats might very well take over both Houses in November because there is such discontent with Congress and the President. But, is this general discontent, or specific? Personally, I am disappointed with many of the decisions being made in Washington, but I am still going to go out and vote next month, and I am going to be voting for my Republican Representative and my Republican Senator.
I can’t help but wonder how many people are like me. There is disappointment but the votes are still going to be the same. I have a feeling that any feel the same way, and the Democratic takeover is not a guaranteed as predicted.

Thank you New Jersey

With the New Jersey Supreme Court not striking down same sex marriage and instead extending the rights of marriage to gay couples, this is going to lead to a lot of Republicans going out and voting next month in a critical New Jersey race which may determine who controls the Senate.

Bush Signs U.S.-Mexico Border Fence Bill

Associated Press, October 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush wanted an exchange of workers with Mexico to bring order to the border, but wound up signing a law Thursday that approves partitioning 700 miles of the United States from its southern neighbor.
The administration once talked of "orderly migration" _ workers entering the United States and returning to Mexico or other countries when their jobs were finished. But political realities have replaced phrases like that with "border security" and plans for fences, surveillance cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles and watch towers.
Bush still wants a guest-worker program. But the toughest resistance to that idea has come from his own Republican Party _ and has intensified as the midterm elections have drawn near…
"We're modernizing the southern border of the United States so we can assure the American people we're doing our job of securing the border," Bush said.
The new law also gives the Department of Homeland Security up to 18 months to achieve "operational control" of the border, defined as preventing all illegal entries into the U.S. by land or water.
The bill didn't come with any new funding, and the $1.2 billion that Congress previously approved is not enough to build the full 700 miles of proposed double-layer fence…
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Congress will add more money each year to erect the fence.
"Within about three years, we should have about 370 miles," said Kyl, whose state would be virtually sealed from Mexico through fencing and other barriers.
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Ralph Basham said the fence could take many forms, from chain link to solid wall, depending on where it is placed. The shape will be determined with the help of Boeing Co., which was awarded a $67 million contract to install a high-tech "virtual fence" along 28 miles in Arizona…
Bush continues to promote a temporary guest-worker plan. His administration had been negotiating the proposal with then-Mexican President Vicente Fox but shoved it into the background after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks…

So for those of you who don’t like Bush, think about what it means if you agree with his immigration policy. Do you think he actually got something right, or could it be that he is wrong once again, and maybe you should reevaluate your own ideas on the issue?

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Meet your new neighbor

Atlanta residents warned: John Mark Karr lives here
Associated Press, October 23, 2006

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A neighborhood group is warning members that the man who was briefly a suspect in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey is now living in the community with his father.
The Chastain Park Civic Association sent an e-mail Thursday to its 2,000 member homeowners announcing that John Mark Karr had moved into his father's home in the well-to-do Atlanta neighborhood, where houses sell for more than $600,000.
The e-mail noted that Wex Karr's house is about three blocks from a playground…
Karr has not been convicted of any crime that would require him to register as a sex offender or restrict where he can live or work…
After being cleared in the slaying, Karr was sent to California to face charges of possessing child pornography. But the case was dropped and he was released October 5 because investigators had lost crucial evidence.

A timetable in Iraq & More Troops

U.S. Says More GIs May Be Needed in Iraq
Associated Press, October 24, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two weeks before U.S. midterm elections, American officials unveiled a timeline Tuesday for Iraq's Shiite-led government to take specific steps to calm the world's most dangerous capital and said more U.S. troops might be needed to quell the bloodshed.
U.S. officials previously said they were satisfied with troop levels and had expected to make significant reductions by year's end. But a surge in sectarian killings, which welled up this past summer, forced them to reconsider.
At a rare joint news conference with the American ambassador, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said additional U.S. troops could come from inside or outside Iraq to "improve basic services for the population of Baghdad."
"Now, do we need more troops to do that? Maybe. And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis," Casey said. There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces in Iraq…
Casey said Iraqi forces would be "completely capable" of controlling the country within the next 1 1/2 years.
"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces," the general said. "It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so until I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security. That's still coupled with some level of support from us."…

So more American troops are needed, duh, and it will be another year and a half before the Iraqis can be in charge of their own security. I don’t particularly like the idea that it is going to take longer to make a free Iraq then it did to make a free USA (the Civil War was only 4 years), but I trust the words of a general on the ground about what it will take more than any politician.

Monday, October 23, 2006

And he’s not even a white guy

Candidate in Letter Probe Stays in Race
Associated Press, October 22, 2006

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - The Republican congressional candidate whose campaign was linked to an intimidating letter sent to Hispanic voters promised Sunday to stay in the race despite pressure to withdraw.
"I'm not going to quit this race; I'm going to win this race," Tan Nguyen told reporters at his campaign headquarters.
Nguyen, a Vietnamese immigrant trying to unseat popular Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, last week blamed an unidentified staffer for sending out 14,000 letters warning immigrants they could be deported or jailed for voting in next month's election. The mailings sparked state and federal probes.
Nguyen said he did not authorize or approve the letter, and implied that Sanchez was behind the investigations.
"There has been no crime committed so why is there a criminal investigation three weeks prior to a very important election? What is going on? Who is fueling this investigation?" he asked.
Calls seeking comment from Sanchez were not immediately returned.
The Orange County Republican Party has called for his resignation and he has received criticism from many, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
On Friday, after Nguyen's campaign headquarters was searched by California Department of Justice investigators, a handful of local candidates showed up to condemn the letter and suggest Nguyen might not be the only Republican involved.
Nguyen's residence, and that of a home listed as belonging to one of his staffers, also were searched by investigators on Friday.
The letter, written in Spanish, was mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in Orange County. It warned: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."
Immigrants who have become naturalized U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.
William Braniff, a spokesman for the Nguyen campaign and a former U.S. attorney, blamed the controversy on the media. He said the media mistranslated the word "emigrado," which appeared in the Spanish-language letter.
The word "emigrado" refers to someone who has emigrated and has no specific legal connotation.
Braniff said, however, the word refers specifically to legal residents _ but not naturalized citizens. He said when the letter was translated into English, the word "emigrado" became "immigrant" and didn't distinguish between those immigrants who were U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.

But, I guess there is the inconvenient fact that those in this country who are not citizens or here illegally, emigrados, can not vote in an election, and I would assume it would be against the law if they tried. Unless there is something here I am missing, but we haven’t started to let illegal immigrants vote too have we?


GOP Losses Could Spark Partisan Warfare

Associated Press, October 22, 2006

…Some of Bush's sharpest critics would rise to top positions with a Democratic takeover.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., probably would become speaker. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a foe of extending Bush tax cuts, would become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who has sponsored legislation calling for steps that could open the way to Bush's impeachment, would lead the Judiciary Committee.
If Democrats win the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada _ one of the most outspoken of all Bush critics _ probably would ascend to majority leader…
A Democratic takeover of one or more chambers would all but guarantee that Bush would not get his Social Security overhaul or further tax cuts through Congress.
One Bush initiative that actually might see improved chances is his immigration proposal for a "guest worker" program. That actually has more Democratic than Republican support…

Bush’s ridiculous tax cuts and his destruction of Social Security are not going to happen regardless of who wins in November because neither Party really wants either. But, it is enough for me to vote Republican to prevent a guest worker program or amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

Boy's Dad Has Doubts on Madonna Adoption

Associated Press, October 22,2006

BLANTYRE, Malawi - A Malawian man who gave up his 13-month-old son to be adopted by Madonna said Sunday he had not realized he was signing away custody "for good."
Yohane Banda signed adoption papers earlier this month, clearing the way for a Malawian judge to grant the pop singer and her husband a temporary order to take his son David.
"Our understanding was that they would educate and take care of our son just as they were doing at the orphanage," the 32-year-old illiterate peasant farmer told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Lipunga, the village where he ekes out a living growing onions and tomatoes.
Until now, Banda has said his decision was in the best interests of his motherless son and criticized local charities who have started legal proceedings to challenge the adoption.
Banda said his understanding was that "when David grows up he will return back home to his village." He said the director of Child Welfare Services, Penston Kilembe, and the retired pastor who heads the orphanage where David spent most of his life never told him by "adoption" it meant David will cease to be his son.
"If we were told that she wants to take the baby as her own we could not have consented, because I see no reason why I should give away my son," he said…
Banda said he was illiterate and so had no idea of the significance of the adoption papers he signed in the High Court in the capital, Lilongwe…
Madonna's Malawian lawyer Alan Chinula also refused to comment, saying his clients have not given him any fresh instructions, but he insisted the singer followed all the procedures to adopt the child.
Critics of the adoption disagree. The Human Rights Consultative Committee, which comprises 67 human rights groups, has challenged the adoption, saying laws concerning the residency of the prospective parents were flouted and that it may set a precedent for human trafficking.
Banda's claims were corroborated by his cousin, Wiseman Zimba, and mother, Asineti Mwale.
"Our understanding as family is that David is still part and parcel of our clan," Zimba said. "After the good woman nurtures and educates him, he will return back."…
Madonna, who came to Malawi on Oct. 4 with her husband, the British filmmaker Guy Ritchie, spent eight days visiting six orphanages she is funding through her Raising Malawi charity. She is also establishing her an orphanage for up to 4,000 children in a village outside the capital.

Madonna went to Africa, spent eight days there, toured six orphanages, and picked out the child she wanted to take back to England with her. The father didn’t know he was giving up his son permanently, and now we will have to see if Madonna gives the child back. If she doesn’t, this is no different than a triangle trade, but without the Rum. Why is the only outrage from human rights groups?

Saturday, October 21, 2006


Madonna has taken some time off from her busy touring schedule where she hangs from a cross while wearing a crown of thorns to symbolize that she is in fact evil, and recently paid a visit to Africa. While in African, Madonna found a young African boy and decided to bring this baby home with her to America. No, sorry, I forgot she is English now. So she brought the small orphaned African boy back to England with her. No, sorry again, I forgot, the boy’s father is still in Africa. Anyhow, Madonna, went to Africa to bring home a young African child. I assume this is now the thing to do to show you care about Africa. Go there, pick out a child, and bring them home with you, and then you too can own your own.
So can I go to Africa too and pick out a child? What if I don’t really want to go to Africa though to pick one out? Can I have someone go for me instead? But, I don’t want them to bring back the wrong one, so is it possible they could bring over a few for me. And, I would hate for the young children to be scared on a plane, so maybe they could bring the children by boat instead? I mean there are always ships going back and forth throughout the Atlantic, they could even stop somewhere in the Caribbean and pick up some Rum.
When they get here by boat, perhaps they could line up all the children and I could pick the one I wanted. I’m sure if others found out that there was a boatload of young African children coming to the US they might want one too, so maybe we could have some kind of auction to determine who gets what child if there are too many people who want their own?
As I child, I remember once I became old enough, my parents had me do some odd work around the house, like cleaning, and some work outdoors. I mean they didn’t pay me for it, but they clothed me and fed me. Sometimes though there was a lot of work, so it would have been nice to have had some brothers and sisters around to help out. Maybe, for the welfare of the child, I should adopt more than one. Maybe even 10 children, so my new child could have people to play with and share the work with? I will of course clothe them and feed them, but why would they need any money if I was taking care of them? I mean didn’t I pay to have them brought over on a boat? And wasn’t I generous enough to adopt them? They of course would take my last name too, but they wouldn’t really mind would they? I mean it is what is best for the child, and it looks like it is the thing to do anyhow. Maybe it could be a regular thing. A boat leaves from the US with money, or some other type of goods, arrives in the Caribbean and exchanged for Rum, then off to Africa to pick up children to adopt, and then back to the US, where the children could be auctioned off to their new proud parents.

Obviously this is all in jest, so I don’t want someone to tell me they were upset by this. Instead take it for what it was meant to articulate, however crudely. How do you let some rich white person go to Africa and pick out a child, take that child from their parents, regardless of parental consent, and bring them to another country? Because the child will have rich parents? Because the child will have a “better life?” Because that child will have more opportunities?
Look, I know children get adopted everyday, and I am sure Madonna is not adopting this young child to become some-sort of slave. But, does anyone else get at least a bit of a queasy feeling in their stomach because of this story?

The Truth Hurts

'Illegals' term isn't divisive, it's the truth


A hijacking of the English language just took place.

It happened earlier this month when Seattle activists accused Senate candidate Mike McGavick of using "divisive" language by invoking the word "illegals" in an ad.

In the TV spot, McGavick's camp says Sen. Maria Cantwell "voted to allow Social Security benefits to illegals."

Liberal activists, led by Hate Free Zone Washington, a social-justice group, blasted such language, calling it "dehumanizing."

"This kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric is inflammatory," the activists claimed, "and does nothing to solve the real problems to our broken immigration system."

Immigration policy in America is broken.

The system doesn't reflect the millions of people who sneak in and help our economy by cooking in restaurants, working as nannies, picking fruit or building homes.

But to suggest people who come from Latin America or Canada or wherever without valid paperwork are somehow here legally is ridiculous.

As David Ray of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, put it: "Referring to an illegal alien as an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a bank robbery an 'unauthorized withdrawal.' "

"Undocumented workers" or "unauthorized migrants" are euphemisms used for a reason -- to sugarcoat uncomfortable truths.

You see this verbal jibber-jabber all over the place.

Folks at Hewlett-Packard are in hot water for obtaining others' phone records by pretending to be those people -- or people with legitimate access rights -- then coming up with a pretext for needing the records.

The corporate world calls this pretexting. In the rest of the universe, it is known as lying.

After Hurricane Katrina, victims were not to be called refugees, but evacuees, a flaccid noun that doesn't capture the depth of the suffering.

President Bush likes to talk about reforming welfare. He means dismantling it.

What makes the linguistic spin surrounding illegals brain-numbing is that using polite words or phrases doesn't magically give people legal status. It does wipe out accurate language in the name of protecting the feelings of people who are in this country without permission.

I'm usually on the same page as Pramila Jayapal of Hate Free Zone, but not this time.

"Factually, no human being is 'illegal,' " says Jayapal, director of the social-justice group. "People commit acts that are illegal. Many of our august Congress people have committed illegal acts -- but we do not call them 'illegal.' "

Jayapal points out that being in America without valid immigration papers isn't a criminal offense. The immigration system was set up as a civil system, not a criminal one. Immigration violations, she says, are typically considered civil violations.

That said, people without papers aren't following the rules. That makes them illegal immigrants or illegal aliens or illegals for short.

"It's about stigma and dignity," Jayapal says. She said the activists "singled out" McGavick, adding, "It was an educational opportunity."

But to what end?

Public attention got deflected from where it's needed -- on meaningful policy discussions -- and that is nothing new.

Whether they're "refugees" or "evacuees," the flood victims of New Orleans are still without homes.

Whether they're "illegals" or "paperless immigrants," the hardworking people who cross the border still are looking over their shoulders.

Meanwhile, the PC word police keep up a blindfolded pursuit. They recently called the Cantwell campaign to complain about her ad rebutting McGavick's; the senator's ad says "illegal immigrants."

Uh oh.

"We're working on changing it," a spokeswoman for the comically hypersensitive Cantwell campaign said Monday. "They need to get the voice-over guy back in the studio to redo it."

What will the new ad say?

"Undocumented workers," the spokeswoman said. "Or undocumented immigrants."

What a bunch of bovine droppings.

Why Muslims can’t buy your home

From The Washington Post Real Estate Section (October 21, 2006).

Islamic law forbids Muslims from earning or paying interest. Here are some ways no-interest home purchases are structured:
- Co-ownership (Musharakah): The firm and the individual purchase the home jointly. The firm typically owns the larger stake because it usually provides most of the money. The individual then makes a monthly payment that includes a fee to cover use of the firm's share of the property. With each payment, the individual gains equity in the house until he owns it.
- Lease to Purchase (Ijara): The firm buys and then rents the home to an individual. This works much like car leasing. The monthly payment covers rent and a fee; the balance accumulates toward purchase. The parties agree that the firm will sell the home to the individual by a certain date.
- Installment Credit Sale (Murabaha): The firm buys a house and then sells it to the individual for the purchase price plus an agreed-upon profit. The amount remains fixed for the buy-out period. The full price may be paid at the time of purchase, at a fixed point in the future, or through a series of deferred payments. This is the model used by stores to sell goods on credit.

SOURCE: Guidance Financial Group, Islamica magazine.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

More from Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN

Here are some more transcripts from Lou Dobbs’ Program. It seems not only do illegal immigrants hurt the US economy, but that members of Hezbollah are coming across the US-Mexico border contrary to those who argue for illegal immigration. If this isn’t enough to make you support anti-illegal immigration legislation, than nothing will.

We begin with Bill Tucker -- Bill. BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, today's report by the Inter-American Development Bank reports that immigrants to this country, both legal and illegal, are sending back an eye-popping $45 billion a year to Latin America.
TUCKER (voice-over): The latest look at money sent back to Latin American countries offers the biggest clue as to why the United States has an illegal alien crisis. A survey of more than 2,500 legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America found that more than half didn't have jobs when they left their countries, yet they found a job here within one month. The average starting salary, $900 a month, or six times the amount they would have earned in their home country.
DONALD TERRY, MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND: These are people who make on average about $30,000 a year or less. We're talking about the chamber maids, we're talking about the parking attendants, we're talking about the people who clean tables.
TUCKER: Three-quarters of all legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America send money back to their home country. The dollars are flowing from every state.
Ten states are each sending back more than $1 billion a year to Latin America. These 10 states alone saw more than $35 billion drained from their economy and pumped south of the border. Mexico is the largest beneficiary.
Banks in the United States are aggressively encouraging the transfer of that money by reducing fees involved. Critics of this vast transfer of wealth point out that what these remittances amount to are unofficial and unhealthy forms of foreign aid.
DAN STEIN, FED. FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Remittances are distorting the economies in both countries. They foster political corruption in Mexico and they prevent needed reforms. It is a bad, bad system, and we need to start clamping down on the major players that are promoting it.
TUCKER: There's little chance of that happening. It's big business for banks. And the U.S. Federal Reserve just announced its program to help Mexican illegal aliens send money home.
TUCKER: But there does seem to be some growing awareness of the dangers posed by remittances. Just recently, Mexico's Central Bank governor and one of the country's leading industrialists openly became critical of their country's alliance on remittances, money sent back to that country from working poor essentially here in the United States -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: That's the first time they've been addicted to it up until now.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
PILGRIM: Tonight, a disturbing congressional report says anarchy and violence are spreading along the Mexican border and deep into the United States. Now, this report says Mexican drug traffickers have achieved shocking levels of sophistication in their battle with our Border Patrol. The report also says Hezbollah terrorists have already crossed the Mexican border into this country.
Joining me now, the chairman of Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations, Congressman Michael McCaul, and his subcommittee released this report.
I have to say, Congressman, this is really shocking stuff, when I read it. It's really disturbing. Let me bring our viewers up to speed on some of the statistics here. And here are some of the numbers. We'll just bring them up.
In 2005, 1.2 million illegal aliens caught by the Border Patrol, 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico, 650 from special interest countries, special interest countries being countries that have terrorism links. Were you surprised at the magnitude of this problem?
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX), HOMELAND SECURITY CMTE.: Not terribly surprised, but very disturbed by the findings. What we found was that the drug cartels have never been more powerful or more violent south of the border. They literally own these delivery routes, these vehicles that export drugs and crime into this country. Human trafficking, as you mentioned, the other than Mexican special alien concern has tripled since September 11.
It causes me grave concern, and I think the thing that keeps all of us up late at night in the Congress is -- god forbid -- these routes are used for weapons of mass destruction to come across our border.
PILGRIM: Yes, especially the terrorism element. We have some more statistics on that, which I would like to share with our viewers. In 2003, more than 30,000. In 2004, more than 44,000, five more than 185,000. So far in 2006, more than 108,000.
And the other fact that struck my eye was we believe we are catching only 10 to 30 percent of people coming across the border. So there may be many more slipping through. How concerned are you that we are not stopping terrorism properly?
MCCAUL: Well, as a former counterterrorism official at the Justice Department, I've always been concerned about this threat. The last week in the Congress, we did appropriate billions of dollars for border security to take care of this problem on our side of the border with more agents and fences and technology.
But we really need to -- Kitty, we need to look at the root cause of this problem, and it is the drug cartels. They are the head of the snake and the snake needs to be eradicated. We need far greater cooperation with the Mexican government.
We need to enhance our intelligence capabilities, not only in Mexico, but through Latin America in countries like Venezuela, which has been a safe haven for the Islamic jihad world. We all know Margarita Island has hosted Hezbollah operatives for quite some time. Maybe that's a little well-known secret in the intelligence community. But our report bears out the stark reality.
PILGRIM: You know, you bring up the issue of Venezuela and the report says this about Venezuela. The "U.S. military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country."
We know that these cartels that are smuggling people in and out. There's often a name change, that people will come in under an assumed name and try to represent themselves as a different nationality. Venezuela has objected to this characterization, but what makes you convinced that it's true?
MCCAUL: Well, we know that five Pakistanis were apprehended at the U.S./Mexico border with fraudulent Venezuelan documents. FBI director Robert Mueller basically testified before our committee that Islamic individuals were changing their surnames and taking on Hispanic identities with false documents.
If this doesn't wake anybody up, I don't know what would. And all we need to do is look at Mr. Chavez's comments that he has made publicly as he has embraced the Islamic jihad world and called them the brotherhood. He has embraced Iran, he has embraced Syria, he has endorsed Tehran's nuclear weapons program. And when you look at the threat of proliferation, as Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and nuclear material, it puts the threat now in our own hemisphere, indeed in our own backyard. I don't think we can turn a blind eye to this problem anymore.
PILGRIM: Here's what the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States said today. He called a press conference and made this rebuttal to the charges.
BERNANDO ALVAREZ, VENEZUELAN AMBASSADOR TO US: What they're saying is that presume, that they feel, that probably it might be something happening, we have never received any formal request. Nobody else in the world is accusing Venezuela of such a thing and so it's outrageous and is ridiculous.
PILGRIM: And Venezuela is a country that has embraced allies that are supporters of terrorism. What's your response to this rebuttal?
MCCAUL: Well as you've indicated, they have embraced state sponsors of terrorism. I think the world needs to stand up to countries like Venezuela and other state sponsors of terrorism who are now aligning themselves against the United States. I mean, Mr. Chavez came into the United States to New York to the United Nations and called the president the devil. I think it's hard to take their words very seriously, given the rhetoric. But when you do look at their words and what they're saying, they do endorse Tehran's nuclear weapons program. They do embrace this idea of the Islamic jihadist. And we do know again that Hezbollah has made a safe haven at Margarita Island.
The general of the U.S. Southern Command basically came out in our report and said there's a growing threat of a risk of terrorism not only in the tri-border area, but also in countries like Venezuela. I think he needs to be taken seriously. That's why we have ramped up appropriations in the Congress to secure the border. But we've got to look south of our border and deal with this threat.
PILGRIM: You know, this brings us right to the issue at hand. Congress has passed the border fence bill, but the president has not signed it yet. What's holding it up?
MCCAUL: I anticipate that he will sign it in the near term. We voted on that, we passed it in the house. The conference report came out with a little bit different language. But the act that we passed, in my view, is superior to that and I think the president will sign that in the near future.
PILGRIM: Congressman Michael McCaul, thank you very much for being with us tonight.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

What is wrong with the Washington Post?

I get the feeling that the Washington Post not only wants Jim Webb to beat Senator Allen, but with the way they talk about him, I also think they are hoping he will ask them to prom as well.
This is all from today’s paper alone:

Virginia's Senate RaceJames Webb mounts an independent-minded challenge.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A20
THE U.S. SENATE race in Virginia…
As Mr. Allen has partially admitted, his wounds in the close race have been mostly self-inflicted and have left a sour taste in the mouths of many Virginians. Still, there is an even better reason to vote against Mr. Allen: Quite simply, he is a mediocre senator whose six years of undistinguished service do not justify rehiring.
His opponent -- former Navy secretary, former assistant defense secretary, former Marine Corps officer and former Republican -- is admirably independent-minded…
An intelligent man with a record of integrity, he has resisted the packaging of political consultants, which can only be a good thing. Those assets, as well as his deep familiarity with military and national security affairs, offer the promise that he would make an able, if unorthodox, U.S. senator…
Mr. Webb, a fine writer, remains in many ways a political work in progress…
His diagnosis of America's widening disparities in wealth and income is on the mark…
Virginians deserve better and more enlightened representation. Mr. Webb offers that hope.

Don't Call Him RedneckJames Webb Hates the Expression, But Is Very Proud of the Culture
Washington Post, Wednesday, October 18, 2006; C01
…There may be few places in the country more foreign to Hollywood than Gate City, Va., and much of Webb's livelihood has been to translate one culture for another. His dad's family came out of these hollows, though Webb grew up on military bases all over the country. Over the course of his career, in books and more recently in screenplays, Webb, 60, has been writing about the dignity of his people -- the gun-loving, country-music-singing, working-class whites of Scotch-Irish descent who fight in wars, staff the nation's factories and shop its Wal-Marts.
…He is best known for the novel he started shortly after that, "Fields of Fire," a book he sweated over and struggled with, writing and rewriting it "seven times, cover to cover," as he likes to say. Drawing on his experience as a Marine company commander in Vietnam, it was published to much acclaim in 1978, when Webb was already serving as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He went on to become assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and then secretary of the Navy. When he quit that post in a protest over budget cuts, he added screenwriting and producing to his résumé and spent 2 1/2 years trying to bring American businesses into Vietnam. And he kept writing books. In all, he has written six novels and, most recently, a book of nonfiction about Scotch-Irish culture. (That's not counting an academic book he wrote in law school, about U.S. military strategy in the Pacific.)…
…Webb has studied the migrations of his people, exulting in their fighting history and puzzling over their entrenched poverty. He is himself the product of a long line of military men, and his son Jimmy is a Marine in Iraq…
…one-on-one, Webb can really talk. He breaks into spontaneous, growling recitation of a manly poem called "Do You Fear the Wind?" that he learned from his father, and launches into a disquisition on country music. He critiques the prose of Winston Churchill ("marvelous") and Teddy Roosevelt ("a little over the top"). His manner is relaxed, bordering on incautious. Regarding his early drafts of a particular book, he says (unsenatorially) that "they all sucked."…
He talks about his love of poetry. Yeats. Pound. Dylan Thomas…
Webb's books have continued to be popular. Webb says he receives "well into the six figures" on book advances, and according to a financial disclosure report filed in May in connection with his campaign, he is now worth between $2.2 million and $6.4 million. (The Senate disclosure form requires that candidates list their assets within broad ranges.) He lives in Falls Church with his third wife, Hong Le Webb, a lawyer who was born in Vietnam and escaped with her family after the fall of Saigon.
The novels are all military-themed and their titles pulse with warrior bravado -- "A Sense of Honor," "Something to Die For," "Lost Soldiers." Several have briefly made it onto major bestseller lists, and some have been translated into other languages. Critics have praised his scene-setting and far-ranging, action-packed plots. They've noted that, as one reviewer put it, he is "not just a writer of war thrillers; he is a genuine novelist of ideas," tackling such issues as when it's appropriate (or not) to put soldiers in harm's way…

Webb Is Reluctant To Advertise DutyVeteran Blasts Allen's Public Comments
Washington Post, Wednesday, October 18, 2006; B01
Virginia Democratic Senate candidate James Webb, who was critically wounded as a Marine in Vietnam, said yesterday that he is uncomfortable talking about his personal story even if doing so could help him unseat Republican Sen. George Allen on Nov. 7…
Webb, who has a son serving in Iraq, said he has disagreed with advice from his aides and others who have told him that voters get to know candidates through their personal stories. Although the race is close, polls show that Virginians know more about Allen than Webb. But Webb said it is improper to use military service in an overtly political way…
Since entering the Senate race in February, Webb has attempted to reveal aspects of his life. He is a decorated veteran, a former Navy secretary and a prolific author…
Though he wears combat boots to honor his Marine son Jimmy, Webb rarely talks about his son…
Webb's comments came during an hour-long interview in which he reiterated his desire to serve in the Senate. Allen declined a similar invitation.
But the Republican-turned-Democrat expressed little love for the process required to be elected. Although his campaign advisers and ads have hammered Allen's personal ethics, Webb has often frustrated advisers by refusing to attack Allen personally. Webb said he is uneasy making that case for his candidacy.
"This is not personal, for me, it's not personal," he stressed…
At a news conference yesterday, Webb picked up the endorsement of several high-ranking retired female military officers who praised his efforts as Navy secretary to produce more opportunities for women…

Why doesn’t the Post just call Webb handsome or dreamy too? I actually cut out a lot of these articles, but a lot of what I cut out were just attacks on Allen. The first article was from the Editorial Pages, the second article from the Style Section, and the third article from the Metro Section, but there were all in one edition of the paper.
Someone tell me I am wrong, and this is not a blatant endorsement of a candidate or anything less than an attempt by one of the country’s major newspapers to not report on an election but to influence an election.

As I have said, I am not a Republican

I am a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative, and not an Attila the Hun conservative, but a social conservative. Let me use a Washington Post article to explain.

What Democrats Would Do

By Harold Meyerson, Wednesday, October 18, 2006; A21

Against their better judgment, the Democrats are starting to taste it. In the House, the number of Republican incumbents polling under 50 percent considerably exceeds the number of seats the Democrats need to pick up to make Nancy Pelosi speaker. Controlling the Senate depends on winning two of the contests in three Upper South states -- Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia -- that could go either way.
… let's look at the legislation that the Democrats would push through the House and just maybe through the Senate…
In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished…
In the course of this year's campaign, Democrats have been pleasantly surprised by the support their proposals for greater energy independence have won in all regions and sectors of the country. They will surely boost funding for alternative energy projects, which they see as a way not just to reduce greenhouse gases but to generate jobs as well. Many congressional Democrats also want to mandate stricter fuel efficiency standards, traditionally a cause that some auto-state Democrats have opposed, even though the Big Three's resistance to such standards is one reason their sales are plummeting…

So if the Democrats win they will vote to raise the minimum wage, allow Medicare to get lower prescription drug prices for the elderly, help get college students out of debt and make college more affordable, follow the 9-11 recommendations which would include fixing our broken borders and ports (although I am not so sure they would), and they would get this country off of oil and head us down the road of alternative fuels, hopefully similar to Brazil and their use of sugar cane to power all their automobiles.
As far as stem-cell research goes, I am still undecided on the issue because I don’t know if there is a period where the embryonic stem cells can no longer be used to create life, but are still viable for research.
But, I don’t see anything else in this list that I would be against. In many ways I am all for the Democratic economic platform.
Now, this does not mean that I am going to vote Democratic. Being a social conservative is much more important to me than being a fiscal liberal. Although this article went out of its way to pick the economic issues that a majority of Americans would agree with, it left out all the social legislation that would be enacted by the Democrats, and that is where my support for the Democratic Party ends. This article did not talk about how Democrats would legislate immigration, abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage, Religious expression, etc. Gone are the religious Democrats with only the rarest of exceptions, so I don’t think I can get behind a party that treats those who are religious as fanatics or zealots or Christian whackos.
Neither party really represents me, but I am left with a choice of voting for Democrats who I agree with fiscally or Republicans who I agree with socially. My wallet is not making this decision though. I am voting in November for a Representative and a Senator who I want to represent me because of their voting records and who they are as people.

Special Order 40

Los Angeles' sanctuary policy, known as "Special Order 40," prevents police from arresting anyone based solely on their immigration status, or from notifying immigration officials about an illegal immigrant. In January 2004 Manhattan Institute scholar. Heather Mac Donald wrote that "dozens of gang members from Mara Salvatrucha, a ruthless Salvadoran gang, have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country after deportation is a felony. Yet if an LAPD officer arrests an illegal gang-banger for felonious reentry, it is the officer who will be treated as a criminal for violating an LAPD rule."

Our immigration laws are literally leading to the deaths of Americans. One-half of the prison population of California is made up of illegal aliens. These are not all good, honest, hard-working people who only want a better life. Illegal immigrants are also dangerous criminals and gang members, and they are putting American lives in danger.

Where is the news coverage?

Reid to Reimburse Campaign for Payments

The Associated Press, Tuesday, October 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid paid cash for a $750,000 condo at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives. But when he gave Christmas bonuses to the doorman and other support staff, he used campaign donations instead of his own money. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.
Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday his lawyers had approved them but he nonetheless was personally reimbursing his campaign for the $3,300 he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence. His office said he got the money to buy the Ritz condo from an earlier house sale.
Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal _ highlighted in an AP story last week _ that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.
In that matter, the senator hadn't disclosed to Congress that he first sold land to a friend's limited liability company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land again in 2004 to others…
Reid labeled the AP story as the "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about how it was reported to Congress…
Federal election law permits campaigns to provide "gifts of nominal value" but prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal expenses, such as mortgage, rent or utilities for "any part of any personal residence."
The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any "obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder."…
On the land dealings, Reid announced Monday he had failed to disclose two other transactions on his prior ethics reports and would account for those on his amended reports along with the 2001 sale…

To me this isn’t such a big story. I am sure all Congressmen make some shady deals and I am sure all Congressmen use campaign contributions for things other than their campaigns. But what was interesting what that Reid blamed the allegations on Republicans and accuses the Associated Press of conspiring against him when it was actually one of his staff members. You can decide on you own how a federal employee has $750,000 in cash to purchase a condo which “Reid's office said he paid cash for the condo, tapping a money market fund worth between $500,000 and $1 million in proceeds from an earlier sale of a home.”

Sunday, October 15, 2006


I took a break this weekend from this site. I needed to clear my head. There is just so much wrong in the world and in politics. Sometimes I just can’t stand how poorly the Republican leadership has handled so many issues. But, then I think of the alternative and what it would be like if Nancy Pelosi was to become the leader of the House and I came to the determination that I would rather have ineffective leadership instead of a leadership that would put a representative of San Francisco in charge of the House of Representatives.
I have never been to San Francisco, I have no desire to ever go to San Francisco, and I do not want San Francisco values to come to power here in the US.

Why Population growth?

According to Time Magazine (October 16, 2006):

“The 300 millionth American will be born this month. The only major industrial nation experiencing a population boom – due mostly to immigration – the US will probably hit 400 million by 2043.”

If our entire immigration system does not have an immediate overhaul there will be 100 million more people in this country in 37 years. This is going to happen in my lifetime, in most of your lifetimes, and in our children’s lifetime. You have to decide the type of quality of life you want to have and that you want to leave to your children. You can either sit on your hands and pretend or you can do something about it. Visit to learn more.

Lookie Lookie

The Mark Foley instant-messaging scandal is playing out like a massive October Surprise for Democrats…
On the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning and evening news programs, from the story’s emergence on Friday night, September 29, through Wednesday morning, October 11, the Big Three networks have aired 152 stories. (A fraction of the stories were brief anchor updates.) The breakdown:
ABC: 50 (World News, 20; Good Morning America, 30.)
CBS: 46 (CBS Evening News, 15; The Early Show, 31.)
NBC: 56 (NBC Nightly News, 20; Today, 36.)…
Consider the case of Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Illinois). In 1994, Reynolds was indicted over a consensual sexual relationship with a girl named Beverly Heard, beginning when she was 16. Heard testified that Reynolds gave her cash at each meeting and supplied her with his pager number and apartment keys.
In taped phone conversations, they even plotted group sex with a 15-year-old Catholic high school girl Heard had said wanted to have sex with him. Reynolds responded on tape: "Did I win the Lotto?" He asked Heard to take naked photos of the girl. He was indicted on August 21, 1994, and convicted on August 23, 1995 on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. Here’s how the same networks handled that congressional sex scandal.
The 1994 indictment of Reynolds (total: three stories): ABC: zero. CBS: two (one anchor brief in the evening, another one in the morning). NBC: one evening story.
The 1995 conviction of Reynolds on all 12 counts (total: 16 stories): ABC: one. CBS: five (one evening anchor brief, three morning briefs, and a full morning story). NBC: 10 (one evening anchor brief, six morning anchor briefs, a morning story, and two morning interview segments).
Please note that this adds up to 19 stories over more than a year, not 12 days. If the Foley story advanced to an indictment, how many more hundreds of stories will these three networks air?
There are obviously some differences in the two sex scandals. Foley’s Web interactions were with a congressional page, while Mel Reynolds was dealing with a minor in private. But Foley’s scandal is based on sex talk, while Reynolds not only had an active sex life with one teen, he was trying to add more teen sex partners.
There’s one obvious similarity: Reynolds was in the Democratic majority in 1994. The networks did not erupt in a frenzy asking: what did Speaker Thomas Foley do to protect the children? When would Democrats force Reynolds to resign? No one did. He was re-elected in 1994.
In the fall of 1994, with the ethical scandals hanging over Democrats, like the indictment of crooked Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (who did not resign, but ran for re-election), the Reynolds scandal might have had partisan resonance. But the networks weren’t interested in that kind of partisan resonance.
Tim Graham

60 Minutes

I don’t normally watch 60 Minutes, but I did tonight to see the story on the Duke Rape case. I hope you all watched it too so you can see what I said from the beginning. It was a set-up. The boys were all innocent. And the District Attorney sold out justice to get reelected by playing the race card.
I would love to hear just one person who was so quick to act as judge, jury, and executioner on the three Duck lacrosse players to admit they were wrong.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Help Lt. Dan and the Children of Iraq

This is a worthwhile cause and it goes to help Iraqi children who might not hate us yet.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Mexico may take fence dispute to U.N.

Associated Press Mon, Oct 9, 4:59 PM ET

Mexico's foreign secretary said Monday the country may take a dispute over U.S. plans to build a fence on the Mexican border to the United Nations.
Luis Ernesto Derbez told reporters in Paris, his first stop on a European tour, that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case.
The Mexican government last week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. President-elect Felipe Calderon also denounced the plan, but said it was a bilateral issue that should not be put before the international community.
Derbez said Monday after meeting with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy that it was a "shame" U.S. immigration policy had been used for what he claimed was a short-term political gain in the lead-up to midterm elections in the U.S. in November.
He said he discussed the issue with Douste-Blazy, and planned to bring it up in meetings with his Spanish and Italian counterparts during visits to Madrid and Rome. He vowed to work on the case until the "very last day" of President Vicente Fox's term, which ends Dec. 1.
The U.S. Senate approved the border fence bill last month and President Bush has said he will sign it into law — despite last-minute pleas from the Mexican government for a veto.
"What should be constructed is a bridge in relations between the two countries," Derbez said.

So Mexico wants France, Spain, Italy and the U.N to dictate American domestic policy? How about this instead, Derbez should go back to Mexico, and find work and jobs in that country so the Mexican people don’t have to look for work in the US. How about instead of taking a European vacation on the Mexican dime to complain about US domestic policy, that Derbez use that government money and put it into social services in Mexico like education, infrastructure, and fighting the Mexican drug cartels? How about Derbez fix his country rather that getting upset that the US wants to fix theirs?

7 People Freed From SoCal Border Tunnel

Associated Press October 10, 2006

SAN DIEGO - Seven people were trapped in a border tunnel Tuesday, apparently as they tried to cross from Mexico into the United States, according to fire department officials who were trying to rescue them.
Firefighters were sent to the city's border with Tijuana when Border Patrol agents notified them shortly after 7 a.m. that several people were trapped in a cross-border tunnel, said Candice Cook, a fire dispatcher with the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department.
All were freed within about 90 minutes and none required immediate medical care, fire dispatchers said.
Cook didn't know precisely where the people got trapped but said firefighters from Tijuana and San Diego worked at both ends of the tunnel. She had no other details.

The wall is not going to be enough, illegals and drug smugglers will use tunnels and any other means to get into this country. The wall between the US and Mexico will make it more difficult to enter the US or to smuggle in drugs, it will make it more expensive to sneak in or smuggle in drugs, and it will cut down on the trafficking of people and narcotics. But, without employer sanctions and without the government actually enforcing the laws and preventing companies from hiring illegal workers, people will continue to try to get in, and they will strain our social services as they did here. How many firefighters and rescue workers were needed to save these trapped people? How much did having these fire and rescue people work this scene cost the people of San Diego? And how might have been prevented from getting help because these fire and rescue workers were attempting to dig people out of a tunnel while they were trying to illegal enter the US?


This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever.

- - - Sigmund Freud (about the Irish)

Monday, October 09, 2006

And my eyes opened Part One

I have made no bones about the fact that I am a conservative. I am not an ubber-conservative but perhaps because of my blogging with so many liberal bloggers I have softened up a little. And then I saw two things that made me realize that no only am I conservative, but that liberals just don’t get it.
The first came in of all places while I was watching the movie Forrest Gump. I switched it on during the scene of the big peace protest in Washington. I am sure you all are familiar with the movie, and if not, then you should see it. What struck me was that in the protest scene where Forrest accidentally goes up on stage to speak there were all these signs that read “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home.”
I can’t help but thing many of the same people who held this same sentiment in the ‘60s and ‘70s are some of the same people who hold this sentiment today. To them, supporting the troops means protesting and getting the government to bring them home in the middle of a difficult war. But, it was the same people who protested “in support of the troops” in the ‘60s and ‘70s who then spat on the soldiers once they arrived home and called them baby killers, and treated them with disgust. No, I was not alive then, but members of my family were, and they did go to Vietnam and that was how they were treated by the supposed peace loving liberals. Those who protested did not support the troops; in fact the opposite was true. They simply disagreed with a war that they did not want to fight in themselves and pretended to support the troops as a means to argue against a war they did not support.
I can’t help but wonder if much of the same is going on today. Many of the left who claim to support the troops, and want them to come home, are also the ones who almost seemed rejoiced with the news out of Abu Ghraib, they post pictures of little children left bloody or dead in Iraq, they talk about how many innocent Iraqis have died in the war, and they talk about how we are only doing evil in Iraq and creating more terrorists. The self-serving left that claims to support the troops are the modern day Hanoi Jane.

Now, I don’t believe the war has gone perfectly, there is no such thing as a perfect war, and I believe there have been a lot of mistakes, but I don’t hide my beliefs of the war under a self-serving and false depiction of support for the troops. There is a war going on, and rather that protesting that war, I would rather the government give the soldiers anything and everything they need to win and keep as many of them safe as possible. If they need more guns, give them more guns. If they need more soldiers, give them more soldiers. If they need more bombs, more mortars, more jet fighters, more tanks, if they need international support, if they need more money to build infrastructure, what ever they need, they should get. Soldiers pay the burden of war and the blame, while politicians only take credit.
Want to support the troops? Don’t call, write, or email your Congressmen to bring the troops home, instead, contact your Congressmen and tell them to give the soldiers anything they need. Our Congressmen sent them, and it is our duty to make sure our Congressmen give them everything they need.

And my eyes opened Part Two

The second thing that caught my eye that showed me the Left just doesn’t understand was from an article in the Washington Post on Sunday about the movie “Death of a President” (Washington Post, Sunday, October 8, 2006, D4).
For those of you who don’t know, the movie is a “British film told like a documentary that tracks the political drama behind an investigation into Bush’s murder in October 2007…(and) uses digital technology to depict Bush being gunned down” (Washington Post, Sunday, October 8, 2006, D4).
The movie actually depicts a sitting President of the United States being assassinated. No, not a fictional US President, or even a past President who was assassinated, but the film actually created a scene that shows President Bush being assassinated using a new form of digital technology that makes the scene appear as real as any newscast.
The problem with the article for me, is that it questions why so many theater operators like Regal Entertainment, 6,300 screens in the US, and Cinemark USA, 2,500 screens in the US, has refused to show the film. AMC Entertainment, 5,600 screens in the US, has yet to make a decision.The film is being distributed by Newmarket Films.
This is the final line of the article:
“Death of a President” is not Newmarket’s first controversial film. In 2004, it released Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”

The article actually equates “The Passion” with a film that depicts the assassination of a sitting US President and creates footage that shows the assassination. “The Passion” was a movie that depicted the final days of the most important person in the history of Western civilization if not the world, and used actual historical accounts of those final days of the death of Jesus. “Death of a President” is a sick and twisted depiction of the death of the leader of the free world. Regardless of your opinion of Bush, this film is deplorable, and to compare the two is almost as bad.

The Left just doesn’t get it.

McDonald’s Controls our Immigration Policy

Illegal immigrants sue Wendy's

The Associated Press, Oct. 6, 2006, 11:50PM

HOUSTON — A group of illegal immigrants who worked for Wendy's International Inc. is suing the restaurant chain because the company fired them after discovering it had missed a deadline for joining a federal program that would have helped them attain legal status.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in state district court in Houston, is a companion to a similar class-action suit filed last month in Dallas against Dublin, Ohio-based Wendy's, its subsidiary Cafe Express and the Houston-based business law firm Boyar & Miller.
The immigrants, who worked for Cafe Express, are seeking unspecified damages.
Between the two lawsuits, 40 illegal immigrants say they were fired after the company recently found that Boyar & Miller, the law firm Wendy's had hired, never filed paperwork for a 2001 legalization program that allowed immigrants with employer sponsorship or an American spouse to apply for citizenship.
Once the discovery was made, Wendy's was forced by law to fire the employees because of their illegal status. Immigrants in the program would have been insulated from being fired…
Wendy's and Cafe Express say the number of immigrants affected statewide is 22 - 16 who were fired, and six who left on their own after hearing the news.
But attorneys for the immigrants estimate that the number is closer to 100, even though only 40 are named in the suits…

There it is folks. Illegal immigrants who worked for Wendy’s are now suing Wendy’s in US Courts because Wendy’s did not get them their citizenship, while they worked for the company, after being hired illegally, entering the country illegally, and working in the country illegally. Or is working in a fast food restaurant a job that “Americans won’t do” either?

1 in 16

I don’t know if I have talked about this before, or if it was just something that came to me today, but as the US population reaches 300 million, I thought about those not counted in that 300 million. The US government has no idea how many illegal immigrants are in this country. Estimates show that the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 granted amnesty to nearly 5 million illegals, and we know that estimates show that for every 1 million illegals caught by the Border Patrol and INS/ICE, about twice that number find their way into the country. I have heard estimates that there are between 12 and 20 million illegals here now, even though 2 million a year over 20 years would be 40 million. But, let’s say the 20 million number is correct. So right now there are 300 million US citizens living in this country and 20 million illegals. That comes out to 1 in every 16. That’s right, 1 in every 16 people living in this country right now is an illegal immigrant. But, even that number is misleading because 1 in 16 would mean there is an even distribution of illegal immigrants throughout the country, there isn’t. Some areas have any even higher proportion of illegal to legal.
So think about that number the next time you venture out of your home. 1 in 16, 1 in every 16 people use see is in this country illegally.
That is a damn shame.

Is this his first election?

AP: Allen failed to report stock options

RICHMOND, Va. - For the past five years, Sen. George Allen has failed to tell Congress about stock options he got for his work as a director of a high-tech company. The Virginia Republican also asked the Army to help another business that gave him similar options…
Allen's stock options date to the period from January 1998 to January 2001 when Allen was between political jobs and had plunged into the corporate world…
Allen's office said he did not report his Commonwealth options on his past five Senate disclosure reports because their purchase price was higher than the current market value. Allen viewed them as worthless and believed in "good faith" he did not have to report them, aides said.
Allen disclosed the options once — on an amendment to his 2000 ethics report filed three months after the normal filing period ended. He excluded the options from subsequent reports.
When AP showed Allen's lawyer the Senate ethics manual requirement that such options must be reported each year regardless of value, the lawyer said he was unfamiliar with that provision. Allen has now asked the Senate ethics committee for an opinion on whether he should have disclosed them…

How can so much hit a guy at one time? This was an investigation by the Associated Press, but notice the time of how this story comes out one month before the election?
There is a lot more to this story, and much of it involves financial dealings, and a rather clear picture that Allen got involved in tech companies that almost all failed, which is why he only reported once.
Read for yourself:

Who is running Allen’s campaign? I have never worked a day in a state-wide or national election, but I know I can do a better job than whoever is running this campaign right now.

Friday, October 06, 2006


Just click on the empty box to hear it.

Shame on Columbia University

Transcript from the Lou Dobbs Program on CNN, October 5, 2006

“In New York City last night, illegal alien amnesty supporters in an unusual setting attacked Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen Project. Gilchrist had just taken the stage at New York's Columbia University. That's right Columbia University. Columbia Television News was videotaping the event. As you see, suddenly, Columbia students stormed the stage forcing Gilchrist to run for his safety.
Students waving banners claiming, quote, "No one is ever illegal." Those chanted slogans of the illegal alien amnesty movement. Thankfully no one was hurt but Columbia's reputation as a university is in question tonight as Columbia University Republicans who sponsored the events says this demonstration proves there is no free speech on their campus. And they have the evidence to prove their point.
Minutemen, whether you like them or not, have been the target of violent protests and demonstrations by illegal aliens and their supporters all this year. Protests across the country, calling the Minutemen racist, all because of their nonviolent efforts to protect borders and keep out illegal aliens.
And for the record, not one single incident on the part of the Minutemen throughout its efforts to patrol the borders (not included in transcript) is a volunteer group -- Columbia University, you ought to be ashamed. And I'll tell you, much of this nation who cares about such things as free speech is ashamed of you.

When a University invites an individual to speak on their campus, that individual should expect to be treated with dignity as a guest, and as an invited guest should be able to go to a University and be able to speak their point of view without fear of being harassed or attacked. This is despicable.
While I was in school there were plenty of people who were invited to speak, but I decided to not go and listen. I did not go and then attempt to attack the person speaking. Columbia University should be ashamed and anyone associated with the University should be ashamed too. These students wanted to express their right of “Free Speech,” and yet were unwilling to allow someone else the same right, even when that person was an invited guest.
This story was covered by Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly, I don’t know if it was covered anywhere else. If you are not watching the Lou Dobbs Program, I suggest you do, because then you will actually learn what is going on in this country, and not just what those in the media want you to know.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Is there anything a Democrat can’t do?

From the Washington Post. This article has a lot of good information and shows very clearly that for Republicans, a sex scandal means the end of a political career. But, for Democrats, even having a homosexual affair with an underage boy does not prevent you from getting reelected.

The Redder They Are, The Harder They FallRepublicans More Damaged by Scandals

Washington Post, Tuesday, October 3, 2006; C01

Sex scandals involving politicians are as old as Thomas Jefferson, but the outcome seems to depend on which party you represent. In recent years, for the most part, Democrats have been able to survive their sordid escapades while Republicans have paid with their political lives.
The latest example: Mark Foley, a Republican congressman from Florida, who abruptly became an ex-congressman from Florida last week amid revelations that he had sent sexually explicit e-mails to teenage boys who were serving as House pages.
Foley's creepy behavior might have done him in even if he'd been the most liberal of Democrats. But that's not assured. With a Republican at the center of the seamy scandal, however, it was almost a slam-dunk that Foley would have to quit.
That's how it usually turns out for members of the conservative, traditional-family-values party. Just ask Bob Livingston, Jack Ryan, Bob Packwood, Dan Crane or others in the GOP who've watched their careers go pffft! with salacious disclosures. Or ask Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and other Democrats who've withstood embarrassing revelations to govern another day. Consider, for example:
Packwood, from Oregon, resigned his Senate seat in 1995 amid repeated allegations that he had sexually harassed women. A few years earlier, Rep. Jim Bates, a Democrat from the San Diego area, faced similar allegations by two female staffers. Bates refused to resign and won reelection (he eventually lost his seat to Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who ran into his own ethics problems last year, and resigned after being convicted of bribery).
In 1998, Livingston won the Republican Party's blessing to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House. But Livingston, of Louisiana, never served a day in the job. He was sunk by revelations that he'd had an extramarital affair, a disclosure that carried the additional baggage of hypocrisy since, at the time, Livingston was leading the Republican impeachment of President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, of course, ultimately survived impeachment.
Rep. Thomas Evans (R-Del.) was voted out of office in 1982 after he publicly regretted his "association" with a lobbyist named Paula Parkinson, who later posed for Playboy; Evans and two other Republican House members (including one named Dan Quayle) had shared a Florida cottage with Parkinson on a junket. Contrast this to the reaction to allegations of an affair between Sen. Chuck Robb (D-Va.) and Tai Collins, a former Miss Virginia. Robb claimed that Collins had only given him a back rub in a hotel room. Robb won reelection three years later.
The clearest illustration may be in the divergent outcomes of the cases against Crane (R) and Studds (D) in 1983. Both men were censured by the House for having sex with underage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old girl in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old boy in 1973. Crane, of Illinois, apologized for his actions, while Studds, who declared he was gay, refused. Crane lost his reelection bid the next year; Studds, of Massachusetts, kept winning his seat until he retired in 1996.
A double standard? And if so, by whom?
"The reality is that Democrats seem to get away with more," says Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the Hotline, a daily political journal...
Todd thinks he knows who's to blame for this: "It's the media, to be honest…”
He cites the case of Jack Ryan, the Illinois Republican whose bid for the Senate was derailed in 2004 when his wife, actress Jeri Ryan, alleged in divorce papers that he had taken her to sex clubs and had asked her to engage in sexual activity in front of other patrons. "What's amazing is that his candidacy hit the wall not because he had sex, but because he was thinking about having sex," says Todd.
But it's tough to blame the media when it's the electorate that determines who stays and who goes.
In Studds's case, he happened to represent a liberal (and apparently quite forgiving) district, while Crane came from a conservative rural district. Ditto with Barney Frank, who was reelected in his liberal Massachusetts district after it was revealed that he hired a male prostitute in 1985 to work in his District apartment, and the young man used the apartment to run a prostitution service. Clinton, meanwhile, was elected president twice, which may have had something to do with his ability to survive the storm over alleged extramarital affairs…
There are exceptions, of course. A few Democrats have lost their jobs as a result of scandals. Wayne Hays, a Democrat from Ohio, resigned his House seat in 1976 after the disclosure of his affair with Elizabeth Ray, the curvaceous blonde who "worked" in Hays's office despite no evident secretarial skills. Gary Hart, who famously dared reporters to follow him around to prove he was squeaky clean, blew up as a Democratic presidential candidate in 1984 after reporters found him leaving a Capitol Hill townhouse after spending the night with a woman not his wife. And Gary Condit, a conservative Democrat from Modesto, Calif., lost his seat in 2002 following saturation coverage of his relationship with murdered intern Chandra Levy.
It's also true that Wilbur Mills, the powerful Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in the 1970s, lost his chairmanship after cavorting in the Tidal Basin with Fanne Foxe, "the Argentine Firecracker."
What's forgotten, however, is that Mills won reelection after his Tidal Basin romp; he was stripped of his chairmanship only after he appeared on a stage in Boston with Foxe, apparently drunk. House Democrats demanded his resignation, and got it.

So Congressmen, want to have an extramarital affair? Then you better make sure you are a Democrat, so you can still get reelected.

Believe me, I am not, and will not defend Foley. But, Studds actually had an affair with an underage boy and got reelected, and Frank hired a male prostitute and the prostitute used his District office to run a brothel, and he got reelected too?

No one wants population growth

From NumbersUSA

Tuesday, October 3:

Roy Beck and several other members of the NumbersUSA staff joined other immigration-reduction leaders at the National Press Club in a press conference, "300 Million: Milestone or Millstone?" to mark the U.S. population hitting 300 million in the next week or so. As part of the press conference, new poll results were released, which show that most Americans want less immigration and large-scale U.S. population growth. The results are amazing. When asked whether expected population growth under current immigration rates would improve or worsen their quality of life:

Hispanics: By a 6-1 ratio, they say quality of life where they live would be made worse rather than made better by such population growth.
Blacks: By a 9-1 ratio, they fear worse over better (about the same as the 9 ½ -1 ratio for whites).
All Political Affiliations: Democrats expect the population growth will make things worse over better by 7-1. The ratio is 10-1 for Independents, and 14-1 for Republicans.
Every Region of the Country: The survey divided the United States into nine regions. Regardless of the population density, voters in each region appear to much prefer their current level of population over significantly more growth. Not surprisingly, voters in the congested Mid-Atlantic states say one-third more growth would make the quality of life worse over better by a 13-1 ratio. Even voters in the relatively open spaces of the northern Great Plains region say worse over better by a 10-1 ratio.
Click here for more results.

Can any of you Democrats or liberals explain to me why you want more people in this country? Is traffic not bad enough already? Do you like longer lines? Do you want higher taxes to pay for more social services for people coming to this country? I know by a 7 to 1 margin you are against population growth, but if we assume in a country of 300 million where say 50 million are under the age of 18, 250 million left, and 80 million are Democrats, 90 million Independents, and 80 million are Republican, that means 10 million of you want to see 100 million more people in this country in the next 50 years.

This guy is an ASSHOLE!

Foley Says He Was Abused by a Clergyman

Associated Press, October 4, 2006

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was sexually abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages.
Attorney David Roth said Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Foley is Roman Catholic.
He also acknowledged for the first time that the former congressman is gay, saying the disclosure was part of his client's "recovery."
"Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man," Roth told reporters as Republicans struggled with fallout from Foley's resignation.
Foley "does not blame the trauma he sustained as a young adolescent for his totally inappropriate e-mails" and instant messages, Roth said. "He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct."
Foley, who is 52 and single, represented parts of Palm Beach County for 12 years until he abruptly resigned Friday after being accused of sending lurid Internet messages to teenage boys who served as pages on Capitol Hill. The FBI and Florida law enforcement officials are investigating whether he violated any laws.
The lawyer said Foley, who is now in treatment for alcohol abuse, never had any inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. "Any suggestion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false," he said.
Roth also said Foley was under the influence of alcohol when he sent the e-mails and instant messages…
Roth said Foley was never under the influence of alcohol while conducting business on Capitol Hill, but he could not explain his previous statement that Foley was intoxicated when he sent the messages…

Well if the alleged abuse by a Priest was not the reason he sent sexual emails to an underage boy, then WHY BRING IT UP? Or better yet, why lie about it?

Monday, October 02, 2006

Tony, say it ain’t so

FBI Worries About al-Qaida Ties to Mob

Associated Press, Sun Oct 1, 2006

WASHINGTON - The FBI's top counterterrorism official harbors lots of concerns: weapons of mass destruction, undetected homegrown terrorists and the possibility that old-fashioned mobsters will team up with al-Qaida for the right price.
Though there is no direct evidence yet of organized crime collaborating with terrorists, the first hints of a connection surfaced in a recent undercover FBI operation. Agents stopped a man with alleged mob ties from selling missiles to an informant posing as a terrorist middleman.
That case and other factors are heightening concerns about a real-life episode of the Sopranos teaming with Osama bin Laden's followers.
"We are continuing to look for a nexus," said Joseph Billy Jr., the FBI's top counterterrorism official. "We are looking at this very aggressively."
The new strategy involves an analysis of nationwide criminal investigations, particularly white collar crime, side by side with intelligence and terrorist activity.
"We have developed an ability to look harder and broader in a greatly enhanced way to see if there is any crossover," Billy said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Organized crime syndicates could facilitate money transfers or laundering, human smuggling, identification fraud or explosives and weapons acquisitions, officials said.
The options are many for terrorists groups.
There are the five reputed La Cosa Nostra families in New York, Russian criminal enterprises from Brighton Beach in the New York borough of Brooklyn to Moscow, and the emerging Asian crime syndicates that operate in many Islamic countries with al-Qaida offshoots.
A contract study produced recently for the Pentagon and obtained by the AP warned that the potential for organized crime assisting terrorists is growing.
"Although terrorism and organized crime are different phenomena, the important fact is that terrorist and criminal networks overlap and cooperate in some enterprises," the study said. "The phenomenon of the synergy of terrorism and organized crime is growing because similar conditions give rise to both and because terrorists and organized criminals use similar approaches to promote their operations."
The traditional mafia has highly developed networks for acquiring goods and services and money, all for a price.
The mob's potential interest in helping a terrorist has nothing to do with ideology or sympathy but with greed, said Matt Heron, head of New York FBI's organized crime unit.
"They will deal with anybody, if they can make a buck," Heron said. "They will sell to a terrorist just as easily as they would sell to an order of Franciscan monks. It's a business relationship to them."
"If the mob has explosives and a terrorist wants them and they have the money, they could become instant friends," he said.
Pat D'Amuro, a retired senior FBI official and now chief executive of Giuliani Security, said a Mafia boss once acknowledged that the mob would help terrorists.
"I am aware of a high-level Mafia figure, who was cooperating with authorities, being asked if the Mafia would assist terrorists in smuggling people into Europe through Italy," D'Amuro said. "He said, 'The Mafia will help who ever can pay.'"
Officials said they have no specific evidence that such a relationship has been cemented. But concerns were heightened last year after an Armenian immigrant was arrested in New York for allegedly leading a plot to sell military weapons to an FBI informant posing as a middleman for terrorists.
Arthur Solomonyan had claimed to be able to deliver shoulder-fired missiles from his connection in Russian organized crime to the informant, who claimed to have ties to al-Qaida, federal prosecutors said. Solomonyan and 17 others in New York, Florida and California were charged in the case.
Solomonyan is scheduled for trial this month. His lawyer, Seth Ginsberg, said he plans to "vigorously contest" the charges and call the government's confidential informant to the stand to challenge his motives. The Italian, Russian, and Asian mafia remain active, particularly in New York, even though the government has successfully prosecuted numerous figures in recent years.
In the past three years, well over 100 associates from all five La Cosa Nostra families have been arrested in New York, Heron noted.
While the potential of a gangster-terrorist marriage is on the FBI's radar, homegrown terror cells and weapons of mass destruction are also big concerns for those in the FBI given the job of stopping the next terrorist attack…

I think it is the Russians and Asians though. The Asian organized crime gangs have connections to Al Qaeda and the Russians have connection to a lot of former Soviet Union military surplus. And if you have met any New York Italians, you would know they didn’t take to kindly to 9-11 or the people who did it, and they still don’t.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

We got a Victory!!!!

From an email I received by being a free member of

The Senate just finished passing the U.S. House of Representative's fence bill. It will now go to President Bush who has promised to sign it. This is a stand-alone bill. It was not bundled with any compromises, any increases in immigration, any new guestworker visas or any amnesty. It deals only with making our southern border more secure and to further impede the flow of illegal workers and dependents.
This fence was barely talked about two years ago and mostly thought to be a crackpot, off-the-wall (er, poor choice of words) idea -- and it still is by most of the newspaper editorial writers of this country…
So, how could this pass so overwhelmingly?
Ever since the House passed this fence bill 283-138 earlier this month, major Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they would refuse to allow this bill to come to a vote. They said passing an enforcement-only bill would take away a bargaining chip they need to pass a bill with guestworkers and an amnesty. They used all kinds of maneuvers to keep from having to vote directly on this bill. But a lot of the Senators -- such as Sen. Martinez (R-FL) -- who so vociferously spoke against this bill ended up voting for it tonight…
You can read more about the fence and this bill (H.R. 6061) at:
This bill basically is the only step forward that Congress has taken this year in the fight against out-of-control mass immigration. It is sad that this is all we got when we consider the great promise of the ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT bill (H.R. 4437) passed last December by the House.
But the Senate refused to deal with it unless it could add an amnesty and incredible increases in legal immigration.
In addition, we have to remember that the bill tonight was not an appropriations bill. The money to fund the fence must come in another bill. Money for a few hundred miles appears to be in the pipeline, but the Senate so far has not shown signs of being willing to provide all the money to build all 700 miles.
Nonetheless, there will be plenty of money to get started. As this fence begins to be erected at and near the populated settlements along the Mexican border -- and as it clearly slows the illegal traffic -- we can hope that steps of success will breed more interest and more money for more fence in Congress next year.
Just about exactly a year ago, leaders of many national groups fighting immigration insanity -- and some key staffers from Congress -- met in a private room for dinner on Capitol Hill.
We struggled to come up with the most important three tools needed to substantially reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S. We came up with three (not necessarily ranked by importance):
1. Build a fence on the Mexican border.
2. Mandate every employer to run every new hire (and eventually all existing employees) through a national computerized verification system to keep most illegal aliens out of a job.
3. Mandate that the federal government cooperate with any local law enforcement agency that calls to report having apprehended an illegal alien.
Our groups pledged to work jointly and cooperatively with each other and with our allies in Congress to reach these three goals. We were amazed when, two months later, the U.S. House passed a bill with all three.
We are sorry that only one of the three top tools got through this Congress. BUT WE GOT ONE! The effectiveness of the fence will be severely limited until we pass the other two tools. We look forward to working with you to do that in the year ahead.
In addition, NumbersUSA is pledged to three other top goals to reduce the illegal alien population:
1. Eliminate the chain migration categories that allow immigrants to choose the next immigrants by bringing in their adult relatives (other than spouse). Because this starts a chain that connects hundreds of cousins and in-laws and aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces for each new immigrant, it builds up gigantic expectations for whole communities in (usually poor) foreign countries. Although most of them must wait for years before their "number gets called," large numbers of them decide they already are entitled to live in the U.S. and just go ahead and enter the country illegally.
2. Eliminate the visa lottery that randomly picks 50,000 foreign nationals to come to the U.S. to become citizens each year. Because millions of people apply for the lottery, large numbers of them begin to believe that they may win some day and decide to just come on to the U.S. illegally and wait to win the lottery while here.
3. Eliminate anchor baby citizenship, a policy that gives automatic U.S. citizenship to any baby born of an illegal alien on U.S. soil. Most industrialized countries in the world that once awarded anchor baby citizenship have stopped because it is a huge magnet to encourage women to enter a country illegally. And the illegal aliens use their anchor babies as a tool to avoid deportation…

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
In red are those Senators who are up for re-election this fall.