politicalpartypoop.com

(CNSNews.com) - Immigration reform advocates, including Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, are calling for an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at businesses that knowingly hire large numbers of illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, a report published Tuesday by a Washington think tank shows that raids, along with other enforcement measures, are doing exactly what they are supposed to do: reducing the number of foreigners illegally working and residing in the United States.

The report, authored by Dr. Stephen Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), says that the illegal-alien population in the United States has declined by more than one million persons in the past year.

CIS looked at a number of possible causes for the decline and concluded that increased enforcement measures have discouraged new illegal immigration and encouraged illegal aliens already here to ‘self-deport’.

“If the decline were sustained, it would reduce the illegal population by one-half in the next five years,” the report concludes.

This election is like being stuck between two gun barrels and having to decide which one you want to be shot with, the big gun that will explode your head like a cantaloupe quick death or the smaller less frightening looking gun the one that may not kill you right away exposing you to long term suffering.
Gruesome shit huh? Well that is the 2008 election in a nutshell!

Via Byron York. We know he’s planning to revisit the issue — the day after he’s inaugurated, no less — but the lack of remorse is news to me. What happened to that “lesson” he supposedly learned about securing the border first?

College betting is obviously an interstate commerce issue
(So Nevada should not have the right to have sports betting?)

The issue has been dead for years

(Despite your efforts, and I thought you were running on effectiveness, so how can it be dead?)

I haven’t won on every issue. I didn’t win on immigration reform, but I’ll go back at it. And I’m glad I did it.

Full Article here

In case you forgot - From January 28, 2008 Hot Air Post - Video: Sure I’d sign my immigration bill as president, says McCain

“in my first term we will make this a priority and get this done.”

Also check out these posts as well: Congress Blows Our Money on Pointless Eco-Indulgences and Subprime Crisis as Racist Oppression

“using the liberal media to promote a parasitic, self-pitying attitude that makes success impossible.”

This video featured on TV Jersey

KOGO Hosts ‘Party’ In Protest Of Bank Of America Decision

SAN DIEGO — A local radio show wants people to shred their Bank of America credit cards to protest the bank’s decision to offer credit cards to illegal immigrants.

A credit card shredding party was held in front of the KOGO studios in Serra Mesa.

Bank of America said the credit card is open to people without a Social Security number or credit history as long as they have had a checking account with the bank for three months.
The bank said the program would help undocumented workers build good credit.

***

This is really cute, but just like in the other post I hate meaningless protests!

Hey people, instead of shredding your Bank of American credit cards, CLOSE YOUR FUCKEN ACCOUNTS.

Yes what Bank of America is doing is bullshit and fucked up, but its business.

If people want to send them a message stop doing business with them, don’t go to a Bank of America ATM, close accounts, encourage friends to close accounts doing anything else if pointless.
If they want to be fucken Bank of Mexico then they are free to take that risk.  

Posted by Brent Baker on Newsbusters

Filling in for Lou Dobbs on Friday night, CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim highlighted a case of bias at the “supposedly objective” Associated Press, which led a dispatch about the federal roundup Tuesday of workers at meatpacking plants, by referring to how “hordes of police” had “stormed” the plants, but “the illegal workers arrested may not have been the only victims.” Pilgrim marveled: “That’s right, the Associated Press calling illegal aliens — including some charged with stealing the identities of hundreds of Americans — it called them ‘victims.’”

Indeed, in a Friday morning AP dispatch as posted by Yahoo, “Immigration raids may affect meat prices,” the AP’s Roxana Hegeman led her Wichita-datelined story: “When hordes of police and immigration officials stormed meatpacking plants in six states this week, the illegal workers arrested may not have been the only victims. Consumers and the industry itself may be feeling the repercussions in a shortage of meatpackers, higher wage costs and, ultimately, higher prices for the beef that lands on America’s tables at home and in restaurants….”

Pilgrim’s short item toward the end of the first half hour of the December 15 Lou Dobbs Tonight:

“This broadcast is often criticized for taking a position on issues such as illegal immigration and border security. Well, here’s how the supposedly objective Associated Press covered Tuesday’s immigration raids on Swift Company meatpacking plants. In a story from Wichita, Kansas, and reprinted across the country, the AP reported that [text on screen under “Media Bias?”] ‘hordes of police and immigration officials stormed meatpacking plants in six states this week, the illegal workers arrested may not have been the only victims.’ That’s right, the Associated Press calling illegal aliens — including some charged with stealing the identities of hundreds of Americans — it called them ‘victims.’”

 By Hugh Hewitt - Townhall.com Blog 

As soon as the House and Senate GOP have their leadership teams in place, and soon after the lame duck session ends, the 250 House and Senate members should repair to a conference center somewhere for a long conversation on illegal immigration leading to a consensus position.  Certainly there will be outliers, but an ongoing bloodletting over the issue is the only major obstacle in the path to return to majority status.  An ongoing focus on the issue is found at Powerline, and though I am unwilling to simply credit Tamar Jacoby’s take on the subject, she is generally correct that the issue of illegal immigration did not deliver a wave of support for GOP candidates who thought it would. 

I have been a skeptic of the power of the issue based on last fall’s special election in which Congressman John Campbell easily bested Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist depsite national focus on and support for Gilchrist by the anti-illegal immigration movement.  Once the promise of border security was delivered via the fence legislation, the issue lost a great deal of its pull because border security is primarily what the center-right wanted.  Regularization of the nation’s millions of illegals along common-sense lines such should follow the fence’s construction –or at least robust beginning of construction.  If the GOP avoids plainly inequitable proposals such as the grant of social security benefits for the wages earned while illegally in the country or a path to citizenship for those who do not return first to their home countries, the comprehensive legislation can be worked out quickly.

And it should be, but the construction of the fence is a very big deal.  It is a symbol of seriousness about border security, and also a symbol or responsiveness to the demands of the electorate.  The fencing is something the voters want to see done, and done soon. Their demand was met rhetorically, and now it has to be fulfilled in reality.

I think many Republicans fail to understand just how significant the fence is, and of the crucial necessity that the Adminstration get it underway and soon.  There should be a point man or woman at DHS –accountable to Secretary Chertoff– and a very public, very transparent accounting of where the fence is going and how much has been constructed.  Delays due to excessive planning will be interpreted as feet-dragging, and a bait-and-switch in the making.

Advocates of regularization should recognize this dynamic as well.  If the fence goes up and genuine border security emerges, the public will support rational regularization.  But if Democrats attempt to spike the fence or the Adminstration attempts to pass off 100 miles as a down payment on 700, the issue will flare again.  “Virtual” fencing gets zero credit from the public.  They have been promised the real deal, and seeing will be believing.

If the Adminstration cannot get a few hundred miles of double fencing in place in a matter of months, it will invite the sort of withering and constant criticism from the anti-illegal immigration absolutists that will drain support from a comprehensive approach.  My conversation on the fence with Tony Snow on Thursday last was not what I expected, but hopefully the DHS is getting its act together quickly and will have the transparency in place soon.

By LORI RODRIGUEZ and ERIC HANSON
Houston Chronicle - Link

Fort Bend County Democrats are irate about campaign signs linking Democrats to illegal immigrants and terrorists, but the Republican county commissioner who paid for them said they accurately reflect Democratic positions.

Early voters in the heart of the heated race to succeed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were greeted Wednesday with red and white signs that read: “Want more illegals? Vote Democrat” and “Encourage Terrorists. Vote Democrat.”

By midafternoon, outraged Democrats had removed the signs but not the acrimony.

“This is a majority minority county where Hispanics, blacks and Asians make up about 60 percent of the population,” said Don Bankston, campaign coordinator for the Democratic Party in Ford Bend County.

“This is an appeal to fear, racism and prejudice, and that is wrong.”

The “Encourage Terrorists” sign was placed near the early-voting location at Macario Garcia Middle School, named after a World War II Medal of Honor winner. Principal Viretta West summarily removed it.

Precinct 3 Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers acknowledged paying $2,800 to the Republican Victory Committee PAC for 75 signs that tied Democrats to terrorists, higher taxes and illegal immigration.

“All I am doing is repeating what the leadership of the Democratic Party’s position is. So I am not sure why they would be upset about that,” Meyers said.

Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill said the core message behind the signs reflected the GOP position that Democrats are more lenient on homeland security issues and illegal immigration.

“I may not agree with how they framed their message, but the positions are correct,” Woodfill said.

The campaigns of Democrat Nick Lampson and Republican Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, battling for DeLay’s seat, walked a fine line in disavowing the signs.

“Numerous parents from Garcia Middle School called and asked for the signs to be removed because they didn’t want their kids subjected to that sort of hatefulness outside their school,” Lampson spokesman Mike Malaise said. “This isn’t helping the other side win votes.”

Lisa Dimond, Sekula-Gibbs’ campaign manager, had not seen the signs.

“I can’t control or comment on what anyone might do,” she said. “If someone wants to help out our campaign we tell them how to educate voters to vote for Shelley.”

 Mac Johnson - Human Events - Link
Although the basic philosophy of conservatism is optimistic (a belief in the individual’s ability to succeed if left alone by government is at the core of the movement, after all), conservatives tend to be chronically depressed when it comes to politics and elections.

Not only does government seem to grow ad nauseum with each passing year (especially under Democrats or George Bush), but a healthy touch of pessimism is a natural consequence of responsibility. Imagining what can go wrong is how responsible adults plan for the future. And conservatives are, disproportionately, among the responsible part of the population—responsible for paying the taxes, fighting the wars, raising the children, and running the businesses.  

So it is not surprising that conservatives have a tendency to see the worst in every political event. This means that oftentimes conservatives completely overlook when they have actually won a major victory—concentrating instead on spotting the next potential defeat. This is what has occurred regarding the battle over illegal immigration and amnesty this past year.

At the beginning of 2006, the constellations were in perfect alignment for the forces of open borders and amnesty. Ready to push for amnesty—and the next flood of illegal alien interlopers it would bring- was the mainstream media, nearly all Congressional Democrats, President Bush and Karl Rove, John McCain and much of the Senate leadership of the GOP, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page and its disciples, sellout union “leaders,” corrupt corporations, every ethnic grievance group in the country, a number of imbecile bishops, academia, the rabid moonbat left, 20 million street-storming illegal aliens, and every weenie in America afraid of being called a racist.

All amnesty opponents had going for them was the wishes of a majority of the American people and the rank-and-file Republicans in Congress. And yet amnesty was defeated in a spectacular fashion. Many conservatives, who were angry that the victory had to be achieved over the political carcasses of our own President and Senate leaders, did not appreciate the scale and significance of this victory at the time. An army that has to mutiny just to be able to fight the enemy is inherently demoralized by that fact.

Given such circumstances, it’s easy to resort to jaded and safe clichés such as “there’s no difference between the two parties.”  But the simple fact is there’s a huge difference between the parties on the amnesty issue: Republicans are divided over it, with most opposing amnesty. For Democrats there is no such division—they wholeheartedly support amnesty.

H.R. 4437, the bill establishing increased border security efforts and rejecting amnesty, was supported by 203 of 231 (88%) Republicans in the House—only 17 voted against it. By contrast, only 36 Democrats (18%) voted for the bill, 164 voted against it, hoping to pass an amnesty instead. In the Senate, the only opposition to amnesty came from Republicans—60% of them opposed it. 93% of Senate Democrats supported amnesty.

That’s the choice this election presents for opponents of open borders: support the Republicans that rose up against their leadership to oppose amnesty, or support the Democrats who will gleefully pass an amnesty just as soon as they are sworn in and able.

And here’s the real kicker: booting Republicans from control of the House to punish George Bush and John McCain for their ludicrous border policies will have the ironic effect of ensuring they finally get the amnesty they want. If Democrats win big next week, the Senate will resurrect their amnesty bill, a Democrat controlled House will pass it, and there can be no doubt that President George W. Bush will sign it with far more fanfare and enthusiasm than he displayed when he signed the bill initiating construction of 700 miles of border fence—a bill that Republican Congressman forced on him in response to voter pressure.

In short, voting Democrat, or not voting at all, merely amounts to cutting off our Tancredo to spite our Bush. It would be throwing away the tremendous victory we have won this year and, worse, set in motion a tsunami of increased illegal immigration.

Today’s illegal immigration problem is a direct result of the 1986 amnesty. Far from “solving” the relatively small illegal alien problem America had then (3 million), it made the problem far, far worse by sending the message out to all the world that the secret to a better life in America was to just get here: sneak in, lie your way in, buy your way in, but just get here and we will let you stay, forgive you, and eventually make you a citizen.

And the world heard the message. Today the population of immigration criminals hiding in America waiting for the next amnesty is 12 million to 20 million. We cannot afford another such amnesty solution. The only way to undo the damage of the 1986 amnesty is to put aside talk of new amnesties or guest worker scams and begin to vigorously enforce the laws on immigration.

In the long term, illegal immigration may be the biggest threat facing the United States. Americans are only 5% of the world’s population. If the borders are thrown completely open by another amnesty, we face the very real prospect of being made a minority in what used to be our country.

If, as a voter, you are concerned about illegal immigration and border security, then a Republican Congress is currently the best insurance policy you can buy—not just against Democrats in Congress, but against the Republican in the White House as well.

The next battle for our borders occurs Tuesday, November 7, at a polling place near you. Vote. Or you can spend the day in Spanish class.

2006 WorldNetDaily.com - Story Link

Harassed, taunted with (BEING CALLED A NIGGER by racist ass white liberal college jackasses!) during event quashed by protesters

An African-American member of the Minuteman Project who was harassed and taunted with ”NIGGER” during a speech at Columbia University has filed police reports as the first step in a lawsuit against the New York City institution.

As WND reported, angry protesters led by a radical open-borders group hurled racial insults and turned their backs on Marvin Stewart during an Oct. 4 speech hosted by the campus’s Young Republicans Club. Stewart was followed by Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, who spoke for about seven minutes before the protesters violently stormed the stage, forcing an abrupt end to the event.

WND has learned Stewart filed two reports this week that are being handled by the New York City Police Department, one for harassment and another for stolen property.

WND columnist Jerome Corsi, also a member of the Minuteman Project, had been scheduled to follow Gilchrist with a speech drawn from the book he co-authored with the group’s founder, “Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders.”

A video of the chaos at Roone Arledge Auditorium, shot by Columbia University Television, can be seen here.

In a statement obtained by WND, Stewart gives his account of the events leading up to the disorder:

As an invited guess at Columbia University by Mr. Chris Kulawik, President of the Columbia College Republicans, racial epithets were hurled at me including the N-word. The protesters tried to shout me down, but I was only emboldened to continue speaking.
Jim Gilchrist came out on the stage the first time and placed his arms around me and asked me to cut my speech short, of which I refused. Then Chris Kulawik came out and asked me to conclude my speech, because of the rowdiness of the protesters. I closed my speech with the following words, “God Bless America and America Bless God.”

Stewart described how the violence began:

I went to the table where Jim, Dr. Jerome Corsi and I would be conducting the Q & A portion of the program, which was to the right of the podium. At that time, Chris briefly admonished the protesters and then introduced Jim. Jim immediately walked over toward me and placed his arm around [me and looked] out into the audience and made the following statement “Who is the racist here?” and then walked back to the podium where he dialogued no more than seven minutes when the protesters stormed the stage with their banner which was unfurled to the right of me where I was sitting. I briefly did a visual of the banner. I noticed the Spanish, English and Arabic or Farsi writing on the banner, which I assumed was anti-Semitic because of all the racial epithets that were hurled at me. …”
I was taken aback at what was occurring, and I went into the defense mode. I got up from the table were I was sitting, and as I was getting up, several students jumped on the stage were I was at and placed their hands on me in a threatening manner. By that time, I had withdrawn my pepper spray and pointed it at the face of one the protesters whose hand was upon me, and I spoke the following words to them, “What’s your decision?” By that time, they removed their hands from me.

During this time period, I looked toward my left where Jim was because I heard a loud thud from the podium falling as a result of a large crowd of students jumping on the stage. By this time, Columbia’s security approached me and asked me to leave the stage and return to the green room.

Columbia University Press quickly escorted the Minutemen from the state, taking them downstairs to the Green Room. After allowing a few minutes for the protest to subside, Columbia University Press safely escorted the Minutemen out a side door.

 MillerBoycott.com Note: Miller Brewing Company has supported illegal immigration by supporting groups like La Raza (translated: “The Race”) and March 10 Committee which support illegal immigration. Whether they directly paid for the march or not, Miller paid the groups that support and arranged the marches.
Miller does not support the “full enforcement of current U.S. laws” either. Current US laws say that illegal aliens currently inside of the U.S. are to be deported. Miller has publicly stated they want illegal aliens to be able to stay and become U.S. citizens and that is why they support groups like March 10 Committee and La Raza. According to La Raza’s website and the Chicago Tribune, Miller has in fact given these groups money.
Miller now claims they will no longer financially support immigration groups. We feel this is a step in the right direction, but the public will need more solid assurances than these denials and misdirections. Miller Brewing needs to apologize to the American public for supporting pro illegal alien and pro amnesty groups and for asking congress to legalize illegal aliens inside the US. We are willing to meet with Miller to discuss this issue, but the boycott will continue full strength. We now have over 56 organizations supporting the boycott at MillerBoycott.com and this is a new and historic record for the number of immigration enforcement groups working together as a coalition. We expect to have over 100 organizations in the coalition by Monday of next week. All American citizens concerned about illegal immigration are encouraged to continue the boycott full force!

The Miller Boycott
Chicago Tribune; Miller spins
Consumers respond
Brew your own beer
Miller: No on 4437, Yes to illegal alien scholarships

 WATCH VIDEO HERE

By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - A proposed House-Senate compromise on immigration reform - which would couple an “enforcement first” approach with a delayed guest worker program - appears near death on Capitol Hill.

Political scientists, policy analysts, special interest groups and key Congressional figures who are close to the debate say heightened resolve on the part of House Republicans opposed to the proposal combined with a limited legislative calendar are the reasons.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) have put forth what they term a “no amnesty” immigration plan. It would create a temporary worker program only after a series of border security initiatives were put in place over a two-year period.

 Union warns of drug-taking truckers, unsafe rigs on planned trade routes

WASHINGTON – The NAFTA superhighway, a north-south interstate trade corridor linking Mexico, Canada and the U.S., would mean U.S. truckers replaced by Mexicans, more unsafe rigs on American roads and more drivers relying on drugs for their long hauls, charges the International Brotherhood of Teamsters – the latest group to weigh in against the Bush administration plan.

The August issue of Teamster magazine features a cover story on the plan for an enlarged I-35 that will reach north from the drug capital border town of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 1,600 miles to Canada through San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Duluth, while I-69 originating at the same crossing will shoot north to Michigan and across the Canadian border.

Public proposals for the superhighway calls for each corridor to be 1,200 feet wide with six lanes devoted to cars, four to trucks, with a rail line and utilities in the middle. Most of the goods will come from new Mexican ports being built on the Pacific Coast – ports being run by Chinese state-controlled shipping companies.

READ THE REST HERE

By PETER PRENGAMAN
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Frustrated by lax enforcement of immigration law, businesses are taking their fight against illegal immigration to court, accusing competitors of hiring illegal workers to achieve an unfair advantage.

Businesses and anti-illegal immigration groups said the legal action was an attempt to create an economic deterrent against hiring illegal employees.

“We see the legal profession bringing to this issue the kind of effect it’s had on consumer product safety,” said Mike Hethmon of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a Washington D.C.-based group backing the efforts.

READ MORE HERE

 ’They Must Leave,’ Mayor of Hazleton Says After Signing Tough New Law

HAZLETON, Pa. — An immigrant’s grandson, Louis J. Barletta, the mayor of this once-sleepy hill city, leans forward behind the desk in his corner office and with an easy smile confides his goal.

Barletta wants to make Hazleton “the toughest place on illegal immigrants in America.”

“What I’m doing here is protecting the legal taxpayer of any race,” said the dapper 50-year-old mayor, sweeping his hands toward the working-class city outside. “And I will get rid of the illegal people. It’s this simple: They must leave .”

Last month, in a raucous meeting, the mayor and City Council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. (Barletta wore a bulletproof vest because, he says, Hazleton is menaced by a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants.) The act imposes a $1,000-per-day fine on any landlord who rents to an illegal immigrant, and it revokes for five years the business license of any employer who hires one.

The act also declares English to be the city’s official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization.

The law doesn’t take effect for another month. But the Republican mayor already sees progress. “I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving — some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent,” Barletta says. “The message is out there.” READ THE REST HERE

Analysts eye immigration
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post - Article Link
WASHINGTON – The Senate’s embattled immigration bill would raise government spending by as much as $126 billion over the next decade, as the government begins paying out federal benefits to millions of new legal workers and cracks down on the border, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis concludes.

Law enforcement measures alone would necessitate hiring nearly 31,000 federal workers in the next five years, while the building and maintenance of 870 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers would cost $3.3 billion. Newly legalized immigrants would claim nearly $50 billion in federal benefits such as the earned income and child tax credits, Medicaid and Social Security.

The CBO report is the most detailed analysis to date of legislation that has divided the Republican Party, energized millions of Hispanics and become a focal point of congressional campaigns from southern Arizona to upstate New York. Under the legislation, passed this spring by a bipartisan Senate coalition, tough border-security measures would be coupled with a path to legal work and citizenship for most of the nation’s 11 million undocumented workers and a new guest-worker program for prospective migrants.

President Bush applauded its passage, but House GOP leaders have dug in their heels against it, favoring a House-passed measure that would make illegal immigrants felons, build hundreds of miles of fencing on the southern border and offer no new guest-worker programs.

The non-partisan CBO analysis is sure to offer fuel for the fight.

“The cost aspect of the Senate plan has never been taken into consideration,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a firebrand opponent of illegal immigration who is leading the resistance to the Senate bill. “When combined with the policy implementations, this should certainly stick a fork in it.”

Supporters of the legislation cautioned that the CBO’s total needs to be put into context. For instance, most of the $78 billion in discretionary spending that the Senate bill authorizes through 2016 would pay for law enforcement measures that conservatives are pushing for anyway.

The CBO’s five-year cost estimates include $800 million to hire 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents; $2.6 billion to build detention facilities for 20,000; $3.3 billion to build and maintain 370 miles of border fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico frontier; and $1.6 billion to establish a computerized system to verify the eligibility of applicants for employment.

“Most people recognize there is going to be a price tag for fixing a broken immigration system, no question about that,” said Ben Johnson, director of the Immigration Policy Center, which favors the Senate bill. “It still comes down to the moral question of ‘How do we create a new, workable immigration policy?’ ”

In the long run, tax revenue generated by new workers would ease the baby-boom generation’s burden on Social Security and offset virtually all of the additional spending, said James Horney, a senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“People who don’t like the bill will jump on the 10-year number,” he said. “But I hope others will look at the longer term and realize in the end, the answer is still the same. It’s all a wash.”

A wave of illegal-immigrant gang rapes is sweeping the U.S. while public officials and law-enforcement authorities fear drawing the link, experts say.

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, a Ph.D. researcher of violent crimes, told WorldNetDaily, “It appears as if there is a fear that if this is honestly discussed, people will hate all illegal immigrants. So there is silence. … But in being silent about the rapes and murders, it is as if the victims never even existed.”

Schurman-Kauflin, who runs the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, participated in a 12-month, in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders from January 1999 through April 2006. The study found approximately 240,000 illegal-immigrant sex offenders reside in the United States – while 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders come across U.S. borders illegally every day. READ MORE HERE

“The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetime the death of the West.”
So writes syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan in a compelling new book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.”
According to the Drudge Report, Buchanan’s sure-to-be-controversial work “is designed to jolt readers with stats and analysis of illegal immigration gone dangerously wild.”
Drudge cites these troubling disclosures from “State of Emergency,”

One in every 12 people “breaking into” America has a criminal record.
By 2050, there will be 100 million Hispanics concentrated in the U.S. Southwest.
Between 10 and 20 percent of the populations of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean have already moved to the U.S.
Each month, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehends more illegal aliens entering the country, 150,000, than there are American troops in Iraq.
Buchanan charges the Mexican regime with mounting a conscious effort to use the U.S. as a dumping ground for its poor and unemployed to relieve social pressure and bring about what would amount to a re-annexation of the American Southwest, Drudge reports.
“La Reconquista, the reconquest of the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican-American War, Buchanan charges, is underway.”
Buchanan, who ran for president on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, has harsh words for President Bush, writing that his failure to secure America’s borders is a dereliction of constitutional duty that, in other times, would have called forth articles of impeachment.
Buchanan broadens his scope to include Europe, and compares the immigrant invasion of the West to the barbarian invasions that ended the Roman Empire: “As Rome passed away, so the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended.”
In his final chapter, “Last Chance,” Buchanan lays out a national plan to deal with the “State of Emergency” before it is too late:
Launch a deportation program, beginning with all illegal aliens convicted of felonies and all gang members who are not U.S. citizens.
Place a 10-year limit on legal immigration at the level JFK favored in 1958 – 150,000 to 250,000 a year.
Build a $10 billion, 2,000-mile security fence between the U.S. and Mexico – with no apologies to Mexico City.

But some say strategy hurts poor blacks in battle over immigration. Duh!

BY SEAN MUSSENDEN
MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE 
WASHINGTON - As the NAACP gathers for its annual convention this weekend, the nation’s oldest civil-rights group is increasingly joining forces with the newest minority power in American politics - Hispanics.
Supporters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People say working with Hispanics is crucial in maintaining relevance in an era when Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority, outnumber blacks.
But critics of the NAACP say the relationship has hurt the group’s core constituency in the ongoing battle over immigration.
Frank Morris, chairman of Choose Black America, a group that favors strict immigration controls, said the NAACP has lost touch with the needs of low-income blacks.
“The leadership has really divorced itself from the African-American grass roots, who are really concerned about the high rates of illegal immigration,” he said.
The NAACP has joined with pro-immigration Hispanic groups to lobby for a more orderly, open-door immigration policy.
Economists debate the effect low-skilled, poorly educated illegal immigrants have on the ability of citizens to find jobs. But some studies suggest that blacks - who as a group tend to be poorer and have less formal education than whites - are hurt by the influx of immigrant workers.
Like many Hispanic groups, the NAACP wants an organized immigration system that allows current illegal immigrants to receive documentation and work legally.
Illegal immigrants cannot fight for higher wages, giving employers an incentive to hire them instead of paying more for low-skilled legal blacks, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau.
Giving illegal immigrants legal standing would raise wages in many low-skilled sectors - such as construction or the service industry - and give employers more of an incentive to hire blacks as well as new arrivals, Shelton said.
Some NAACP watchers see other motives behind the group’s support of a less-restrictive immigration policy.
While the nation’s Hispanic population has soared, increasing its political clout, the black population has grown much more slowly.
Decades ago, the NAACP was the dominant political force in the civil-rights movement, but the group’s influence and membership have dropped, said Robert C. Smith, a political scientist at San Francisco State University.
“In order to advance the civil-rights agenda, they needed to make an alliance with the largest, and fastest-growing minority group in the country, even if they had differences on certain points,” said Smith, who has studied the NAACP and black politics extensively.
Said Shelton of the NAACP: “We can’t get anything done in Washington without the coalition.”
After the 2000 census showed that Hispanics had moved ahead of blacks as the nation’s largest minority group, “the media tried very hard to frame the growth as a competition between Latinos and blacks,” said Cecilia Mu?oz, vice president for policy for National Council of La Raza, the country’s largest Hispanic civil-rights group.
Instead of competition, she said, the two sides have increasingly found common ground on such issues as strong voting-rights protections, anti-discrimination laws, health-care access and equal education funding.
Bruce Gordon, who became NAACP president a year ago, spoke last month to the annual convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens, another Hispanic civil-rights group.
“Having two sides of a minority group with similar goals and a similar agenda means we’re a stronger force for change if we work together,” Mu?oz said.
But the NAACP’s critics question whether those agendas should be identical, at least on the subject of immigration and jobs.
A poll by the Pew Research Center in April found that four out of five blacks said jobs were hard to find in their community. Half the whites gave that response. One of three blacks said immigrants take jobs from American citizens, compared with one of four whites.

Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it.    

 ”We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. “The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there.”

 Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber’s lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats — Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware — supported funding the fence. 
All told, 34 senators — including most of the Republican leadership — voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.

Mr. Session’s amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill. 
   Mr. Sessions said that if his colleagues were serious about building the fence that they promised, they would find the funding.

    “We will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we’ve made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we’re not serious about,” he said. “They don’t respect what we’ve done in the past, and they should not. We have failed, and it’s time for us to try to fix it and do better.”

    To prove his point, Mr. Sessions offered another amendment, which appropriated another $85.7 million to enable Homeland Security to hire 800 more full-time investigators to probe immigration-law violations. The vote against that amendment was 66-34.
    Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision — slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote — that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.

    “I know of no other provision in U.S. law where the federal government requires state and local governments — every state and local government on the border — to consult with state and local governments of a foreign power before the federal government can act,” he said.

    “Now, from my experience as a Justice Department official, when we had consultation requirements with the State Department, just getting two agencies in the executive branch to consult took months or years,” said Mr. Kobach, now a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

 ”If you add this, three levels of government and a foreign power, your delay” will never end.

Link to story

You fucken people on the left need to get a clue. I peeped this entry at Think Progress:

Idiot liberals are having a damm cow over a demonstration by Congressman King on building a wall.

 Rep. King Designs Electrified Fence For Southern Border: ‘We Do This With Livestock All The Time’
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) went on the House floor on Tuesday to discuss a fence that he “designed” for the southern boarder. (King constructed a model of the fence as he was speaking.) King’s design features a wire electrified “with the kind of current that would not kill somebody.” King noted that “we do this with livestock all the time.”

What do you fucken hypocrites do when you want to keep trespassing bastards out and off your property, YOU BUILD A GODDAMM WALL!
I’m curious, do you lock your homes, your car. When you white folks get lost and troll your idiot asses down to Da hood what is the first thing you do, lock your doors. What the fuck for, those niggas don’t want your car….or do they, hmmmm!
We have shit here these Mexicans want, so they crash our gates… Oh shit we have no gates so the motherfuckers have access to our shit, and I’m paying for it. Screw that! 
All you liberals who have a problem with the wall concept take your damm paycheck and feel free to sign a portion of it over the Mexico and finance these people yourself!

By Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily.com  

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has quietly introduced a bill to create a “North American Investment Fund” that would tap U.S. and Canadian taxpayers for the development of public works projects in Mexico.

Despite assurances this week from White House press secretary Tony Snow that President Bush opposes the idea of a European Union superstate for North America, the effort, by one of the president’s loyal supporters in the Senate, is sure to spark new questions about negotiations between the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico on issues ranging from security to the economy.

“Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and the United States and Canada,” Cornyn said. “I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap.”

Cornyn introduced the bill just before the July 4 holiday – admitting in his introductory comments that Congress is not likely to adopt his plan quickly. In fact, Cornyn previously attempted to create the new international fund in legislation he introduced in 1994. It soon thereafter died in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the latest version is headed.  

Senate Bill 3622, co-sponsored by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., specifically authorizes the president to “negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the U.S. to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.”

The fund, if it is ever created, won’t just cost U.S. and Candian taxpayers more, it will also cost Mexican taxpayers a lot more.

Cornyn’s bill requires the government of Mexico to raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the gross national product. The current tax rate is approximately 9 percent.

“The purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in Mexico to ensure their (sic) own economic development,” Cornyn said. “The funding would make grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico, to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth industries.”

As WND reported recently, opposition is mounting to similar programs, including President Bush’s North American Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Plans by government agencies and private foundations alike promoting deeper cooperation between the three countries – including even a plan for a common currency called the “amero” – are getting more scrutiny in the media, by activists and by public officials.

Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of Bush’s immigration policies – has been most outspoken.

“A regional prosperity and security program?” he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. “This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are – we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They’re intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I’m right when I said yes. But this is – I mean, this is beyond belief.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, “In Mortal Danger,” may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate.

Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.

Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen, welcomed Tancredo’s efforts.

“It’s time for the Bush administration to come clean,” Gilchrist said. “If President Bush’s agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know.”

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, “We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public.”

WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

But presidential spokesman Snow ruled out any consideration of a North American superstate a la the European Union.

WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked if the president would categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America.

“Of course, no,” said Snow. “We’re not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S.”

DIRECT LINK TO ARTICLE

Ole Sniff needs to stop reading this stuff. The more I read about this administration constantly kissing Mexican ass, in particular La Raza the faster I want this administration out before they fucken sell this country back to Mexico.

By Joseph Farah
Between the Lines
World News Daily Commentary 

White House political strategist Karl Rove addressed members of the National Council of La Raza in Los Angeles yesterday telling the group euphemistically described by the Dissociated Press as the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights group, “all immigrants are real Americans.”

While it may be true that most immigrants are real Americans, it is decidedly not true that members of La Raza are.

What is La Raza?

Well, let’s see: The group sponsors and directs racist schools. It promotes the “reconquista” movement that claims the American Southwest belongs to Mexico. In fact, its very name – which translates to “the race” – exposes its agenda. How do I this politely? These people are Mexican Nazis.
But there was Karl Rove yesterday explaining that you and me – real Americans – have permitted the debate over his boss’ deliberate decision not to enforce duly enacted immigration laws has “clouded” our judgment.
“Everything that this country is, everything that we have achieved, everything that we hold, everything that we promise, is because we are a nation of diversity, brought together by immigration, and sharing a common dream,” he claimed.
It is clearly Rove’s lust for voters – legal or not – that has clouded his own judgment.
I think if I hear this old saw about America owing everything to diversity one more time, I may gag. I may hurl. I may scream. It’s not true. In fact, immigrants – and don’t forget this – owe everything to America. We’re not great because we’re diverse. We’re great because we once subscribed to a national creed. But thanks to the likes of La Raza haters, that’s no longer true.
Furthermore, diversity is the last thing on the minds of the La Raza crowd. La Raza no more promotes diversity and tolerance than does the Ku Klux Klan.
I guess Rove forgot what La Raza’s reaction was when his boss nominated Linda Chavez to the position of secretary of labor.
The lead spokeswoman of the group protested the naming of a Hispanic woman.
“The point of having a diverse Cabinet is to have someone who represents the views of that community,” she said. “But Chavez has made a career of saying, ‘I’m opposed to what most Latinos think and want.’”
La Raza may use the word “diversity.” But the meaning of the word has been turned upside down. It doesn’t mean what the dictionary says. It means the opposite. It means conformity. It means if you’re Hispanic, you must think a certain way – or else you’re not really Hispanic. You must believe what the founders of La Raza believe – that is to say what their puppet-masters in the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation who created the organization want them to believe.
But there was Karl Rove addressing these miscreants. There he was allying himself with them against us – real Americans.
And so America has achieved the kind of diversity La Raza hopes to achieve – political conformity. Both parties – the Republicans and the Democrats — cater to this anti-American scum.
It doesn’t even matter that the group continues to oppose most Bush administration policies. La Raza likes Bush’s amnesty plan and few real Americans do. So, Karl Rove is talking to them instead of us. And the Bush administration embraces these extremists.
A case in point: It didn’t bother George W. Bush one bit that his former White House counsel and current attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was a member of La Raza.
This is a man in a position in which he is supposed to apply the law equally and without prejudice to any individual. Yet, he belonged to a group called “The Race.” He belonged to an exclusive club, a racist organization, a band of extremists.
The reception to Rove’s speech, not surprisingly, was tepid. He got polite applause amid protests of Bush’s war in Iraq.
It wasn’t anything like the reception former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo got when he addressed the group in 1997 and proudly affirmed “that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.”
Maybe Rove is looking forward to working his political magic on a bigger stage – the North American Union.

Requiring Citizenship Before Subsidies? ‘A Threat To Millions,’ Cries the WashPost
Posted by Tim Graham 

FROM NEWSBUSTERS

 
When Republicans thought about how they could rein in federal spending, one idea was to curb how much federal largesse gets handed out to illegal aliens through fraudulent means. If you are appalled at the thought of denying government money to illegal aliens, money from hard-working taxpayers who play by the rules, then you might fit inside the newsroom at The Washington Post. Their front-page headline today: “Medicaid Rule Called A Threat To Millions.”

Reporters Susan Levine and Mary Otto explained that a Medicaid rule takes effect Saturday that requires proof of citizenship before Medicaid recipients collect benefits, even if they have long benefited from Medicaid. The liberal sermonizing started in paragraph three, although there was not a single liberal label for any “advocate for the poor” anywhere in the piece. They’re just “critics,” not partisans or lobbyists:

“Critics fear that the provision will have the unintended consequence of harming several million U.S. citizens who, for a variety of reasons, will not be able to produce the necessary paperwork. They include mentally ill, mentally retarded and homeless people, as well as elderly men and women, especially African Americans born in an era when hospitals in the rural South barred black women from their maternity wards.”

Levine and Otto went first to “critic” Andrea Sloan, a court-appointed guardian for some 40 D.C. residents. The conservative opinion in the piece gets this brief mention:

Rep. Charles Whitlow Norwood Jr. (R-Ga.), one of the prime sponsors, decried “the outright theft of Medicaid benefits by illegal aliens.”

Levine and Otto do absolutely nothing to gauge the size or impact of illegal aliens adding to the deficit by fraudulently obtaining government benefits. The rest of the article reads like an impassioned editorial, providing only the views of people opposed to the new rule and decrying all the hardships it will cause. They can’t even provide a liberal label for that Hillarycare-promoting socialist, Ron Pollack of Families USA:

“In the process of pandering on the illegal immigrant issue, members of Congress will do enormous harm to the American citizens who need help the most,” Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said during a teleconference.

PANDERING!? WHAT A JACKASS!!

 (In case some of you were too young to remember View the WILLIE HORTON AD by going to the web site for the Living Room Candidate.  Place your mouse over the small photo of Willie Horton and click.)

Democrats leading their party’s midterm election effort argued on Thursday that any Republican attempt to use immigration as a central campaign issue would backfire.
They cited Republican plans to hold hearings on illegal immigration around the country this summer, rather than passing immigration legislation in Congress, as a sign of the GOP strategy to motivate conservative voters.
“Republicans want to use this like Willie Horton in 1988 and gay marriage in 2004,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “It’s no secret they want to use immigration as a political cudgel.”

THAT’S RIGHT MR. SCHUMER, WE SHOULD GO AFTER ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO SUPPORTS AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WHO WON’T FORWARD A PLAN OF ACTION TO CLOSE OUR BOARDERS OR GO AFTER THESE BASTARD EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE ILLEGALS!   SOUNDS SIMPLE TO ME!

The New York senator was referring to the Republicans u