Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Tidal Wave of Mexicans Flee into Texas from Self-Created Crime Disaster


Nearly a quarter of a million Mexicans have fled the drug-crime disaster which has enveloped the border city of Ciudad Juarez, and at least 125,000 have rushed across the border to El Paso in a move which has added 16 percent to that city’s population.

The shocking statistic has been revealed in a new report issued by the Ciudad Juarez Citizens Security and Coexistence Observatory, which is a non-government body monitoring the situation in the Mexican town.

The report said that the drug-gang war which has become endemic across all of Mexico has claimed 8,300 lives in Ciudad Juarez over the last three years.

The murders have focused attention on the fact that the Central and South American drug gangs are using it as a major conduit into the United States.

The two main drug gangs fighting for control of the smuggling route have been identified as the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels.

According to reports, more than 20,000 houses have been abandoned in Ciudad Juarez as a result of the mass exodus, leaving whole swathes of the city deserted.

In addition, journalists covering the story have been attacked and murdered. As a result, El Paso’s “Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center” has predicted a “new wave of media members seeking asylum in the United States in the wake of the attack on the photographers.”

All of the media reports covering the drug war have ignored the obvious factor in the equation: namely that it is a result of the presence of large numbers of Third World-origin Central and South Americans in the U.S. who have organized themselves into the deadly drug-dealing gangs here.

For example, in Los Angeles, the two largest gangs are officially classified as “Hispanic,” namely the Florencia 13 and the 8th Street Gang.

Both are the result of illegal immigration, with a 1995 California Department of Justice study reporting that at least 60 percent of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang are illegal immigrants.

Nationally, the Mara Salvatrucha 13 gang, which originated in El Salvador, has become perhaps the most serious criminal enterprise to ever threaten America.

The gang first appeared in this country in Los Angeles and then followed the same migratory pattern as Salvadoran immigrants, fanning out from its beachhead ethnic enclaves in California.

It is no coincidence that the drug gang wars which are typical in Mexico and Central and South America are now spreading out into the United States. It is the inevitable consequence of immigration, where immigrants bring their dominant culture with them to replace the already established civilization.

If the U.S. wants to avoid becoming like the Third World, it will have to take steps to prevent Third World populations moving here.

Nothing less than the complete halt and reversing of the current disastrous immigration policies will suffice. This is the message of the American Third Position, and we intend to take it to the voters.


I have a way to help stop the spread of these gangs. Make any involvement in drug trafficking, no matter how minor, a death penalty offense. Right now, there is just too much money involved to let a little prison time deter anyone. Start executing even the lowest level pusher, and that will put a crimp in the trade. If the small time pushers are afraid to do any pushing, it will seriously cripple the big boys.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Unemployment rises in 27 states last month


WASHINGTON – More than half of U.S. states saw their unemployment rates rise in August, the largest number in six months, as hiring weakened across the country.

The jobless rate increased in 27 states last month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. It fell in 13 and was unchanged in 10 states and Washington, D.C. That's worse than the previous month, when the rate increased in only 14 states and fell in 18. It's also the most states to see an increase since February.

The report also shows that some regions of the country are recovering faster than others.

Western states, struggling with a beleaguered housing sector, are losing jobs and reporting higher unemployment rates. Northeastern states, meanwhile, are posting job gains in areas such as finance and hotels and restaurants.

California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado shed jobs in August and their unemployment rates rose. At the same time, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey added jobs and reported lower unemployment rates.

California has shed jobs for the past four months, while Massachusetts has gained jobs for seven months in a row.

The report comes a day after a nonprofit group of economists declared that the recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest and deepest since World War II. Still, even after 15 months of recovery, the nation's unemployment rate is a painfully high 9.6 percent.

That rate disguises some sharp differences. The Northeast region's unemployment rate was unchanged in August, at 8.8 percent, the same as it was a year ago. The Western region, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate rise to 10.8 percent from 10.5 percent a year earlier.

For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.

A depressed housing sector costs jobs for construction workers, realtors and other workers directly tied to the sector.

But it also has broader ramifications. Homeowners who are "under water" — or owe more on their homes than they are worth — are less likely to spend money renovating them, fixing them, or buying new furniture for them, Cochrane noted.

Neary 70 percent of homeowners are under water in Nevada, as of the end of June, according to real estate data provider CoreLogic.

In Arizona, half of the home mortgages were under water and in California it was 33 percent.

The housing market is struggling and years away from fully recovering from the downturn. Foreclosures spiked in August and are particularly high in several Western states.

Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate last month, with one in every 84 households receiving a foreclosure notice. That's 4.5 times the national average.

Nevada's unemployment rate rose to 14.4 percent, a record high for the state. Nevada has the nation's highest jobless rate. It overtook Michigan in May.

Florida, Arizona, California and Idaho rounded out the top five states for foreclosures.

Meanwhile, Northeastern states like Massachusetts are benefiting from job gains in finance and leisure and hospitality. Massachusetts has posted job gains for seven straight months.

Nationwide, North Dakota posted the lowest jobless rate at 3.7 percent, followed by South Dakota at 4.5 percent and Nebraska at 4.6 percent.

Overall, the economy lost a net total of 54,000 positions last month and the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent. Private employers added a net total of only 67,000 jobs.


In about 8 weeks, they'll announce unemployment has dropped significantly. DON'T BUY IT FOR A SECOND! Unemployment will drop, but only because of seasonal Christmas jobs like in department stores. As soon as the holidays are over, it will go right back down again, so don't be fooled by government lies.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be in the cards

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.


Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


You never know. Obongo is making a major mistake in alienating the Supreme Court. If they take him on, even if it's just to piss him off, it will still serve our purpose. Come on justices! Lock and load!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Mexico to build wall along Mexico/Guatemala border!


The Inter-Press Sevice (IPS) is reporting that the head administrator of the Mexican Superintendency of Tax Administration, Raul Diaz, has confirmed that his government is building a wall in the state of Chiapas, along the Mexican/Guatemalan border.

The official reason is to stop contraband from coming into Mexico, but as Diaz admitted: “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”

According to Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights, 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year.

Just as Mexican authorities have opposed the construction of a fence by the U.S., along our border with their country, Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from the Guatemalan government.

The executive coordinator of the National Bureau for Migration in Guatemala, Marila de Prince, told a local newspaper: “It is not a correct measure being taken by the Mexican government.”

Erick Maldonado, executive secretary of Guatemala's National Council on Migrants said: “We are watching the Mexican government's initiative with concern because the migrants are in a situation of highest vulnerability, as demonstrated by the massacre in Tamaulipas, where five Guatemalans died.”

Maldonado said the wall “is going to make the migrants' situation worse, because to meet their needs they are always going to find blind points where there are no migration or security controls, which implies greater risks."

Vice-President of Guatemala, Rafael Espada, said: “The walls are not the solution to the problems.”

The Catholic Church has been highly critical of U.S. treatment of illegal aliens, and one priest in Central America used the news of the Mexican wall to take another shot at the American people.

Father Francisco Pellizari, of the Casa del Migrante told IPS: “The dramatic increase in the cost of 'polleros' (human traffickers) and the corruption of the authorities is the result of the walls the United States plans to build and has built along the border. We can transpose the Guatemala case to this situation and the results will be the same.”

Peliizari said border walls “are supposedly intended to halt migration, but that hasn't happened. Instead they have triggered an economic hemorrhage and a shift in the migratory flow to inhospitable routes that lead to thousands of deaths.”

Of course, the U.S. press has completely ignored the story…They excoriate Americans for their desire to simply defend their own borders, but give Mexico a pass for building a wall to keep out illegal aliens.


Let's be fair here. All the border jumpers aren't Mexican. Most, but not all. Some are from further south. This wall will make it harder for them to get to the U.S. Also, when the Spics complain that we are out of line for building a wall around our border, we can throw their wall in their faces.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Proof: New Records Show DOJ Lied About New Black Panther Dismissal


FOIA request reveals contradictions in statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public. Some of these statements were made under oath.

Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.

It shows — in a rather dramatic way — that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.

In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.

But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim — repeated over and over again — that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.

Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.

The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.

Some of these statements were under oath.

For example: on May 10, 2009, the third highest-ranking official inside the DOJ — Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli — emailed Sam Hirsch, one of his deputies:

Where are we on the Black Panther case?

The description of the email contains a bombshell:

asking for update on the NBPP litigation between officials in the [Associate’s office] and noting the [deputy attorney general’s] current thoughts on the case.

The deputy attorney general is the second highest-ranking official in the Department. The use of the term “current thoughts” infers that there were prior thoughts and ongoing discussions with the second highest-ranking political official at DOJ about how to handle the case.

Further, the logs show dozens of communications between senior DOJ political officials in the two weeks prior to the dismissal of the case.

Congress and the public have been told — for over a year — that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case resulted from nothing more than a dispute between lowly career civil servants. Lapdog reporters have repeated this lie, if they even covered the case at all. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch expose the ruse.

Rarely in our nation’s history have officials in the Department of Justice engaged in a dishonest misinformation campaign to Congress, the public, and other fact-finding tribunals. Thankfully, these few episodes have been confined to the darkest and most corrupt eras of the republic.

Sam Hirsch is a former Democratic Party operative, and one of the most partisan election law attorneys in the entire nation. He worked for the Democratic Party in numerous redistricting fights, trying to squeeze every last drop of partisan advantage from plans in places like Texas. He has led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers — and he is proud of it. He was heavily involved in the Obama presidential campaign.

As deputy associate attorney general — a senior Obama political appointee — Hirsch emerges in the privilege logs as the fulcrum around which the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Throughout April and May 2009, Civil Rights Division political appointee Steve Rosenbaum engaged in extensive legal analysis with Hirsch. In turn, Hirsch had extensive communications with Associate Attorney General Perrelli about the case. The emails are sometimes described as “deliberations” between the senior political appointees. These are deliberations which the DOJ inferred never existed. Nothing more than a dispute between civil servants, they repeated without equivocation.

The privilege logs show at least thirteen communications between Hirsch and Perelli in the two weeks before the dismissal on May 15.

On April 30 alone, Hirsch and Rosenbaum communicated at least eight separate times about the case. This occurred the day before the Voting Section decided not to seek a final injunction, and instead asked the court for a two-week delay. Someone, somewhere, didn’t want the easily obtained victory by default. Perhaps it was now-resigned Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. After all, he had some “current thinking” he was eager to share. Perhaps it was someone else.

On May 8, the same day that the logs show the Voting Section provided its analysis supporting a full remedy against all four defendants, Rosenbaum immediately forwarded the Voting Section’s work to the associate attorney general’s office. It’s clear from the logs who was calling the shots — and it wasn’t the career civil servants. Rosenbaum looks like an errand boy, nothing more.

The logs also show extensive communications between Rosenbaum and multiple lawyers inside the Civil Rights Division’s Appellate Section. Apparently Rosenbaum was looking for a second opinion to back up political hostility to the case. He never got it.

According to the logs, the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section was also recruited to help kill the case. On May 12, Rosenbaum wrote an email to political appointee Hirsh, which the privilege log describes as follows:

[Rosenbaum] provides [Associate AG] in charge of CRT with requested follow-up information and confirmation that additional actions would be conducted by Criminal Section Chief per his request.

The logs reveal a full court press to find someone, anyone, willing to provide a death blow to the case with the imprimatur of the civil service.

They never got it.

Political officials Rosenbaum and Hirsch communicate an additional twenty-two times in the days before the case is finally dismissed on May 15. Hirsch even had to review the scaled-down final order which prevents King Samir Shabazz from brandishing a weapon until 2012, and only in Philadelphia.

Reading the logs, one is struck by the level of intimate involvement by the highest-ranking political officials at the DOJ. Frankly, the level of political coordination saddened me, especially given the countless statements to Congress and the public characterizing the decision as having been made only by civil servants.

For example, DOJ press spokesperson Tracy Schmaler has crowed about the Panther dismissal being made solely by career civil service attorneys, and the resulting controversy being nothing more than a “disagreement among career attorneys.” False. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez repeated the same mantra to the Civil Rights Commission. Again, not true.

When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, there must be consequences.

Schmaler is the same press spokesperson who accused me of deliberately misrepresenting facts to advance an agenda. My testimony was under oath. I gave up a great job at the Department so I could truthfully comply with a subpoena. My only agenda is the truth.

Schmaler, or another Justice official, told Fox News that I had been reassigned to other duties and was therefore a disgruntled employee. This was laughably false. I hadn’t been reassigned anywhere — instead, I had been promoted two weeks before I resigned, and had the same duties with a GS-15-9 pay grade. When I heard this lie, I was astounded that someone at DOJ would not only breach personnel privacy policies, but engage in gutter tactics so completely divorced from the truth.

General Holder should ensure that the first obligation of his press shop is to tell the truth, then spin afterwards. And reporters dealing with Tracy Schmaler should be cautious.

The logs show political officials Hirsch and Rosenbaum, and a press spokesperson, swinging into action as soon as the press reported the dismissal on May 28, 2009. “Response to Malkin” shows up on May 28 — they were coordinating a response to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive breaking the story of the outrageous dismissal. These communications are characterized by the log as “pre-decisional,” and therefore protected. Of course, the decision to dismiss the case had already been made. I can’t wait to see what the court does with that in the FOIA litigation. (Though I suppose the decisions about how to cover up the truth of the dismissal were in the formative, pre-decisional process.)

If Congress ultimately suspects that they were lied to, they might scrutinize an undated entry: Karen Stevens is listed as an author of “talking points for the Attorney General regarding the DOJ’s handling of the NBPP litigation and the decision to drop charges.” She should get a subpoena from Congress next year also.

Similar entries evidencing the creation of an ultimately dishonest spin are throughout the log.

I would not be surprised if the log omitted documents. Inspector General Glenn Fine’s investigation of the Voting Section should include an inquiry into whether the Department is fully responsive to various requests from Congress, the press, and the Civil Rights Commission.

The log provided by DOJ to Judicial Watch contains numerous unidentified documents. The listing provides no information whatsoever about these documents, as the identity of both the authors and recipients are omitted. Congress might also demand to know what all the untitled, undated entries are in the log.

Today was a very bad day for the Justice Department, but a worse day for our country. The privilege logs show what most Americans suspected all along: that the Department was lying, and the corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther Case was made high up the political chain of command.

Let’s see if the Department’s defenders in the press and on the Civil Rights Commission keep repeating the lies.


Maybe the department should be renamed to the Department Of Injustice. The DOI. Say it as a word (DOY), and it has a fittingly Jewish ring to it.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

ADL Demands Apology for Time Magazine Cover


The Anti-Defamation League has called on Time magazine to apologize for a cover story the League asserts was predicated on the “insidious subtext” of Jews being obsessed with money.

The cover of Time’s Sept. 13 issue features a Star of David with these words inside it: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said the “outcry from the Jewish community and others has been overwhelming. We have received calls and e-mails from around the country expressing outrage at the implication that Israelis care more about money than a future of peace and security.”

In a letter to Managing Editor Richard Stengel, the ADL called on the magazine's editors to issue an apology to readers both for the timing of the article and its evocation of anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jews and money.

"The insidious subtext of Israeli Jews being obsessed with money echoes the age-old anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews care about money above any other interest, in this case achieving peace with the Palestinians," Foxman wrote.

"At the same time, Time ignores the very real sacrifices made by Israel and its people in the pursuit of peace and the efforts by successive Israeli governments of reconciliation.

"One can only be cynical about the timing of the article, appearing as Israelis and Palestinians engage in direct negotiations and Jews the world over pray on the High Holidays for a New Year that will bring peace."


If the sterotype fits, wear it!

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Imam says NYC mosque site is not 'hallowed ground'


NEW YORK – It may be two blocks from ground zero, but the site of a proposed mosque and Islamic center shouldn't been seen as sacrosanct in a neighborhood that also harbors a strip club and a betting parlor, the cleric leading the effort said Monday.

Making an ardent case for the compatibility of Islam and American values, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf reiterated that he was searching for a solution to the furor the project has created. But he left unanswered exactly what he had in mind.

If anything, Rauf only deepened the questions around the project's future, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank that he was "exploring all options" — but declining to specify them — and underscoring what he saw as the importance of a location that would draw attention to his message of promulgating moderate Islam. And while opponents of the project see it as insulting the memories of the thousands killed by Muslim extremists in the 2001 terrorist attacks, Rauf said he didn't see it as sacred memorial space.

"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."

The proposed Islamic center has become a flashpoint for worldwide debate about Islam's place in America nine years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Controversy has colored the fall campaign season and cast a a shadow on this past weekend's commemoration of the attacks, with supporters and opponents of the mosque project both holding rallies nearby.

Rauf says a project meant to foster understanding has become unduly mired in conflict and what he describes as misconceptions of a fundamental clash between Islamic and American values. The Kuwait-born imam used his own life story as an example, saying that his own faith had been shaped by the sense of choosing one's identity that American society provided, compared with the predominantly Muslim society from which he emigrated in 1965.

"I'm a devout Muslim ... and I'm also a proud American citizen," said Rauf, noting that he was naturalized in 1979 and has a niece serving in the U.S. Army. "I vote in elections. I pay taxes. I pledge allegiance to the flag. And I'm a Giants fan."

He said Monday that the Islamic center's organizers were surprised by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming.

"The events of these past few weeks have really saddened me to my very core," he said, lamenting that the project had been misunderstood, clouded by stereotypes, and "exploited" by some to push personal or political agendas.

But he declined to detail any strategy for quieting the clamor — or say whether that might include moving the project.

"We are exploring all options as we speak right now, and we are working through what will be a solution, God willing, that will resolve this crisis, defuse it and not create any unforeseen or untoward circumstances that we do not want to see happen," Rauf said during a question-and-answer session following his speech. "Everything is on the table. ... We really are focused on solving it, and solving it in the way that will create the best possible outcome for all."

He suggested the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million Islamic center, which organizers describe as featuring prayer space, but also a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features.

"We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified," Rauf said. "This is an opportunity that we must capitalize on so that those who teach moderation will have a mega-horn."

But to at least some who listened to his talk Monday, that's not what Rauf is doing.

Fouad Ajami, a Middle East studies professor at Johns Hopkins University, said Rauf's appearance didn't change his misgivings about the mosque project.

"I just think it's provocative," Ajami said. While organizers may have the right to build it, "the prudence of it, the wisdom of it" is the question, he said.


At least one Raghead (Ajami) understands how wrong this project is.

Rauf claims the ground isn't sacred. Well, if he means did some clergyman consecrate it? I don't think so, but it still is like hallowed ground to many Americans - especially those who lost someone in 9/11. It's totally insensitive.

And what do strip clubs have to do with it? Those businesses were there prior to 9/11, and are not an insult to the memory of those who died.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Federal Government Deficit On Track As Second-Highest Ever


WASHINGTON - The federal government is on track to record the second-highest deficit of all time with one month left in the budget year.

The deficit totaled $1.26 trillion through August, the Treasury Department said yesterday. That puts it on pace to total $1.3 trillion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, slightly below last year’s record $1.4 trillion deficit.

Soaring deficits have become a major issue with voters heading into the midterm elections. Republicans say the deficits illustrate the growth of spending under Democrats and show their poor handling of the economy.

The Obama administration contends the record deficits were necessary to combat the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.

About one-third of the higher deficits are a result of a drop in government tax revenues. The other two-thirds of the deficit increases reflect higher government spending to stabilize the financial system and boost the economy.

Deficits of $1 trillion in a single year had never happened until two years ago. The $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 was more than three times the size of the previous record-holder, a $454.8 billion deficit recorded in 2008.

Last year’s deficit was equal to 9.9 percent of the total economy - the highest percentage in 65 years. The deficit equaled 21.5 percent of the economy in 1945, at the height of the U.S. involvement in World War II.


The worst is yet to come.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Local US ban on hiring, housing illegal migrants struck down


A Philadelphia federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a law that sought to punish landlords and employers of illegal immigrants.

The court said the ordinance passed by the small Pennsylvania town of Hazleton violated federal prerogatives on immigration issues.

Civil rights groups, which challenged the ordinance almost immediately after Hazleton passed it in 2006, welcomed the ruling.

The decision comes ahead of a challenge to a similar law in Arizona, which the Supreme Court will hear in December.

Thursday's ruling found that the Hazleton ordinance effectively infringed upon policy areas that belong to the federal government.

"It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton," the court wrote.

"It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong message.

"The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy trial," the group said in a statement.

"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

The Hazleton ordinance was passed after an influx of Hispanic immigrants into the small town, home to some 30,000 people, in the early part of the decade.

The ordinance sought to prevent "the threat of crime," and to ensure city residents would not be "burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States," it said.

It also aimed to ensure legal residents were "free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens."

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them from Latin America.

Attempts in recent years to draft legislation that would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants have been stymied by fierce opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers.


There you have it again folks! The Federal government sues local governments because the locals are enforcing immigration laws. The locals only do this because the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. If the government won't enforce the law, then we have to do it ourselves. Vigilantism? If wanting to protect yourself from unwanted and unwelcome foreign invaders is vigilantism, then call me a vigilante.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

20 States Prepare for Day in Court Against Health Care Law


PENSACOLA, Florida -- The Obama administration will try to persuade a federal judge Tuesday to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states that claim the president's health care overhaul is unconstitutional.

The fight will primarily be over sections of the law that will require individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties and require states to pay additional costs for the Medicaid health insurance program for the indigent that are not covered by the federal government.

Attorneys defending the law will argue that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and it's up to an individual taxpayer -- not the states -- to challenge the law then. The government has said it has the right to create the insurance mandate under the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.

Florida's Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law last March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The country's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, has joined McCollum's suit, and a similar case is unfolding in Virginia.

There, the Obama administration also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, saying Virginia lacked standing to sue, but a federal judge has allowed it to continue, ruling that the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.

Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University law school in Virginia, said it will be difficult for the states to argue that the federal government can't force individuals to have health insurance when the law won't take effect for years.

But more than 30,000 members of the federation are already suffering, said Karen Harned, executive director of its Small Business Legal Center.

Many insurance companies have changed their plans or discontinued their policies in advance of the new law, making it more expensive for small businesses to meet the requirements, she said. Fewer than half of the country's small businesses provide employee health insurance now, she said, and the law would create a financial burden for many of them.

"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire health care law, but we think the entire health care law is bad," she said.

Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, probably before the 2012 presidential election.

The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.


SURPRISE! Anyone notice that Mexifornia is not on that list? The most liberal state in the country is still kissing ZOG's ass for more loan money, so Schwarzenigger doesn't want to rock the boat.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Urge Your Senators to End Birthright Citizenship!


The issue of Birthright Citizenship highlights another key area where our elected officials allow our immigration laws to be abused by illegal aliens--instead of protecting U.S. citizens and legal residents. This practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens only encourages more people to come to the United States illegally..

There is already a bill in the House, H.R. 1868, that would change current U.S. law and prevent the children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship. However, there is no legislation proposed in the Senate to make this happen. Please don't delay. Send this critical message to your two Senators today, and ask them to put more of an emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws and preventing future illegal immigration.


Comrades, this issue is of paramount importance. The Constitutional Amendment that give anyone who is born on American soil automatic citizenship was intended to protect the children of freed slaves, the children of Indians (Native Americans), and the children of LEGAL immigrants from having to go through the naturalisation process. It was never, never intended to be used as an anchor for illegal immigrants
to stay in the United States.

Illegals use this provision as a tool to stay in this country, and to get free healthcare and education for their children whenever they can. THIS MUST END NOW!

Firstly, because it isn't right. They are using a legal loophole in the law, and they know it.

Secondly, we simply can no longer afford it. Our hospitals, schools, and social programs are being drained by these leeches, and it must stop. H.R. 1868 is great way, along with immigration laws like in Arizona to make things as difficult as possible for them. If because of laws like these, the illegals are no longer able to find the better life they're looking for, then they will have no reason to run our borders (unless they're drug smugglers and fugitives, in which case they'll run our borders anyway). Email your Congreesman and Senators and tell them to support this bill. No matter how much our leaders may or may not sympathise with these invaders, the gravy train has run dry and we simply cannot afford to help them any longer.

It's like at Christmas time as I'm passing a Salvation Army Santa, if I don't have any money, then I can't donate, no matter how worthy the cause may or may not be. As it is, when we help and support any foreigners, whether by letting them into the country to suckle on our teats, or by giving out foreign aid, we're basically doing it with borrowed money. How crazy is that? No matter how generous a person may be, and we Aryans are the most generous people in the world, would any of you borrow money to make a donation? I wouldn't. Who in their right minds would? Only the liberals, but then again, I said, "Who in their RIGHT minds." Enough said.

Friday, September 17, 2010

U.S. Border Patrol Agents in 'Firefight' With Mexican Gang

SAN ANTONIO -- U.S. Border Patrol agents fired gunshots into Mexico after coming under attack during a half-ton drug bust and giving chase to a truck along the Rio Grande, U.S. authorities said Monday.

No Border Patrol agents were hurt during the "fire fight" early Saturday in Mission, agency spokeswoman Rosalinda Huey said. She did not say whether Border Patrol gunfire hit anyone, citing the ongoing investigation.

"The firing they received came from the Mexican side," Huey said.

Huey said several Border Patrol agents, at least some of whom were patrolling in boats, were seizing a half-ton of marijuana when they came under gunfire. Federal officials said the shots from Mexico began when a truck that was being chased by another group of Border Patrol agents entered the area.

FBI special agent Jorge Cisneros said the truck, which was on the U.S. side, appeared to be connected to the drug seizure. He said the gunfire from Mexico was a "direct result" of Border Patrol agents doing their jobs.

"We're obviously concerned with what happened, that they would be shooting from the Mexico side to us," Cisneros said.

Federal officials did not release how many agents were involved, how many shots were fired or the number of shooters on the Mexico side. Cisneros said the FBI was working with Mexico authorities, including the Mexican military and the Tamaulipas state police, to determine what happened.

It was at least the second time in three months that Border Patrol agents in Texas have fired into Mexico. In June, a Border Patrol agent fatally shot a 15-year-old Mexican boy after authorities say a group trying to illegally enter Texas threw rocks at officers near downtown El Paso.

Reports of bullets whizzing across the border from Mexico also are on the rise. At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where drug violence has killed more than 4,000 people since 2009, making it one of the deadliest cities in the world.

Cisneros said he can recall a handful of times in the last few years that gunfire from Mexico has crossed over the border. He said Border Patrol agents "have always been very good about not shooting back unless there is a life-threatening situation."

Huey who would not say whether the agents involved in the shooting still were on patrol. She said agents are authorized to fire their weapons any time they feel lives are at risk, even into Mexico.

"As long as our agents feel their life is in danger, they are allowed lethal (force)," she said.


This is more proof that it's only a matter of time. The lid is on the pot, and it's going to explode - and soon.
The second Mexican-American war is coming. When it starts, then maybe our government will start expelling Mexican Nationals on the grounds they are enemy aliens. They already are enemy aliens, but maybe the Feds will finally admit it.

But there is another problem we'll have to face. The Mexicans who have been nationalised as American Citizens, and their children and grandchildren. We'll have a high incidence of treason, sabotage, and espionage from these people. I think the government should seriously consider rebuilding places like Manzanar and Los Alamos. What we did during WWII with the Japs was necessary, and we'll have to do the same thing with the Spics if war does break out - even more so than the Japs. The thing about Gooks is when they come here, they want to be Americans. Spics do not. They want to be Mexicans who live and work in America for financial benefits, but their first loyalty is always to their Motherland. We must never forget that.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Israeli students burn New Testament


Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.

Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon said missionaries recently entered a neighborhood in the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, distributing hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material.

After receiving complaints, Aharon said, he got into a loudspeaker car last Thursday and drove through the neighborhood, urging people to turn over the material to Jewish religious students who went door to door to collect it.

"The books were dumped into a pile and set afire in a lot near a synagogue," he said.

The newspaper Maariv reported Tuesday that hundreds of yeshiva students took part in the book-burning. But Aharon told The Associated Press that only a few students were present, and that he was not there when the books were torched.

"Not all of the New Testaments that were collected were burned, but hundreds were," he said.

He said he regretted the burning of the books, but called it a commandment to burn materials that urge Jews to convert.

"I certainly don't denounce the burning of the booklets, he said. I denounce those who distributed the booklets."

Jews worship from the Old Testament, including the Five Books of Moses and the writings of the ancient prophets. Christians revere the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, which contains the ministry of Jesus.

Calev Myers, an attorney who represents Messianic Jews, or Jews who accept Jesus as their savior, demanded in an interview with Army Radio that all those involved be put on trial. He estimated there were 10,000 Messianic Jews, who are also known as Jews for Jesus, in Israel.

Police had no immediate comment.

Israeli authorities and Orthodox Jews frown on missionary activity aimed at Jews, though in most cases it is not illegal. Still, the concept of a Jew burning books is abhorrent to many in Israel because of the association with Nazis torching piles of Jewish books during the Holocaust of World War II.

Earlier this year, the teenage son of a prominent Christian missionary was seriously wounded when a package bomb delivered to the family's West Bank home went off in his hands.

Last year, arsonists burst into a Jerusalem church used by Messianic Jews and set the building on fire, raising suspicions that Jewish extremists were behind the attack. No one claimed responsibility, but the same church was burned down 25 years ago by ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremists.


More proof of how evil these creatures are. They condone this kind of behaviour when they are the ones behind it. Yet when we do the exact same thing, it's a Holocaust. They really do believe they are 'The Chosen' and we are here to serve them. Many ask, "Why do so many WN's want to eliminate the Jews?" Well, this story is a perfect example of one of the many reasons why.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Another Apology

Once again I would like to apologise for not posting anything for September 15th. My internet provider was having some technical difficulties in my area. I was unable to access any website beginning at around 10:00 PM, and continuing past midnight. At that point I decided to give up and go to bed. Pending any more problems, I'll be posting something for the 16th shortly.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Judge allows KKK lawsuit against Missouri to proceed


ST. LOUIS | A federal judge in St. Louis has rejected a state request to dismiss the lawsuit filed by a Ku Klux Klan group.

The imperial wizard of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is seeking to rent a pavilion at the Fort Davidson Historic Site in southeast Missouri.

The group filed a lawsuit as it sought to use the site for an April 14 gathering. The Klu Klux Klan group was unable to meet the insurance requirements imposed by the Department of Natural Resources and held the picnic on private property.

The group alleges that the requirements violated its right to free speech.

Judge Rodney Sippel in St. Louis wrote in his ruling Tuesday that the issue isn't moot although the April 14 event has passed. He noted that the Klu Klux Klan group is now seeking to use the pavilion on Oct. 3.


This is going to be interesting! I think we should all keep an eye on this case.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

They Live While We Sleep- A Parody


The Day Of Darkness

Brothers and Sisters, the anniversary of the darkest day in America has come and gone. I thank Yahweh that there was no violence. That would have fed into the egos of the Muslim extremists who caused this tragedy, and are celebrating this day.

We did have an incident of a White man burning the Koran on Ground Zero. He held his head high, and did not shrink back from any negative comments thrown his way. That took a lot of courage. He made a statement. I hope it gets all the way back to Bin Laden himself.

I also heard of Muslims in Afghanistan burning the American flag when they heard of Rev. Jones's plans to burn copies of the Koran at his church. I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Now that 9/11 is over, the next thing to do is burn a few Afghani flags. We organise a few flag burnings of our own. They showed contempt for us. I say we return the gesture.

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, I advise you to check with your community's laws regarding the burning of anything. You may need a permit. If you were to engage in flag burning, and your city required a permit for burning anything, you can bet anything you'll be arrested, or at least cited and fined, and in most cases it would probably be a hefty fine at that. If they get to you BEFORE you burn, they'll surely put a stop to it if you don't have the proper permits. Make sure you get one if it is required.

This year there was no trouble. However, next year is the big one zero (ten). Additionally, the new Mosque at ground zero will either be finished, or well under way. I suspect there will be attempts at sabotage. I advise everyone to not be foolish enough to even consider this course of action. If you get arrested attempting to plant a bomb or set a fire, you'll spend many a year rotting away in one of ZOG's gulags. Criminal action is not the answer. You're more valuable fighting for the cause on the outside, than rotting away in some prison, where your cellmate is named Big Black Bubba, your toilet is three feet from your bed, and you eat all your meals off of metal trays. I've never been to prison, but I taught GED to inmates for two years, so I know personally what prison is like. It's one place I hope never to live at, and I'd hate to see any of you there either.

Remember, keep your rage in check at all times. Think before you act. Focused anger is a strength. Unfocused anger is a weakness.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Obama Voices Strongest Support Yet for Location of Ground Zero Mosque


President Obama voiced his strongest support yet Friday for a plan to locate a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York City, saying constructing the facility there was an "inalienable right."

Asked during a Friday news conference what he thought the reaction would be if the site were moved, Obama replied: "This country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights. One of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely. And what that means is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site."

Debra Burlingame, the sister of an American Airlines pilot who died in the 9/11 attacks, and who leads a group of 9/11 families staunchly opposed to the ground zero mosque location, told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that there now can be no doubt President Obama supports the specific location of the controversial mosque.

"There's no question now," Burlingame tells Newsmax. "He was given an opportunity. The question was posed: 'We all know there's freedom of religion, but where do you stand on the wisdom of putting this mosque there?' And his answer was to go back to this Koran burning, and how that would inflame the passions of more than a billion Muslims.

"He seems to utterly ignore or dismiss the passions or the sensibilities of 300 million Americans, including America Muslims, who told us this mosque, without question, will be interpreted in the Muslim world as ratification of the attacks that took place nine years ago, that it will be used to recruit jihadis and that it will endanger our troops," Burlingame told Newsmax.

When asked during Friday's news conference to comment further on the specific location, Obama appeared to bristle, stating: "I think I've been pretty clear on my position."

That was a reference to Obama's initial, strong support in mid-August for the Park51 mosque project.

A day later, the president qualified his remarks by saying: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

But this time the question put to Obama specifically addressed the wisdom of placing a 15-story, $100 million community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero — a location has been sharply criticized by many survivors of the 9/11 disaster, and others across the political spectrum, as culturally insensitive despite its constitutionally protected status.

"Now I recognize the extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11," Obama continued. "I've met with families of 9/11 victims in the past. I can only imagine the continuing pain and anguish and sense of loss that they may go through. And tomorrow we as Americans are going to be joining them in prayer and remembrance.

"But I go back to what I said earlier," he went on. "We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or have falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts. And we've got to be clear about that. We've got to be clear about that because … if we're going to successfully reduce the terrorist threat, then we need all the allies we can get. The folks who are most interested in a war between the United States or the West and Islam is al-Qaida. That's what they've been banking on."

Obama suggested that objecting to the mosque location would amount to "acting as if their religion is somehow offensive." And he pointed out that many Muslims serve in harm's way in the U.S. military.

"They are Americans. And we honor their service," he said. "And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us. And that is a principle that I think is going to be very important for us to sustain, and I think tomorrow is an excellent time for us to reflect on that."

There could be little question that Obama's statement, coming on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans, would open fresh emotional wounds among 9/11 family members.

Ironically, the president's impassioned defense of the ground zero mosque location came even as he appeared to suggest he is reserving the right as commander in chief to step in and take steps to prevent a Florida pastor from burning the Koran to protest Islamic shariah law and the ground zero mosque location.

Several Muslim countries have sent diplomatic messages to the administration asking it to step in and stop the Koran burning. Members of Terry Jones' church now say that event has merely been "postponed," but not halted, after a deal to relocate the ground zero mosque failed to materialize.

Jones told the media he had been lied to when he was told that an understanding had been reached that the ground zero mosque would be moved.

The pressure on Obama to somehow stop the Koran burning, which is not expected to occur on Saturday as originally anticipated, appears to be growing domestically as well.

On Friday's Morning Joe Program on MSNBC, commentator Donnie Deutsch and former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan both urged Obama to have Jones arrested if necessary.

"I would find some legal reason, taxes, something, just get in there and take him away," Deutsch said. "I'm sorry, it's national defense, this is what a commander in chief does."

"This is absurd," Buchanan said. "We've got the general in command of our troops saying men will die … the president sent those men into battle. What he should do, is they should try to persuade this pastor to stand down. And if he doesn't, act! For heaven's sakes, in 1951 Harry Truman ordered the steel mills of the United States seized, rather than allow a potential strike to happen."

Obama himself appeared to open the door to taking executive action to stop the Koran burning on Friday by stating his role as commander in chief.

Obama also expressed concern that many other groups and individuals around the nation might also decide to protest the ground zero mosque by burning Korans, which would further damage U.S. interests and threaten military personnel abroad.

"There's no doubt that when someone goes out of their way to be provocative in ways that we know can inflame the passions of over a billion Muslims around the world, at a time when we've got our troops in a lot of Muslim countries, that's a problem," Obama said. "And it has made life a lot more difficult for our men and women in uniform, who already have a very difficult job."

Burlingame adds that the president's castigation of the Koran burning while supporting the ground zero mosque site represents a clear double standard.

She added that the president could have encouraged that Muslim leaders to compromise and move the mosque to another location.

"The president refused to do that, and I think this is another example of the president appeasing and appealing and forbearing always to the Muslim world, without regard to how his citizens — now at 72 percent [opposed] — [feel about the site] being at ground zero," she said.

Burlingame charged that the president appears to be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities than to those of people in the United States. "He cares nothing about the sensibilities of Americans. And if that mosque inflames passions of our enemies in terms of endangering our troops, well, that just has to take a second seat," she said.

"I just think that the president is completely out of touch with the American people," Burlingame added. "And that is sad to me, especially as we're preparing for this solemn [9/11 memorial] ceremony."


Why do we always have to be the ones to show tolerance? The Ragheads sure as hell don't! They execute fags, persecute Christians, treat their women like possessions, and they have the bloody gall to demand we show them tolerance.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Local US ban on hiring, housing illegal migrants struck down


A Philadelphia federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a law that sought to punish landlords and employers of illegal immigrants.

The court said the ordinance passed by the small Pennsylvania town of Hazleton violated federal prerogatives on immigration issues.

Civil rights groups, which challenged the ordinance almost immediately after Hazleton passed it in 2006, welcomed the ruling.

The decision comes ahead of a challenge to a similar law in Arizona, which the Supreme Court will hear in December.

Thursday's ruling found that the Hazleton ordinance effectively infringed upon policy areas that belong to the federal government.

"It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton," the court wrote.

"It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong message.

"The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy trial," the group said in a statement.

"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

The Hazleton ordinance was passed after an influx of Hispanic immigrants into the small town, home to some 30,000 people, in the early part of the decade.

The ordinance sought to prevent "the threat of crime," and to ensure city residents would not be "burdened by the cost of providing goods, support and services to aliens unlawfully present in the United States," it said.

It also aimed to ensure legal residents were "free of the debilitating effects on their economic and social well being imposed by the influx of illegal aliens."

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them from Latin America.

Attempts in recent years to draft legislation that would grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants have been stymied by fierce opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers.


There you have it again folks! The Federal government sues local governments because the locals are enforcing immigration laws. The locals only do this because the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. If the government won't enforce the law, then we have to do it ourselves. Vigilantism? If wanting to protect yourself from unwanted and unwelcome foreign invaders is vigilantism, then call me a vigilante.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Pressure rises on pastor who wants to burn Koran


GAINESVILLE, Fla. – The government turned up the pressure Tuesday on the head of a small Florida church who plans to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, warning him that doing so could endanger U.S. troops and Americans everywhere.

But the Rev. Terry Jones insisted he would go ahead with his plans, despite criticism from the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, the White House and the State Department, as well as a host of religious leaders.

Jones, who is known for posting signs proclaiming that Islam is the devil's religion, says the Constitution gives him the right to publicly set fire to the book that Muslims consider the word of God.

Gen. David Petraeus warned Tuesday in an e-mail to The Associated Press that "images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence." It was a rare example of a military commander taking a position on a domestic political matter.

Jones responded that he is also concerned but is "wondering, 'When do we stop?'" He refused to cancel the protest set for Saturday at his Dove World Outreach Center, a church that espouses an anti-Islam philosophy.

"How much do we back down? How many times do we back down?" Jones told the AP. "Instead of us backing down, maybe it's to time to stand up. Maybe it's time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behavior."

Still, Jones said he will pray about his decision.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the administration hoped Americans would stand up and condemn the church's plan.

"We think that these are provocative acts," Crowley said. "We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American."

Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton may address the controversy at a dinner Tuesday evening in observance of Iftar, the breaking of the daily fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed the concerns raised by Petraeus. "Any type of activity like that that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern to this administration," Gibbs told reporters.

Jones said he has received more than 100 death threats and has started wearing a .40-caliber pistol strapped to his hip.

The 58-year-old minister said the death threats started not long after he proclaimed in July that he would stage "International Burn-a-Quran Day." Supporters have been mailing copies of the Islamic holy text to his church to be incinerated in a bonfire.

Jones, who has about 50 followers, gained some local notoriety last year when he posted signs in front of his small church declaring "Islam is of the Devil." But his Quran-burning scheme attracted wider attention. It drew rebukes from Muslim nations and an avalanche of media interview requests just as an emotional debate was taking shape over the proposed Islamic center near the ground zero site of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York.

The Quran, according to Jones, is "evil" because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.

"It's hard for people to believe, but we actually feel this is a message that we have been called to bring forth," he said last week. "And because of that, we do not feel like we can back down."

Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive.

Jones' Dove Outreach Center is independent of any denomination. The church follows the Pentecostal tradition, which teaches that the Holy Spirit can manifest itself in the modern day. Pentecostals often view themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against satanic forces.

At first glance, the church looks like a warehouse rather than a place of worship. A stone facade and a large lighted cross adorn the front of the beige steel building, which stands on 20 acres in Gainesville's leafy northern suburbs. Jones and his wife, Sylvia, live on the property and also use part of it to store furniture that they sell on eBay.

A broad coalition of religious leaders from evangelical, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim organizations met in Washington on Tuesday and condemned the plan to burn the Quran as a violation of American values.

"This is not the America that we all have grown to love and care about," said Rabbi Steve Gutow of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. "We have to stand up for our Muslim brothers and sisters and say, "This is not OK.'"

FBI agents have visited with Jones to discuss concern for his safety. Multiple Facebook pages with thousands of members have popped up hailing him as a hero or blasting him as a dangerous pariah.

The world's leading Sunni Muslim institution of learning, Al-Azhar University in Egypt, accused the church of stirring up hate and discrimination, and called on other American churches speak out against it.

Last month, Indonesian Muslims demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, threatening violence if Jones goes through with it.

In this progressive Florida city of 125,000 anchored by the sprawling University of Florida campus, the lanky preacher with the bushy white mustache is mostly seen as a fringe character who doesn't deserve special attention.

At least two dozen Christian churches, Jewish temples and Muslim organizations in Gainesville have mobilized to plan inclusive events — some will read from the Quran at their own weekend services — to counter what Jones is doing. A student group is organizing a protest across the street from the church on Sept. 11.

Gainesville's new mayor, Craig Lowe, who during his campaign became the target of a Jones-led protest because he is openly gay, has declared Sept. 11 Interfaith Solidarity Day in the city.

Jones dismisses the response of the other churches as "cowardly." He said even if they think burning Qurans is extreme, Christian ministers should be standing with him in denouncing the principles of Islam.

All the attention has caused other problems for Jones, too. He believes it's the reason his mortgage lender has demanded full payment of the $140,000 still owed on the church property. He's seeking donations to cover it, but recently listed the property for sale with plans to eventually move the church away from Gainesville.

The fire department has denied Jones a required burn permit for Sept. 11, but he said lawyers have told him his right to burn Qurans is protected by the First Amendment, with or without the city's permission.

The same would hold true, he said, if Muslims wanted to burn Bibles in the front yard of a mosque.

"Of course, I would not like it," Jones said. But "I definitely would not threaten to kill them, as we have been threatened."


Jones is excersizing his 1st Amendment rights. I do support him. Considering the Muslims are using the Mosque at Ground Zero as a way of giving Americans the finger, I say this action is an appropriate response.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Black men are the leading cause of death among young blacks.

Based on a 96 page report on the causes of premature death by the CDC, the leading cause of death among young blacks of both sexes are black men. See report.


According to the CDC, black men are ten times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS than white men. Among black men who allege that they have never engaged in a homosexual act, the figure rises to about 15 times the rate that heterosexual white men are diagnosed. Studies by the CDC also conclude that black men are more likely to have HIV or AIDS and go undiagnosed than white men.

All of this translates to black women being diagnosed with HIV or AIDS at a rate of over 20 times that of white women. The general trend is for black men to catch HIV/AIDS from each other in prison and then give it to black women when they are released. The CDC believes that 74% of black women who have HIV/AIDS contracted it through heterosexual contact with a man.

A 2004 report by the CDC says that AIDS is the:

> the leading cause of death for black women aged 25–34 years.
> the 3rd leading cause of death for black women aged 35–44 years
> the 4th leading cause of death for black women aged 45–54 years.

By way of comparison, AIDS was only the 11th leading cause of death for white women aged 25-34!


The same CDC reports say that homicide is the:

> the leading cause of death among black men aged 15-34 years. (Three age categories!)
> the second leading cause of death for black women aged 15-24 years.
> the fifth leading cause of death for black women aged 25-34 years.

Among women aged 15-24, homicide accounts for 5% of premature deaths in white females, but 20% of all premature deaths by black females.

Among both black and white men, homicide deaths peak at aged 25-34. The death rate by homicide among white men in this age group is 12.5 per 100k, and accounts for 10% of all premature deaths. The death rate by homicide among blacks in this age group is 101.8 per 100k, and accounts for 48% of all premature deaths.

The majority of black female homicide victims are killed by a current or former boyfriend, which many refer to as “femicide.” About 93% of all black homicide victims are killed by a black perpetrator overall. 85% of white homicide victims are killed by a white perpetrator.

“The National Black Women’s Health Project” has identified the battering of women as the number one health issue for African American women (Joseph, 1997).

Femicide is a leading cause of premature deaths in African American women aged 15-44. (Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol 7, No. 1)

In 1998, Salber and Taliaferro reported that the spousal homicide rate among African Americans is 8.4 times more than for whites. The incidence of spousal homicide is 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages compared to intraracial marriages. (Source WebMD.com)

Relationships with black men dramatically increase a woman’s chances of dying young.

Black females aged 15-19 are 3.9 times more likely to die of homicide or AIDS than white females in the same age group. This increases to 4.4 time for females aged 20-24 and 7.3 times for 25-34.

White women who engage in relationships with black men dramatically increase their chances of premature death or long term health problems from murder, beatings, and STDs.


Somehow, someway, I'm sure there are many Niggers who will say this is all Whitey's fault. These subhumans rarely take responsibility for their actions. It's always someone else's fault. It's typical thinking of immature or under developed minds. But I'm sure they'd say that is somehow our fault as well.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

No-Warrant Ruling Brings U.S. ‘Closer to Police State’


A “dangerous” court ruling holds that government agents can sneak onto your property, attach a tracking device to your car, and monitor your every move — without a warrant.

The ruling was originally handed down in January by the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and eight other Western states. In August, a larger group of judges decided to let it stand.

“It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell,” Adam Cohen, an attorney and former member of the New York Times editorial board, writes in Time magazine.

The case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration agents suspected Oregon resident Juan Pineda-Moreno of growing marijuana. Agents sneaked onto his property at night and attached a GPS tracking device to the underside of his Jeep, which was parked in his driveway next to his trailer home.

Agents used the device to track the suspect to a marijuana growing site. He was arrested and convicted on marijuana manufacturing charges.

But Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA’s actions, claiming they violated his Fourth Amendment rights protecting him from unreasonable search and seizure.

“The invasion of his driveway was wrong,” Cohen declared. “The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the ‘curtilage,’ a fancy legal term for the area around the home.”

But the Ninth Circuit panel ruled that Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private.

“If a neighborhood child had walked up Pineda-Moreno's driveway and crawled under his Jeep to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat, Pineda-Moreno would have no grounds to complain,” the judges stated. “Thus, because Pineda-Moreno did not take steps to exclude passersby from his driveway, he cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, regardless of whether a portion of it was located within the curtilage of his home.”

The court also ruled that the underside of Pineda-Moreno’s Jeep was not private property.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski dissented from this month’s decision not to reconsider the case, stating: “The panel’s rationale for concluding that Pineda-Moreno had no reasonable expectation of privacy is even more worrisome than its disregard of Supreme Court precedent.”

He also wrote: “1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.”

Cohen warned: “If government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state.”

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has now ruled that tracking a person for an extended period of time with a GPS device is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant.

Observers believe the issue will probably be decided by the Supreme Court.


1984 is indeed here folks. From now on, we'd better park in our garages (if you even have one). I also suggest you place a 'No Tresspassing Sign' in a conspicuous place, or places.

Also, isn't it typical the the 9th Circuit upheld this? The 9th is the most liberal of all the Circuit Courts. It's the same circuit that rule California's Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. It's actually located right in the heart of San Francisco. Big surprise.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Obongo to cut social security?


President Obama is playing “Watch the Birdie” with Americans over the age of 50, diverting their attention with handouts and scare tactics to hide in plain sight the enormous damage his policies are doing to the retirement safety net.

First it was Medicare. The ObamaCare legislation drops a few free goodies like breadcrumbs in front of Medicare recipients (such as free diagnostics and annual checkups) to draw their attention away from the enormous cuts in Medicare being used to help pay the freight for the new national healthcare system. Additionally, the White House has engineered a full-blown propaganda campaign, coordinated with the AARP, to deceive Medicare recipients and baby boomers about the magnitude and the implications of the $575 billion in Medicare cuts being used to help pay for ObamaCare. Even more deceitfully, using TV icon Andy Griffith in a taxpayer-funded TV ad to talk about how happy days are here again, the Obama Administration and its mouthpiece AARP are attempting to hoodwink people over the age of 50 about the inherent healthcare rationing sown into the very fabric of ObamaCare.

Medicare’s own Chief Actuary has already publicly reported that the Medicare payment rates for the doctors and hospitals serving retirees will be cut by 30 percent during the next three years. The details buried in the Medicare Trustees report reveal that still further Medicare cuts adopted in the ObamaCare legislation add up altogether to $818 billion during the first 10 years of full implementation, and $3.223 trillion during the first 20 years, just for Medicare’s hospital program (Part A, HI). Counting the cuts for Medicare physician reimbursement under the Part-B program brings the grand total in Medicare cuts to $1.048 trillion during the first full 10 years, and $4.95 trillion during the first 20 years.

Now the president is coming after Social Security.

In his Saturday radio address on August 14, President Obama revealed he is already moving on to cut Social Security.

But again, he is playing "Watch the Birdie," this time using scare tactics rather than sweeteners.

In that address, he denounced the idea of solving Social Security’s problems by allowing young workers the freedom to voluntarily choose to save and invest some of their taxes in their own personal retirement accounts, an option federal employees already enjoy. The president rejects fixing the Bernie-Madoff Ponzi scheme currently used to finance Social Security with some form of personal accounts to begin pre-funding Social Security with real saving and investment. Instead, he rails about “privatization,” an incendiary (and false) characterization of voluntary personal retirement accounts intended to scare the bejeebers out of the American people.

"President Obama thinks Americans over the age of 50 are stupid and can be demagogued with false claims about their benefits."

President Obama knows that all these account proposals affect only younger workers and do not touch the benefits of today’s retirees or the baby boom generation soon to retire. Moreover, congressional proposals for voluntary personal accounts have maintained the safety net of Social Security, guaranteeing that workers would get at least as much as Social Security promises now.

But President Obama thinks Americans over the age of 50 are stupid and can be demagogued with false claims about their benefits. The far-left faction in the Democratic Party just can’t stand the idea of workers and retirees supporting themselves more through the private sector. They call that “privatization,” which means too much filthy capitalism for their tastes.

So the question remains: What is the president up to?

How does he propose to solve Social Security’s long-term financial crisis, which even his own Presidential Debt Commission realizes is real? Without some form of real saving and investment for workers to begin prefunding their retirement, the only alternatives remaining are to raise payroll taxes or cut benefits—and that is precisely what President Obama’s Debt Commission is planning. One might think raising payroll taxes is out because President Obama pledged over and over to get elected that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. If he refuses even to consider personal accounts as inconsistent with his socialist ideology, he will never be able to deliver on that promise.

As to benefit cuts, this is exactly what the Presidential Debt Commission is plotting to reveal right after the November election. Former Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the Commission, tipped the Commission’s hand recently when he described Social Security as a “milk cow with 300 million tits.”

Leaks indicate that among the options being considered are delaying the retirement age (sounds like a panacea to bureaucratic pencil pushers who never did a day of hard labor in their lives), changing the basic benefit formula to reduce future benefits, and delaying or slashing COLAs.

Apparently, President Obama’s concept of spreading the wealth includes sacking both the Medicare and Social Security systems on which America’s retirees have come to rely. That’s some progressive vision of “fiscal responsibility:” Put seniors out in the cold and into an early grave.


I do have to agree with one option: Delay retirement age. It kind of sucks, but the fact is, we are living longer lives than ever before. Unless you are financially independent, that means, and rightfully so, a longer working life, not a longer retired life. If we are living say an average of five years longer than the generation before us, then we should have to work five years longer than they did, unless we can provide for ourselves. If they do this, I won't receive full SS benefits until I am 67, rather than 65. I don't have a problem with this. Social Security was designed so we'll have some money to live on when we're too old to work, not so we can party down when we turn 65.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Bernanke: "Shut down banks if they threaten system."

WASHINGTON – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a panel investigating the financial crisis that regulators must be ready to shutter the largest institutions if they threaten to bring down the financial system.

"If the crisis has a single lesson, it is that the too-big-to-fail problem must be solved," Bernanke said Thursday while testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Bernanke also said it was impossible for the Fed to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy in 2008 because the Wall Street firm lacked sufficient collateral to secure a loan. Lehman's former chief executive told the panel a day earlier that the firm could have been saved, but regulators refused to provide help.

The Fed chief is presenting his analysis of the crisis and views on potential systemwide risks as the panel approaches the end of its yearlong investigation into the Wall Street meltdown.

Bailing out these institutions is not a healthy solution and great improvement will come from the new financial overhaul law, Bernanke said. It empowers regulators to shut down firms whose collapse pose a broader threat to the system.

"Too-big-to-fail financial institutions were both a source ... of the crisis and among the primary impediments to policymakers' efforts to contain it," Bernanke said.

"We should not imagine ... that it is possible to prevent all crises," he said. "To achieve both sustained growth and stability, we need to provide a framework which promotes the appropriate mix of prudence, risk-taking and innovation in our financial system."

Bernanke led the economy through the financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. The Federal Reserve took extraordinary measures to inject hundreds of billions into the battered financial system.

Last week he said the central bank is prepared to make a major new investment in government debt or mortgage securities if the economy worsened significantly.

Members of the congressionally appointed panel have questioned the government's decision to let Lehman fall while injecting billions of dollars into other big financial institutions during the crisis.

Former Lehman CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr. testified Wednesday that the firm could have been rescued. But the regulators refused to help — even though they later bailed out other big banks.

Bernanke disagreed. He said bailing out Lehman would have saddled the taxpayers with billions of dollars in losses.

"It was with great reluctance and sadness that I conceded there was no other option" than allowing Lehman to fail, he said.

Asked how the Lehman case differed from that of American International Group Inc., which received $182 billion in taxpayer aid, Bernanke said there was a fundamental difference.

AIG, as the biggest insurance company in the U.S., had valuable assets which could back up the Fed's emergency loan, he said.

"The Federal Reserve will absolutely be paid back by AIG," Bernanke said.

Sheila Bair, the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., also is testifying at Thursday's hearing. She says in prepared testimony "the stakes are high" for regulators to effectively exercise their new powers under the financial overhaul law. If not, "we will have forfeited this historic chance to put our financial system on a sounder and safer path in the future," she says.


What should be shut down is the Federal-Reserve system. Do you know they charge the taxpayers a fee for us to use our own money? It's true. The money is ours, yet we pay them to use it. Is that crazy or what? Here's something even crazier. We pay more in fees for $100 bills, than for $1 bills. Does it cost more to print $100 bills than $1 bills? No it doesn't. Does it cost the Federal Reserve more in paperwork to manage $100 bills than $1 bills? No it doesn't. Charging us more for the larger denominations is nothing more than Jew usury, and the American taxpayers just open their wallets and pay every year. It's utterly incredible. Then again, most of our middle and lower classes are unaware of these surcharges. The wealthy know, but some are making money off of this, others have so much that they aren't concerned, and still others are concerned that if they rock the boat, they might be subjected to economic sanctions from the Jew Banksters responsible for this rip-off.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Feds sue Arizona sheriff in civil rights probe


PHOENIX – The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.

The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office's defiance "unprecedented," and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that discriminate against people with limited English skills.

Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio's attorney, Robert Driscoll, declined immediate comment on the lawsuit, saying he had just received it and hadn't yet conferred with his client.

Arpaio's office had said it has fully cooperated in the jail inquiry but won't hand over additional documents into the examination of the alleged unconstitutional searches because federal authorities haven't said exactly what they were investigating.

It's the latest action against Arizona by the federal government, which earlier sued the state to stop its strict new immigration law that requires police officers to question people about their immigration status.

"The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the department's civil rights division. "It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and names Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the county.

Arizona's new law — most of which a federal judge has put on hold — mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the greater Phoenix area, where he set up a hot line for the public to report immigration violations, conducts crime and immigration sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods and frequently raids workplaces for people in the U.S. illegally.

Arpaio believes the inquiry is focused on his immigration sweeps, patrols where deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders.

Critics say his deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.

Arpaio denies allegations of racial profiling, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they've committed crimes and that it's only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.

The sheriff's office has said half of the 1,032 people arrested in the sweeps have been illegal immigrants.

Last year, the federal government stripped Arpaio of his special power to enforce federal immigration law. The sheriff continued his sweeps through the enforcement of state immigration laws.

Last year, the nearly $113 million that the county received from the federal government accounted for about 5 percent of the county's $2 billion budget. Arpaio's office said it receives $3 million to $4 million each year in federal funds.

In a separate investigation, a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Arpaio has abused his powers with actions such as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends.


Stand tough Sheriff Joe. You are an American hero!

My Apologies

I apologise for not posting yesterday. I was installing a new windows operating system on my computer and it took way longer than I thought it would. I'll try not to let it happen again.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Legal Group Seeks to Force Calif to Defend Prop 8


A conservative legal group is trying to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court.

The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require state officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved measure as unconstitutional last month.

Its sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether they have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The state has until Sept. 11 to file an appeal.

Both Brown and Schwarzenegger have said they do not plan to.


Anyone guess why Brown isn't objecting? It's obvious. The majority of Californians approved Prop. 8. If Brown goes against the will of the majority, he can kiss any chance of being governor goodbye. If he weren't running, that liberal bastard would probably be fighting against Prop. 8.

As to Schwarzenegger, at least the Governator is showing a little backbone by supporting the will of the people and not going against us on this. Better late than never.