More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war?
Republicans are saying:
Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.
Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.
"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.
"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."
This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.
The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."
The federal government's Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. According to the U.S. State Department website, the waiver program was established in 1986 with the objective of "eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel," stimulating America's tourism industry, and allowing the government to focus consular resources in other areas.
Cutler says the U.S. retains the Visa Waiver Program because the nation's travel, tourism, and hospitality industries want America's borders wide open. In other words, the former INS official contends, the nation's security is being compromised in the name of trade. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Prosecute or release Guantanamo detainees
Congress said what it meant and meant what it said in denying access to American courts for prisoners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If this ruling by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., stands, the U.S. government could hold several hundred "detainees" for the rest of their lives if it so desires.
That is contrary to fundamental American principles of justice. Congress should repeal the law on which this ruling is based. Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review in this case and reverse the decision. Some so-called enemy combatants have been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without the benefit of charges or trial. It is not clear which, if any, are guilty of any crime against the United States. They deserve swift justice before an impartial court, or they should be released.
The question of the legality of holding alleged enemies has been bruited about between the federal courts and Congress for nearly five years. Although the Bush administration initially insisted the courts had no jurisdiction over Guantanamo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The issue at the core is the writ of habeas corpus, which dates to early English law, giving a prisoner the right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The authors of the American Constitution said Congress could not suspend habeas corpus except when in "cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
On the eve of last November's elections, the Republican-led Congress, to its everlasting shame, passed legislation that pointedly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction in all Guantanamo cases, thus suspending habeas corpus for only the fifth time since 1789. In its ruling Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Congress could not have been more clear. Writing for the court, Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote, "It's almost as if [members of Congress] were slamming their fists on the table shouting 'When we say "all," we mean all - without exception!' "
While not disputing that conclusion, Judge Judith W. Rogers, writing in dissent, said Congress exceeded its authority. She is right, and her position likely will be supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. The question is whether habeas corpus covers prisoners held at Guantanamo: The administration says no because the base is technically outside the territory of the United States. The plaintiffs say yes because it is territory under U.S. jurisdiction. The court has suggested it takes the latter view, but the question has not been resolved.
Thus, while it is important that the Supreme Court reinstate the rights of so-called enemy combatants, the administration simply will relocate them to moot the point. That's why Congress should direct the administration to immediately review the status of all those held at Guantanamo, release those who present no threat and prosecute the rest under established rules of military tribunals. Then close this embarrassing symbol of injustice.
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/OPINION03/702220358/-1/ENT06
Cheney slams Iraq plan advocated by Dems
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent1 hour, 15 minutes ago
Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.
"I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him.
"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.
The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.
"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."
In the interview, Cheney also said Britain's plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq — while the United States adds more troops — was a positive step. "I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," the vice president said.
Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."
"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.
Later, Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.
Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters.
"I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment," Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney "was not questioning anyone's patriotism." But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's "position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue."
As for Cheney's assertion that the partial British pullout is a sign that things are going well in Iraq, Pelosi said: "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, said Britain's withdrawal, coupled with a Denmark's announcement to pull out its 460 troops by August, "accelerates the breakup of the coalition in Iraq."
He said the United States should reduce its forces "as a way of pressuring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to reach the political settlements that are essential to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency."
Administration leaders, however, said Britain's decision was good news.
"The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in Berlin, where she was in meetings on the Mideast peace process.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said the decision "reflects the progress that has been made on the ground in Basra and in the south," where British troops were stationed.
"So this is basically a good news story, an indication that progress is being made, and that events on the ground permit this kind of adjustment in forces," Hadley said. Still, he acknowledged the violence in Baghdad and said, "I'm not saying this is an unalloyed picture of progress."
___
Reasons for Iraq War: Bush or Cheney?
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
| When elected, Bush was opposed to "nation building," but Dick Cheney brought in eight fellow neocons who advocated "regime change" and re-building Iraq. This was before 9/11 and had nothing to do with Bush's war on terrorism. Cheney's group all belonged to PNAC or IASPS. IASPS advocated regime change to increase Israeli security, while PNAC focused on our Middle East allies but named only Israel. Using 9/11, Cheney and the neocons convinced Bush to go against the long-standing conservative principles he proclaimed during his election campaign. |
| and their PNAC / IASPS backgrounds  Chart has Clickable popNotes. |
| A Short History of the Neocons' Push for War. Click Years for Details. 1996. Report: why removing Saddam is crucial to Israel. Written by Feith, Wurmser and Fairbanks. Delivered in person by Perle to the Israeli Prime Minister. 1997. PNAC's founding "principles" signed by necons: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams. 1998. PNAC letter to Clinton: removal of Saddam ... military efforts signed by: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Abrams Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough (NY Times) / A way to Oust Saddam ("the Wolfowitz plan ... US military might") —PNAC 1999. The Neocons' book on US/Israeli strategic interest in Iraq "Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, ..." —Wurmser PNAC Memo: "Above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam." 2000. Talk of war with Iraq was discontinued during the election. 2001. War planning by neocons' PNAC. Liberate Iraq—PNAC "At minimum, 50,000 troops." "Thousands of Iraqi soldiers would likely change sides and fight." "Chalabi may be ideal man to lead the opposition. He is rich and upper class." September 11, 2001 2001. War selling by neocons' PNACSept. 11. Rumsfeld: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Related and Not." Sept. 15. At Camp David, Wolfowitz made the case for action against Iraq. Sept. 19. Rumsfeld, Perle call two-day meeting. Outcome summarized in The PNAC Letter, signed by Perle. "Even if evidence does not link Iraq ... remove Saddam Hussein." Focuses on Iraq, Hezbollah, the Palesinian Authority, little on Bin Laden. All that remained was to convince Bush, and they had him surrounded. The man who did most to convince Bush and America, a long-time favorite of necons, was not even an American. Chalabi sold us the Iraq WMD hoax. The WMD Report to the President concluded that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed by 1991. Returning to Iraq, Chalabi, a Shiite, passed to the Iranians the most damaging top secret information—that we had broken their code. |
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Body armor for our Marines
A note from a concerned father to the Stratus Newspaper:
To the Editor:
I have a son going to Iraq this summer. I was able to afford to buy state-of-the-art body armor for his protection. Unfortunately there are many parents that are not able to afford this body armor.
My son’s outfit has 24 Marines. Two parents, including myself, have purchased this armor. Five others have been sponsored. The families of all the Marines in the unit have banded together to raise the additional money for the other 17 Marines.
The military has body armor available, but it’s heavy and not state-of-the-art. There is a company called Pinnacle Armor, out of California, that sells armor called Dragon Skin. This is what we have chosen for our sons. We need to raise $102,000 to outfit these 17 Marines. It’s approximately $6000 per Marine.
Any and all donations are welcome.
For more information please call Jesse Roe at 973-579-1982.
| |
| |
Monday, February 12, 2007
Journalists name additional leak sources
WASHINGTON - Three prominent journalists testified Monday that Bush administration officials volunteered leaks about a CIA operative, as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's attorneys sought to suggest he was not responsible for exposing her.
The jury in Libby's perjury trial heard a 66-second snippet of one of the deep background interviews given to Washington Post editor Bob Woodward for use in one of his books. They also saw a parade of Pulitzer-prize winning journalists discuss who did and did not leak the information that set off a scandal and ultimately brought Libby to trial.
Woodward, who never wrote about Plame, and columnist Robert Novak, who first identified her in print, testified that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage first told them in the summer of 2003 that the wife of prominent Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.
Another Post reporter, Walter Pincus, testified that then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer "suddenly swerved off" topic during an interview to tell him of her employment.
This contradicted a point in Fleischer's testimony last week.
A major government witness, Fleischer testified Libby told him about Plame — earlier than Libby has told investigators he thought he first learned about her from NBC reporter Tim Russert.
On cross-examination, Fleischer also testified that he did not recall telling Pincus about Plame. The reporter's testimony Monday was the most direct hit the defense made on the prosecution's evidence that Libby lied to FBI agents and a grand jury about his talks with reporters about Plame and obstructed an investigation into how her name leaked.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is not charged with the actual leak.
The defense did show Libby had numerous opportunities to leak Plame's identity to reporters and did not. But none of Monday's testimony went directly to the precise charges that he lied about his conversations with three other reporters about her.
The day's highlight was the tape of Woodward's June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage about how Bush decided to go to war. Armitage's name was never supposed to be connected publicly to what he said. The scandal prompted him to release Woodward from his pledge of confidentiality, which freed Woodward to share the tape with lawyers in the case.
Armitage has said he revealed the name accidentally, off-the-cuff, and didn't realize that Plame's employment was classified information.
With Armitage's frequent profanities deleted, the jurors heard him tell Woodward no less than four times where she worked.
Woodward asked about Wilson's 2002 fact-finding mission to Africa for the CIA that the ex-ambassador says helped him debunk prewar intelligence on Iraq.
"Why would they send him?" Woodward asked.
"Because his wife's a (expletive) analyst at the agency," Armitage replied.
"It's still weird," Woodward said.
"It's perfect. That's what she does. She is a WMD analyst," Armitage said.
Later Woodward asked if she was the WMD chief at CIA. Armitage said she wasn't but was in a position there to suggest that her husband had contacts in Africa.
Finally, Armitage said: "His wife is at the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that (expletive)."
Novak described trying to get an interview with Armitage in 2001 and being told the deputy secretary was "not too busy. He just didn't want to talk to me." Novak said he was rebuffed again after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to set up an interview. "I had not pressed my request for one in two years," Novak said. Once he asked about the Wilson trip, Armitage said "it was suggested by his wife, Valerie, who is employed in the counterproliferation division at CIA," Novak testified.
Novak testified he got confirmation from White House political adviser Karl Rove, who replied to him: "Oh, you've heard that, too."
Defense attorneys got Woodward, Novak, Pincus, New York Times reporter David Sanger, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas all to say they had talked to Libby about Wilson's allegations during the summer of 2003, but Libby had not disclosed Plame's identity or employment to them.
But Sanger, Kessler and Thomas said they didn't ask Libby about Wilson's wife. Woodward and Novak testified they didn't recall asking about her but said Libby didn't talk about her if they did. Pincus said Libby said he didn't know how the trip was arranged but their conversation occurred before June 12, when Libby now recalls he first learned the information from Cheney.
Defense attorneys brought out that Woodward, Pincus, Sanger and Kessler had all shared in Pulitzer Prizes.
"I believe you're the third Pulitzer prize winner to testify this morning," Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald quipped when he began questioning Sanger. He used the moment to bring out that an earlier prosecution witness, Judith Miller, also had shared a Pulitzer Prize while working at the Times.
___
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
$2.90 Trillion Dollar Budget Sent to Congress
Monday, President Bush sent his 2008 fiscal year spending budget to congress. In the budget Bush has proposed vast increases in military spending, along with enough money to pay for the war in Iraq and the troop increases, making his tax cuts permanent, eliminating the deficit in five years, and meanwhile still trying to pinch the rest of the governments spending into the budget.
Making the tax cuts permanent will add a cost of $1.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years and adds $700 billion dollars in new military spending. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) who is now the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said, "the president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction"
Conrad also added, "this administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that."
The savings to cut down the deficit would come from Medicaid and Medicare. $66 billion dollars would be cut over five years from Medicare and $13 billion dollars from Medicaid, a health program which gives aid to the poor who cannot afford it.
This budget is sure to draw a lot of criticism from the Democratically controlled congress. Bush made this statement about his budget; "My formula for a balanced budget reflects the priorities of our country at this moment in its history: protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism, keeping the economy strong with low taxes and keeping spending under control while making federal programs more effective."
Democrats have said that they will give the troops everything they will need to help the troops fight in Iraq and will look at the defense spending carefully.
Many of Bush's proposed cuts in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid in the past were rejected even by a Republican congress. It is unlikely that we will see many of these cuts in government programs.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Presidential Candidates
2008 Potential Republican Candidates
- Newt Gingrich
- George Pataki
- Chuck Hagel
- Mike Pence
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)