News, Comment, and Opinion

* * *
A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.




  • Divide and Rule
  • We Now Have a War on Thanksgiving
  • So-Called Immigrants Rights Groups Confused About ...
  • The War on Terror is a Fraud and Should Be Ended
  • Australian Foreign Minister Politely Asks Mugabe t...
  • US Should Concentrate on Being Strong, Not on Proj...
  • Jury Ruling May Be a Step in the Right Direction f...
  • Reading List
  • Some in Congress Still Recognize the Second Amendm...
  • Horde of Bicycling Ruffians called Critical Mass A...


  • Blogger David Schantz -- 6/25/2006 5:45 AM
  • Blogger Gun-Toting Liberal -- 6/25/2006 12:24 PM
  • Blogger David Schantz -- 7/02/2006 12:44 PM
  • Blogger individ -- 6/16/2006 8:44 AM
  • Blogger David Schantz -- 6/19/2006 1:26 PM
  • Blogger Hoodlum -- 9/04/2006 3:32 AM
  • Blogger The Sovereign Editor -- 9/05/2006 7:21 PM
  • Blogger The Sovereign Editor -- 9/05/2006 8:02 PM
  • Blogger David Schantz -- 6/14/2006 4:19 PM


  • November 2004
  • December 2004
  • January 2005
  • February 2005
  • March 2005
  • April 2005
  • May 2005
  • June 2005
  • July 2005
  • August 2005
  • September 2005
  • October 2005
  • November 2005
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • Current Posts

  • Subject Matter:
  • Alternative Energy
  • Asset Forfeiture
  • Astronomy
  • California
  • China
  • Congress
  • Connecticut
  • Constitution
  • Corruption
  • Economy
  • Education
  • Eminent Domain
  • Energy
  • Environmental Concerns
  • Europe
  • European Union
  • Florida
  • France
  • Germany
  • Georgia
  • History
  • Identity Theft
  • Illegal Immigration
  • International Law
  • International Relations
  • Islam
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Massachusetts
  • Media Bias
  • Medicine
  • Mexico
  • Militant Islam
  • Militaristic Aggression
  • New Jersey
  • North Korea
  • Police State
  • Privacy
  • Rhode Island
  • Russia
  • Science
  • Second Amendment
  • Slavery
  • Social Security
  • Space Exploration
  • Supreme Court
  • Surveillance Society
  • Taiwan
  • Taxation
  • Technology
  • The ACLU
  • The FairTax
  • The FBI
  • The IRS
  • The President
  • Tyranny
  • United Kingdom
  • United Nations
  • Virginia
  • World Tax


  • Realm of Sovereigns
  • A Republic, if you can keep it
  • American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
  • American Sons of Liberty
  • Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog
  • Anglerealm
  • Atlas Blogged
  • Badtux the Snarky Penguin
  • Big Brother Loves You -- Obey Big Brother
  • Black Box Voting
  • Castle Coalition
  • Conservative Punk
  • Constitutional Concepts Foundation
  • Constitution Death Pool
  • Copshots
  • Copwatch
  • David N. Mayer
  • Downsize D.C.
  • Future Musings and Desultory Glances
  • Gateway Pundit
  • GeoBandy
  • Gun Owners of America
  • Historium
  • historyteacher
  • How to Contact Congress or the White House
  • individ
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jack Yoest: War Archives
  • Jake Porter
  • Know Your Land Rights
  • Leaving Babylon
  • Libercontrarian
  • Libertarian Outlook
  • Liberty's Outpost
  • Libertythink
  • Live Free or Die
    -----The 'Civil Flag' -- Forgotten Flag, or Flag of Fraud and Fiction?
  • Mark Gilmore
  • Mike's America
  • Modern Tribalist
  • MoveOff
  • Mythusmage Opines (Old Link)
  • News, the Universe, and Everything
  • Obey
  • Oh, That Liberal Media!
  • Ordering a Pizza Under a National Computerized ID Database
  • Propaganda Matrix
  • ScrappleFace: News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.
  • Steve's America
  • Tapscott's Copy Desk
  • Technorati (A useful blog search engine)
  • The Asylum
  • The City Troll
  • The FairTax
    -----Status of the 'Fair Tax Act of 2005' (H.R. 25; S 25)
  • The Fountain of Truth
  • The Free State Project
  • The Gun Toting Liberal
  • The Sentinel of Alachua County, Florida
  • Tomato 7
  • Tom’s Fireside Chat
  • TRIMonline
  • Truth in Justice
  • Victims-of-Law

  • Games:
  • Customary Checkers
  • The Basic Rules of Checkers (ACF Approved)
  • Abalone

  • Weights & Measures:
  • Nearly Everything You Need to Know About Weights and Measures
  • The Dozenal Society of Great Britain
  • Footrule

  • Miscellany:
  • Don McAlvany's International Collectors Associates (ICA)
  • The Relative Value of the Dollar (Use this CPI calculator to determine how the value of the current dollar stands up against past dollar values)
  • Writing Help (proofreading, copyediting, and research)
  • Common Errors in English
  • Useful Definitions of Political Terms

  • Charity:
  • AmeriCares
  • International Mission Board
  • Feed the Children
  • World Vision: Building a Better World for Children
  • - - -

    Powered by Blogger

    Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.

    [Most Recent Quotes from]

    [Most Recent Quotes from]

    [Most Recent USD from]

    Saturday, June 24, 2006

    Mexico's New Deal a Bad Idea, Presidential Candidate López Obrador Shuns Comparison With Chavez

    Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador's "economics team has developed a blueprint for what they call the 'Mexican New Deal.' Their modern version of Depression-era populism is an ambitious program to create millions of jobs and stem migration by undertaking huge public works projects, including a railroad network, vast housing developments, ports and timber replanting."(1) His main opponent, Felipe Calderón "and other critics say [López] Obrador's promised social programs would push Mexico into an economic crisis, and in a series of attack ads, compared him to Venezuelan President Hugo [Chávez], an authoritarian socialist. But [López] Obrador says the comparison is ridiculous." [emphasis added](2)

    I tend to agree with Calderón. Governments do not create anything. They are parasitic by nature. The more government programs there are, the higher the taxes need to be to fund such programs. Higher taxes hurt the People. A better plan would be to enact laws to make corrupt practices by government officials a felony punishable by significant prison time, and laws protecting the right of the People to be free from exploitive working conditions. Also, they should end all business subsidies, and raise tariffs on foreign imports to compensate (subsidies and import duties have the same operative effect, but the latter does not put the burden on a country's People).

    I am in favor of a strong Mexico. One that can compete economically with the United States. This would actually reverse the illegal immigration trend, I think. It would also benefit the United States in that we would be encouraged to work harder and be more innovative in order to compete. However, socialism is not the way to accomplish a Mexican economic rise.

    Take note of López Obrador's reaction to being compared to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. It will be interesting to note if he actually becomes a close ally of Venezuela after he is elected. If he does, it would be proof of his disingenuousness. By his own statement, he is so different from Hugo Chavez that any comparison would be laughable. Presumably, he would not make such a statement if he approved of Hugo Chávez (or if he thought the Mexican voters approved). I wonder if we can assume from this statement that he will not, as Chávez did, stage a military coup, nationalize private industry, support leftist rebels in other countries, claim territories in other countries, or cozy up to Fidel Castro?(3) I would think that, making such a statement, we could reasonably assume that he does not approve of such things and would not do them himself. However, it is a statement made during a political campaign. I just want to draw people's attention to this statement, in case he should significantly contradict it in the future.

    (1) Roig-Franzia, Manuel. "Using FDR as Model, Presidential Hopeful Out to Build New Deal for Mexico," The Washington Post 2006 June 23, Page A18, para. 2,
    (2) Stevenson, Mark. "Mexico hopeful takes hard line vs. NAFTA" (AP), Business Week, 2006 June 17, para. 13,
    (3) BBC Staff Writers. "Profile: Hugo Chavez," BBC News, World, Americas, 2002 December 05,

    * * *

    Special thanks to the Gun Toting Liberal for drawing my attention to the Washington Post story.

    Technorati Tags:


    Does President Bush Believe in Private Property Rights? Maybe

    In a stroke of stunningly good, and surprising news, President Bush has signed an Executive Order aimed at strengthening the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property. Maybe Bush got the memo that Conservatives did not like the Kelo eminent domain ruling in the least. And given our displeasure at his very non-conservative policies regarding illegal immigration in an election year, he decided he'd better actually do something conservative for a change so as not to further alienate the Republican base (which is mostly Conservative).

    Bush tried earlier this year to gain Conservative support with the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That was never going to pass, and even if it was, it is a non-issue when you have illegal immigration and forcible property seizures to worry about. It was a waste of political energy and should never have been tried. I have no idea if it affected Bush's poll numbers.

    This eminent domain EO may actually boost his numbers, but it too may be just window dressing. The order does allow (in Section 3(c)) the conveying of the property to a "nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right." [emphasis mine] Now that might mean nothing, but it does give non-governmental entities a foot through the door as potential beneficaries of eminent domain. At least Bush understands that we want our government to protect our property, not steal it and that we get extremely upset whan it doesn't.

    I have included the text of the Executive Order:

    Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

    Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

    (i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

    (ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

    (b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

    (i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

    (ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

    Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

    (a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

    (b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

    c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

    (d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

    (e) acquiring abandoned property;

    (f) quieting title to real property;

    (g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

    (h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

    (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

    Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

    (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

    (d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



    June 23, 2006.

    * * *

    Technorati Tags:


    Does NAFTA Contribute to Illegal Immigration?

    The North American Free Trade Agreement just might be a contributing factor to increased illegal immigration from Mexico. This is because the agreement seems to favor the United States, to Mexico's detriment. By the terms of the agreement, both Mexico and the United States have to remove tariff's on each other's agricultural exports by 2008.(1) Apparently, the agreement doen not consider subsidies, which is odd, considering that subsidies have the same aggregate effect as tariffs. "Mexican farmers say hefty agricultural subsidies in the United States give American white corn and beans an unfair advantage over the Mexican market, which depends in large part on small-scale and mostly subsistence farmers. As Mexico's staple crops, corn and beans also carry immense symbolic importance."(2) For this reason, the "[l]eftist presidential candidate [Andrés Manuel López Obrador]. . . opposed eliminating tariffs on U.S. white corn and beans, showing no allegiance to a deal he sees as harmful to Mexican farmers."(3)

    Well, I oppose leftists in principle, but I don't exactly have warm feelings toward NAFTA. Treaties like that tend to delegate the Commerce powers of the United States Congress to the Executive branch and, more disturbingly, to international bodies. It states clearly in the Constitution that "Congress shall have Power. . .To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."(4) I am extremely uncomfortable with such delegation of power, especially where it transfers our authority to regulate public policy to a body that is not subject to the United States Constitution.

    (1) Stevenson, Mark. "Mexico hopeful takes hard line vs. NAFTA" (AP), Business Week, 2006 June 17, para. 2,
    (2) Ibid. para. 5.
    (3) Ibid. paras. 1 & 2.
    (4) U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

    * * *

    Technorati Tags:


    Thursday, June 22, 2006

    Man on Death Row For Defending Home, Infant Daughter Against Home Invaders

    In the middle of the night, one Cory Maye was the victim of a home invasion. He is now on death row for defending himself and his infant daughter.
    [He] awoke to a furious pounding on his front door. According to his court testimony, he became frightened for his safety, and for the safety of his daughter. He ran back to the bedroom, where his daughter was asleep on the bed. He retrieved the gun he had for home protection, loaded it, chambered a round, and lay down on the floor next to her, hoping the noises and/or intruders outside would subside.

    They didn't. Soon enough, Maye says, the door to Maye's bedroom flew open, and a figure entered from the outside. Scared, Maye fired his gun three times.

    The figure was police officer Ron Jones, and one of Maye's bullets struck Jones in the abdomen, killing him. Worse for Maye, Jones also happened to be the son of the town's police chief.(1)

    The police claimed "they repeatedly announced they were police, and asked Maye to open up."(2) They also say that "Cory Maye knew that Ron Jones was a police officer when he shot him."(3)

    I remember reading that Maye surrendered after they announced they were police. I cannot find an authoritative source for this. Obviously, Maye did surrender since he is alive (until the state kills him, that is). Why would he surrender if he didn't know they were police? Armed men violently invading his apartment are not the sort he'd want to surrender to. If Maye knew they were police, why would he wait until after he had killed one of them to surrender? It doesn't make sense.

    (1) Balko, Radley. "Railroaded Onto Death Row?" Fox News, 2006 February 15, paragraphs 4-6,,2933,184992,00.html
    (2) Ibid. at paragraph 7.
    (3) Ibid.

    * * *

    Technorati Tags:


    Friday, June 16, 2006

    Closer to a Police State: Supreme Court Says Police Can Burst Into Your Home Without Warning

    In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that police need not "properly announce their arrival" so long as they have a warrant.(1) This ruling is extremely dangerous because it puts homeowners at a disadvantage. When someone violently bursts into your home without warning, if your first impulse isn't to shoot them, then you probably shouldn't have children. In the past, this wasn't a problem because the good guys aren't allowed to just burst into your home, are they? It seems that they are now.

    Now, when someone invades your home, you legally should hold your fire, because it might be the police. This comes at a time when "MS-13 [a notorious Central American criminal organization] -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known. . for home invasion robberies. . . [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(2)

    Personally, I think we should start passing state laws requiring police to announce their presence when entering a private residence.

    (1) Holland, Gina. "Supreme Court upholds unannounced police entry" (AP), The Boston Globe, News, Nation, Washington, 2006 June 16, paragraph 2, (last accessed on 2006 June 16)
    (2) Johnson, Kevin. "MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says," USA Today, 2006 January 05, (last accessed on 2006 March 27)

    Subject matter: Constitution Law Police State Supreme Court

    Technorati Tags:


    United States Senate Bill Funds Defense of Mexico's Southern Border

    The Mexican government may be receiving help from the United States with the defense of their southern border. Senate Bill S. 2611, which I have also seen referred to as the "Hagel-Martinez" bill, provides for "improving the security of Mexico's southern border".

    I find this odd considering that the Federal Government can't seem to find the time of the money to defend the U.S./Mexico border. Upon closer inspection, the bill, if agreed to by the House and the President, will actually be providing direct funding to Guatemala and Belize in order to strengthen the borders between Mexico and Guatemala and between Mexico and Belize. This provision can be found in S. 2611, Title I, Subtitle B, Section 114. I have included the text below:


    (a) Technical Assistance- The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary, shall work to cooperate with the head of Foreign Affairs Canada and the appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico to establish a program--

    (1) to assess the specific needs of Guatemala and Belize in maintaining the security of the international borders of such countries;

    (2) to use the assessment made under paragraph (1) to determine the financial and technical support needed by Guatemala and Belize from Canada, Mexico, and the United States to meet such needs;

    (3) to provide technical assistance to Guatemala and Belize to promote issuance of secure passports and travel documents by such countries; and

    (4) to encourage Guatemala and Belize--

    (A) to control alien smuggling and trafficking;

    (B) to prevent the use and manufacture of fraudulent travel documents; and

    (C) to share relevant information with Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

    (b) Border Security for Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico- The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall work to cooperate--

    (1) with the appropriate officials of the Government of Guatemala and the Government of Belize to provide law enforcement assistance to Guatemala and Belize that specifically addresses immigration issues to increase the ability of the Government of Guatemala to dismantle human smuggling organizations and gain additional control over the international border between Guatemala and Belize; and

    (2) with the appropriate officials of the Government of Belize, the Government of Guatemala, the Government of Mexico, and the governments of neighboring contiguous countries to establish a program to provide needed equipment, technical assistance, and vehicles to manage, regulate, and patrol the international borders between Mexico and Guatemala and between Mexico and Belize.

    (c) Tracking Central American Gangs- The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall work to cooperate with the appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico, the Government of Guatemala, the Government of Belize, and the governments of other Central American countries--

    (1) to assess the direct and indirect impact on the United States and Central America of deporting violent criminal aliens;

    (2) to establish a program and database to track individuals involved in Central American gang activities;

    (3) to develop a mechanism that is acceptable to the governments of Belize, Guatemala, Mexico, the United States, and other appropriate countries to notify such a government if an individual suspected of gang activity will be deported to that country prior to the deportation and to provide support for the reintegration of such deportees into that country; and

    (4) to develop an agreement to share all relevant information related to individuals connected with Central American gangs.

    (d) Limitations on Assistance- Any funds made available to carry out this section shall be subject to the limitations contained in section 551 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-102; 119 Stat. 2218).(1) [emphasis added]

    The vote occured on May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM. Here are how the senators voted (I suggest that we ask those voting "yea" why they thought providing border security aid to Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize was a good idea):
    YEAs ---62NAYs ---36Not Voting - 2
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Bennett (R-UT)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brownback (R-KS)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Chafee (R-RI)
    Clinton (D-NY)
    Coleman (R-MN)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Craig (R-ID)
    Dayton (D-MN)
    DeWine (R-OH)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Domenici (R-NM)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Frist (R-TN)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    Hagel (R-NE)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Jeffords (I-VT)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Lieberman (D-CT)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Martinez (R-FL)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Obama (D-IL)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Smith (R-OR)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Stevens (R-AK)
    Voinovich (R-OH)
    Warner (R-VA)
    Wyden (D-OR)
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Allard (R-CO)
    Allen (R-VA)
    Bond (R-MO)
    Bunning (R-KY)
    Burns (R-MT)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Dole (R-NC)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lott (R-MS)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Santorum (R-PA)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Sununu (R-NH)
    Talent (R-MO)
    Thomas (R-WY)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Salazar (D-CO)

    Vote Result: Bill Passed.(2)

    (1) S. 2611, 109th Cong. § 114 (2006).
    (2) U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Cong. -- 2nd Sess. On Passage of the Bill (S. 2611 As Amended), May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM,

    * * *

    Technorati Tags:


    Thursday, June 15, 2006

    Americans Have Had Enough -- Concerned Citizens Drain Desert Water Tanks Intended For Illegal Immigrants

    Judging by their own actions, a group of people called "Humane Borders" sees fit to leave clearly marked water tanks for the express purpose of making it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the desert.(1) They make the claim that "border crossers are innocent, crossing in search of a better life."(2) Humane Borders' claim is unsupported and, in any case, is not true. Some border-crossers may be only crossing to work, but they still know that they are breaking the law. Let that sink in: they know they are breaking the law. What does that make them? Lawbreakers. In his own words, illegal immigrant Laureano Miranda "We've heard that there are soldiers and armed 'migrant hunters,' but we have to try," he said. "If we don't make it [across the U.S. border] in three tries, then we'll go back home."(3)

    In addition to these allegedly peaceful lawbreakers, it is known that violent criminals also cross the border illegally. An immigration activist "says Humane Borders is helping illegal immigrants, some he calls criminals, cross the border safely. These are robbers, rapists, murders. [Setting up water stations] is simply aiding and abetting criminal activity"(4) This immigration activist's statement is correct. You may recall some of my earlier research:

    One thing that annoys me is that the sheer scale of the crime associated with illegal immigration is simply ignored in most of the major coverage. "While the news reporters talked about illegal workers who perform jobs Americans refuse to perform, they continue to avoid mentioning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who prey on men, women and children -- US citizens. It is these innocent Americans who are murdered, raped and robbed because of an insane immigration policy. Criminal aliens are entering the US in the tens of thousands and remaining here as they join violent gangs such as MS-13, or they choose to commit their mayhem solo."

    And for those of you who say that it is unfair to associate the violent beasts comprising MS-13 with "honest" hard-working illegal immigrants, consider the following: "The violent MS-13 -- or Mara Salvatrucha -- street gang is following the migratory routes of illegal aliens across the country, FBI officials say, calling the Salvadoran gang the new American mafia." For those of you who are unaware of this group of two-legged beasts, "MS-13 -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known in recent years for home invasion robberies, drug dealing and machete attacks on its enemies. . . [and even] could be far more dangerous than thought [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(5)

    The fact is that the American People don't want illegal immigrants here. We have laws to keep them out. We get annoyed when the laws aren't enforced. We have reached the end of our rope. We are sick of our government doing nothing. People go out and put water stations up to help illegal aliens cross. This has to stop. The people from Humane Borders say that each week, they find "at least one or more of their 70 water tanks vandalized, an act these volunteers say can kill. If they're planning on getting their water at that location and they get there and there's no water, then the next time they could get water could be not before they die,"(6)

    I would like to turn this insane idea on its head. If illegal immigrants are counting on those water stations, it is because the people who wish to aid and abet their unlawful behavior put them there. There are always illegal immigrants who will cross the border. The only ones who will die specifically because the water stations are removed are those who decided to cross or decided not to carry enough water specifically because they knew of the water stations. So, it could be said that Humane Borders is causing the deaths of illegal immigrants who were relying on their water stations because, if not for them, they would not have chosen to cross in the way that they did.

    (1) Lyon, Amber. "Vandals drain desert water tanks intended for illegal immigrants," KVOA News 4, Tuscon, Arizona, 2006 June 14, (last accessed 2006 June 14)
    (2) Ibid. At paragraph 15.
    (3) Rodriguez, Olga R. "Troops Reducing Illegal Border Crossings" (AP), The Houston Chronocle, World News, 2006 June 12, paragraph 24,
    (4) Lyon at paragraphs 13-14.
    (5) The Sovereign Editor, "The Mexican/Latino Invasion Finally Reaches the Front Pages," Sovereign Commentary, 2006 March 28, paragraphs 6-7,, citing: Kouri, Jim. "The Illegal Immigration Reform Scam," Men's News Daily, 2006 March 27,; Ward, Jon. "Gang follows illegal aliens," The Washington Times, Metropolitan, 2005 May 05,; and Johnson, Kevin. "MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says," USA Today, 2006 January 05,
    (6) Lyon at paragraphs 9-10.

    Technorati Tags:


    Sunday, June 11, 2006

    Illegals Not Doing Only "Jobs Americans Aren't" -- Ultimate Goal Seems to be Dissolution of U.S. Borders

    President Bush is still perpetuating the myth that illegal immigrants are only working "on the jobs Americans aren't doing."(1) It might be partially true, but anyone who says that Americans are not being economically hurt by this tidal wave of illegal immigrants are selling you a bill of goods.

    If you don't believe me, talk to Mr. Vaughn of Los Angeles, who's sons "have been turned down [in favor of Spanish-speaking immigrants] so many times for jobs - as framers, roofers, cement layers - that they no longer apply."(2) In other words, there are Americans who want jobs that are going to aliens (illegal or otherwise). I don't necessarily want to sound clannish (though there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself) but Americans shouldn't have to compete with foreigners of similar qualification for jobs in their own country. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of even having national borders?

    Maybe this sort of passive effect on Americans can be successfully discredited by the political class. They can say that if Americans were better suited to the work, it would be they who were hired, and not illegal (or legal) aliens. And who's to say that the politicians would be wrong if they did make such an argument?

    However, the presence of Spanish-speaking workers in this country is hurting Americans and Americans are seeing jobs being taken directly from them and given to Mexican workers:
    An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less. . . [W]orkers . . . described as U.S. citizens . . . had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up. (3)

    We have Americans being sent home because Mexican workers arrived at a job site and a President who continues to assert that illegal aliens are "coming here to do work Americans aren't doing."(4) Something is not right here. Of course, the thing that is not right, is that the current president, despite anything he might say, is reported to be actively working toward the dissolution of our borders. In 2005, something called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP was agreed to by "President Bush, President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during their March 2005 summit meeting in Waco, Texas."(5) This agreement is intended to "create a North American Union along the model of the European Union, put in place by administrative regulations and departmental working groups under the SPP umbrella."(6)

    In my humble opinion, any such agreement is in complete violation of the Constutition of these United States. And the existence of the agreement serves to support the hypothesis I've entertained that this government ignores illegal immigration because they seek to destroy our sovereignty. We the People need to become educated on this issue and inform our so-called representatives that we will not stand for the subjugation of our Constitution to Byzantine international agreements.

    Our great-grandparents would not recognize this as America. It is true that we have a great tradition of immigration, but we also have a tradition of regulating such immigration in the interests of the American People. Our current so-called "representative" government is totally out of control and does not seem to act in the interests of We the People. This was not so in the past:
    [T]he Anglo-Japanese Alliance was . . . renewed in 1911 . . . with the addition of a clause relieving England from the necessity of going to war with the United States even if Japan and the United States became involved in hostilities. This provision was made on account of the uneasiness arising in both Japan and in the United States over the excessive immigration into California of Japanese laborers, who worked for such low wages as to endanger the livelihood of American laborers. These troubles were smoothed by the gentlemen's agreement, in which Japan agreed to regulate the number of emigrants to California. [emphasis added](7)

    As you can see, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States government was responsive to the needs of Americans as opposed to the needs of foreigners; else Japan would not have feared a war. Contrast that with the present day. Mexico does not fear war with the United States. They have absolutely no incentive to stop sending us their poorest citizens because our government seems incapable of holding them responsible. In fact, our government seems unwilling to hold anyone responsible -- even those who are actually breaking our immigration laws. This has to stop. We the People have to stand up and tell our Representatives that we will not stand for them selling out our country. We have a right to our borders and to our language. We have a right to our constitution. We did not empower them to change our homeland into part of a larger multi cultural economic zone. We empowered them to govern us as a Constitutional Republic. Those in our government who refuse to protect the Republic and the People deserve at the very least to be removed from office.
    (1) Stout, David. "Bush Takes Immigration Law Campaign to New Mexico," New York Times, U.S., 2006 June 06, paragraph 10,
    (2) Wood, Daniel. "Rising black-Latino clash on jobs," The Christian Science Monitor, USA, Society & Culture, 2006 may 25, paragraph 3,
    (3) Seper, Jerry. "Arrival of aliens ousts U.S. workers," The Washington Times, Nation/Politics, 2006 April 10, paragraphs 1 & 2,
    (4) Stout at paragraph 16.
    (5) Corsi, Jerome. "Southern border blurs for global trade," World Net Daily, 2006 June 01, paragraph 12,
    (6) Ibid.
    (7) McDannald, A.H., ed. Hayward's Key to Knowledge, Volume I: "The Story of the Nations." Chicago: Americana Corporation, 1931, page 293.

    * * *

    Technorati Tags:


    * * *

    "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

    --Samuel Adams

    Sovereign Commentary · · Copyright © 2004-2007