Michael Jackson has NO idea if he is Black or White and Barack Hussein Obama IS Black and White.

Via the anti-anything American AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - John McCain accused Barack Obama of playing politics with race on Thursday, raising the explosive issue after the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the White House claimed Republicans will try to scare voters by saying he "doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Until now, the subject of race has been almost taboo in the campaign, at least in public, with both sides fearing its destructive force.

"I’m disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he’s saying," McCain told reporters in Racine, Wis. The Arizona senator said he agreed with campaign manager Rick Davis’ statement earlier that "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." The aide was suggesting McCain had been wrongfully accused.

In turn, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, "We weren’t suggesting in any way he’s using race as an issue" but that McCain "is using the same, old low-road politics that voters are very unhappy about to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign."

A day earlier and in response to a hard-hitting McCain commercial, Obama argued that President Bush and McCain have little to offer voters so Republicans will resort to a strategy of fear to keep the White House.

"What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

He didn’t explain the comment. But it evoked images of past presidents who grace U.S. paper money, such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant. All were white men, and all but Grant were older than Obama when elected.

Obama long has talked about his physical appearance in speeches, but McCain advisers argue he crossed a significant line by accusing the GOP of scare tactics and alluding to his own race in the same breath.

The back-and-forth was the latest spike in a contest that’s grown increasingly negative despite pledges by both Obama and McCain to run aboveboard campaigns. The daily rhetoric has turned red-hot as both maneuver for advantage and polls show the race competitive three months before the election.

At 46, Obama is serving his first Senate term and working to overcome concerns of voters that he’s not ready to be president. McCain is trying to stoke the notion that the Democrat is too inexperienced to make the judgments necessary to lead a country in times of war and economic straits.

Polls show a close contest nationally and in key battleground states, including electoral prizes like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The political environment after two Bush terms tilts heavily in the Democrats’ favor, but voter skepticism about Obama has helped keep the contest within McCain’s reach.

In recent days, McCain has been going after Obama with new fervor, painting him as not ready to lead and too liberal for the country. It’s an aggressive approach reminiscent of GOP operative Karl Rove, who orchestrated Bush’s back-to-back victories in part by tearing down Democratic opponents.

Now, several of Rove’s former rank-and-file are in elevated roles in McCain’s campaign, and it shows.

Opening a new front Wednesday, the GOP campaign rolled out a hard-hitting commercial that uses pictures of 20-something stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to suggest that Obama is little more than a media darling who is unqualified to be president.

"He’s the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" the ad asks.

Obama’s campaign countered with its own ad that called McCain’s charges "baloney" and "baseless."

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Thursday, Obama steered clear of race as he chided McCain, saying: "So far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton. I do have to ask my opponent: ‘Is that the best you can do? Is that what this election is really all about? Is that worthy of the American people?’"

At campaign headquarters in Chicago, Obama’s campaign unveiled a new Web site that accuses McCain of "negative attacks and false charges."

The Democrat’s campaign has been operating under an edict to leave no attack unanswered lest he be tagged with an unshakable label. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry never recovered from the Bush campaign’s efforts to tag him a flip-flopper and elitist, as well as a Republican-aligned group’s questioning of his war record.

Mindful of how a such a damaging narrative can take hold, Obama’s campaign set up a Web site to dispel persistent Internet-driven rumors about his patriotism and religion, and he has sought to reassure voters on the campaign trail.

Often, he refers to his distinctions as a candidate and says that he’s aware there are doubts among some voters because, for example, he has "a funny name." Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, also has been known to acknowledge his appearance differs from previous candidates but then to add that the differences are not just about race.

"I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city," he said last week in Berlin. And on Tuesday, in Springfield, Mo., he said: "It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama."

Race generally remained in the background during the Democratic primary. The issue burst into the open last spring when Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, came under fire for sermons in which he accused the government of conspiring against blacks. Internet videos of his comments threatened great damage to Obama’s campaign.

Seeking to stem the fallout, Obama gave a high profile speech about racial tension in the country and later left Wright’s church.

WASHINGTON (AP) - John McCain accused Barack Obama of playing politics with race on Thursday, raising the explosive issue after the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the White House claimed Republicans will try to scare voters by saying he "doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Until now, the subject of race has been almost taboo in the campaign, at least in public, with both sides fearing its destructive force.

"I’m disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he’s saying," McCain told reporters in Racine, Wis. The Arizona senator said he agreed with campaign manager Rick Davis’ statement earlier that "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." The aide was suggesting McCain had been wrongfully accused.

In turn, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, "We weren’t suggesting in any way he’s using race as an issue" but that McCain "is using the same, old low-road politics that voters are very unhappy about to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign."

A day earlier and in response to a hard-hitting McCain commercial, Obama argued that President Bush and McCain have little to offer voters so Republicans will resort to a strategy of fear to keep the White House.

"What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

He didn’t explain the comment. But it evoked images of past presidents who grace U.S. paper money, such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant. All were white men, and all but Grant were older than Obama when elected.

Obama long has talked about his physical appearance in speeches, but McCain advisers argue he crossed a significant line by accusing the GOP of scare tactics and alluding to his own race in the same breath.

The back-and-forth was the latest spike in a contest that’s grown increasingly negative despite pledges by both Obama and McCain to run aboveboard campaigns. The daily rhetoric has turned red-hot as both maneuver for advantage and polls show the race competitive three months before the election.

At 46, Obama is serving his first Senate term and working to overcome concerns of voters that he’s not ready to be president. McCain is trying to stoke the notion that the Democrat is too inexperienced to make the judgments necessary to lead a country in times of war and economic straits.

Polls show a close contest nationally and in key battleground states, including electoral prizes like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The political environment after two Bush terms tilts heavily in the Democrats’ favor, but voter skepticism about Obama has helped keep the contest within McCain’s reach.

In recent days, McCain has been going after Obama with new fervor, painting him as not ready to lead and too liberal for the country. It’s an aggressive approach reminiscent of GOP operative Karl Rove, who orchestrated Bush’s back-to-back victories in part by tearing down Democratic opponents.

Now, several of Rove’s former rank-and-file are in elevated roles in McCain’s campaign, and it shows.

Opening a new front Wednesday, the GOP campaign rolled out a hard-hitting commercial that uses pictures of 20-something stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to suggest that Obama is little more than a media darling who is unqualified to be president.

"He’s the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" the ad asks.

Obama’s campaign countered with its own ad that called McCain’s charges "baloney" and "baseless."

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Thursday, Obama steered clear of race as he chided McCain, saying: "So far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton. I do have to ask my opponent: ‘Is that the best you can do? Is that what this election is really all about? Is that worthy of the American people?’"

At campaign headquarters in Chicago, Obama’s campaign unveiled a new Web site that accuses McCain of "negative attacks and false charges."

The Democrat’s campaign has been operating under an edict to leave no attack unanswered lest he be tagged with an unshakable label. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry never recovered from the Bush campaign’s efforts to tag him a flip-flopper and elitist, as well as a Republican-aligned group’s questioning of his war record.

Mindful of how a such a damaging narrative can take hold, Obama’s campaign set up a Web site to dispel persistent Internet-driven rumors about his patriotism and religion, and he has sought to reassure voters on the campaign trail.

Often, he refers to his distinctions as a candidate and says that he’s aware there are doubts among some voters because, for example, he has "a funny name." Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, also has been known to acknowledge his appearance differs from previous candidates but then to add that the differences are not just about race.

"I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city," he said last week in Berlin. And on Tuesday, in Springfield, Mo., he said: "It’s a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama."

Race generally remained in the background during the Democratic primary. The issue burst into the open last spring when Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, came under fire for sermons in which he accused the government of conspiring against blacks. Internet videos of his comments threatened great damage to Obama’s campaign.

Seeking to stem the fallout, Obama gave a high profile speech about racial tension in the country and later left Wright’s church.

Hezbollah Brigades’ logo is nearly identical to that of Lebanese Hezbollah.

By Bill Roggio

Coalition special operations forces captured two members of the Iranian-supported Hezbollah Brigades during a raid in eastern Baghdad on early Thursday morning. The intelligence-driven raid targeted the home of a propaganda cell member, Multinational Forces Iraq reported. The cell member was responsible for videotaping Hezbollah Brigades attacks on US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

“This propaganda cell is suspected of making, videos of attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces, which are then used to raise funds and resources for additional attacks against Coalition forces and Iraqis,” the US military stated in a press release. The cell member was responsible for videotaping Hezbollah Brigades attacks on US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

While the exact neighborhood in Baghdad was not identified, Multinational Forces Iraq often referred to the New Baghdad district as east Baghdad. On July 21, Coalition forces captured a member of a Hezbollah Brigades propaganda cell who was responsible for uploading attack videos to the Internet in New Baghdad.

The Hezbollah Brigades, or the Kata’ib Hezbollah, has been active for more than a year, Sergeant Susan James, a Public Affairs NCO for Multinational Forces Iraq told The Long War Journal. Multinational Forces Iraq said the group receives support from Iran and is an “offshoot of Iranian-trained Special Groups." The US military has referred to the Iranian-backed elements of the Mahdi Army as the Special Groups. The Hezbollah Brigades is “a separate and independent organization from Special Groups,” said James.

“We believe that Hezbollah Brigades does receive support from Iran,” James said. “That support likely includes funding, training, logistics, and material.” Iran’s Qods Force funds, trains, arms,and supports Mahdi Army operatives to facilitate attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces.

The logo used by the Hezbollah Brigades is nearly an exact match of the one used by Lebanese Hezbollah, which is directly supported by Iran. The logo shows an arm extended vertically, with the fist grasping an AK-47 assault rifle. US forces captured Ali Mussa Daqduq inside Iraq in early 2007. Daqduq is a senior Hezbollah commander who was tasked with setting up the Mahdi Army Special Groups along the same lines as the Lebanese terror group.

The Hezbollah Brigades began uploading videos of attacks on US and Iraqi forces this year. The group has claimed responsibility for the July 8 improvised rocket-assisted mortar, or IRAM, attack on Joint Security Station Ur in northeastern Baghdad [see video]. One US soldier and one interpreter were wounded after eight of the makeshift "flying IEDs" detonated near the outpost. Shia terror groups have launched a handful of IRAM attacks on US and Iraqi outposts in Baghdad.

The IRAM is a civilian truck converted to fire four to 10 rigged mortars on outposts at distances from 150 to 400 yards. The weapon has had little impact on US and Iraqi forces operating in Baghdad, but the US military is concerned about the weapon’s potential to cause a mass-casualty incident.

Hezbollah Brigades also posted video of an attack on a US patrolwith an Iranian-supplied, armor-piercing, explosively formed projectile, or EFP.

The operation to capture the Hezbollah Brigades propaganda cell members is the latest in a series of raids against Shia terrorists. Scores of Special Groups operatives have been captured over the past month, including senior leaders, weapons smugglers, financiers, trainers, and cell leaders.

 By Roxana Tiron

House defense appropriators on Wednesday fully funded the Air Force’s troubled mid-air refueling tanker, which has been at the center of a bitter lobbying fight between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

But the $893 million appropriation for the tanker comes with a caveat: The Pentagon will have to consider how the project will impact U.S. jobs and the defense industrial base in its evaluation criteria for contractors.

House defense appropriators are directing the Pentagon to follow an already existing law that calls on the Secretary of Defense to consider the national technology and industrial base in developing and implementing plans for each major defense acquisition program. The $35 billion tanker program qualifies as a major acquisition. 

Pentagon and Air Force officials said several times in congressional testimony that their selection criteria did not include protections of the U.S. industrial base. The Air Force didn’t look into the impact on U.S. jobs when it first awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman instead of Boeing at the end of February. Instead defense officials have argued that they looked at the best value for the taxpayers as well as the best equipment for the military. 

That prompted complaints from members of Congress that the decision would lead to a loss of U.S. jobs, given Northrop’s partnership with the European firm EADS, the parent company of Boeing’s archrival Airbus. Boeing supporters claimed U.S. jobs would be shipped to Europe if Northrop Grumman won the contract.

In approving the 2009 Pentagon spending bill, members of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee through the tanker language are basically prompting the Defense Department to analyze job-creation estimates from Northrop and Boeing as part of its decision — the third go-around in the Air Force’s attempt to replace its Eisenhower-era tankers.

Appropriators are also directing the Pentagon to comply with the findings of the Government Accountability Office, which sustained Boeing’s protest of the contract award to Northrop Grumman and EADS. 

The Pentagon is expected to issue an amended request for proposals by the end of the month or in early August.

Northrop counters that the contract would provide work for 230 U.S. suppliers and create 14,000 new jobs, including 2,000 in Mobile, Ala., where Northrop and EADS are planning to assemble tankers in a new facility.

Including jobs not directly impacted, Northrop boasts it would create a total of 48,000 jobs across the country if awarded the contract.

Northrop initially estimated a smaller number of jobs would be created, but raised its estimate during the competition with Boeing after talking to all its suppliers. That prompted criticism from Boeing and its supporters.

Boeing claimed it would create 44,000 direct and indirect jobs if awarded the contract. It said it would use 300 supplier companies across the country.

Industry sources acknowledged that job numbers promised by defense contractors often are not completely accurate, as each may choose to employ different calculation formulas.

While the Air Force received all its money for the tankers, other Pentagon programs are being significantly slashed. Overall, House appropriators approved a $487.7 billion 2009 defense appropriations bill — $4 billion below the president’s budget request.

Among the programs that will see reduced funding is the Army’s troubled Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) made by Bell Textron, and the presidential helicopter under contract with Lockheed Martin and Agusta Westland. The ARH, whose fate is now in the hands of John Young, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, will see a reduction of $113 million for fiscal year 2009, or 13 helicopters.

Appropriators plan to cut the presidential chopper funding by $212 million because of uncertainty with more advanced helicopters being developed in the second phase of the contract. The lawmakers left $735 million to build five helicopters in the first phase, but only $100 million for the second phase.

Given the Navy’s recent announcement that it will stop building its next-generation destroyer, the DDG-1000, after completing two ships, the defense panel used the Navy’s initial request of $ 2.5 billion for a third DDG-1000 to boost other ship programs. It allocated $1.6 billion for an additional LPD-17, $397.6 million for advance parts buys for the Virginia-class submarine, and $941 million for two additional T-AKE cargo ships.

The defense panel also boosted the funding for the Army’s flagship modernization program, the Future Combat Systems — a network of manned and unmanned vehicles linked by impenetrable communications — by $33 million. That money would go to the acceleration of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the unmanned ground vehicle components.

Overall the bill would boost funding for the Pentagon’s intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets by $563 million. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been pressing to get more of these assets into Iraq and Afghanistan.

The National Guard and Reserve will also receive $1 billion more than its initial request. The panel emphasized programs to help military families and boosted health programs in its funding, apportioning $608 million for family advocacy programs and $617 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health. The committee also added $150 million above the president’s request for supply equipment to field hospitals and military treatment facilities.

House lawmakers want to increase the oversight of the Pentagon’s inspector general and added $25 million to fund additional personnel to provide oversight on contractors.

No more action will be taken on the bill until September. The Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee will likely mark up its bill in the fall.

GUILDERLAND — When Lou Matteo got his handgun collection back, town police averted a legal battle based on a new U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an individual’s right to own a gun.

Matteo, 75, turned over his firearms in March after a verbal spat with his wife led to an order of protection against him. Guilderland police refused to give the guns back, citing a federal law barring anyone under an order of protection from possessing firearms.

But on June 26, the nation’s high court struck down a District of Columbia ban on handguns. The ruling also said long-standing provisions barring handgun possession by felons did not violate the Second Amendment.

Matteo has never been convicted of a crime, and his attorney, Tom Marcelle, said the Supreme Court ruling meant he was entitled to have his guns returned.

Matteo’s case is the second locally and one of many expected nationwide in the wake of last month’s decision, called District of Columbia vs. Heller, challenging legislation that bans or limits handgun ownership.

"Without the D.C. case, we have no case. ‘Heller’ basically was an invitation for people to test Second Amendment cases," said Marcelle, who won a 2001 Supreme Court case that allowed an after-school Bible study group in Otsego County.

In one of the first challenges under the landmark ruling, a Schenectady man is seeking dismissal of charges that he lied because he failed to disclose he was the subject of a protective order when he filled out a form used for background checks on people purchasing a firearm.

In March, Matteo was accused of ripping the phone from his wife’s hand when she tried to call police to report his verbal abuse, according to court records. Guilderland police issued an order of protection, and he turned over the guns, which are registered and possessed legally.

A week later, however, the case was dismissed by Town Justice John Bailey, who ordered Matteo’s guns be returned.

The Matteos said they no longer even remember what prompted their quarrel. Marisol Matteo signed statements that her husband had never threatened her with a weapon and she was not concerned about him ever doing so. The domestic dispute case was over.

But the order of protection remained. Marcelle said under the "Heller" decision, Matteo, a law-abiding citizen, was allowed to have his guns.

Town Attorney Dick Sherwood denied any link between the Matteo case and the Supreme Court ruling. He said the town must follow the existing federal law: Returning the guns requires an order from federal court, not a town court.

Matteo’s guns were returned after he filed his case in federal court. Sherwood said a change in the law would eliminate an illogical legal process.

"You have the power to take the guns away, you don’t have the power to give them back," Sherwood said. "Our hands were tied."

For Marcelle, it is only a matter of time before a town attorney somewhere tests the legal system by refusing to return guns to a person who has not been convicted of a crime, and that case will further define rights under the Second Amendment.

Source

Heads_Up FR

MISSION: Its essential for the American people to know the facts about what is happening in Iraq. Some media outlets, and certain politicians, still fail to assess the situation objectively; so Vets for Freedom is heading Back to Iraq to let them know what has been accomplished, what still needs to be done, and how we should proceed in order to attain sustainable security in Iraq.

Vets for Freedom is sending 8 members back to the very streets they once patrolled in uniform to assess the situation on the ground. These members will be writing for BlackFive.net, Weekly Standard, and National Review Online. Their posts, articles, and videos will also be made available and updated daily on VetsforFreedom.org.

By Henry Lamb  

For a man whose only qualification for the White House is his own claim to good judgment and good character, Obama is rapidly proving his claim is invalid on both counts.

On November 21, 2007, the Obama Campaign ordered 1800 pocket-size Constitutions from the National Center for Constitutional Studies, using Purchase Order number 11202007.  The order was shipped to Obama For America Volunteer Headquarters, 300 W. Adams, 10th Floor, Chicago, Il, to the attention of Melissa McNeal.  The phone number listed for McNeal was 312-506-0909.  The order was placed by Becky Deignan, with copies to Bridget Gray and Melissa McNeal.  The invoice total was $965.00.

Obama’s campaign has refused to pay for these Constitutions.

Despite repeated attempts to contact a responsible party in the Obama campaign, no response has been forthcoming, nor has the bill been paid.

The phone number above has been changed to 866-875-2008.  It is answered by a recording that sends a caller to another recording that advises the caller to call back later, since all operators are busy.  A second phone number provided on the Purchase Order, 312-501-4448 – has been disconnected.

A visit to the Obama web site provides no way to contact the campaign without providing a lot of information the Obama campaign does not need, in order to collect a past due bill.

A $965.00 invoice may be a little thing to a campaign that has raised $200 million.  It is a big thing when it goes unpaid.  It is an even bigger thing when payment is deliberately ignored.  This is a glimpse into the character of the man who wants to be president.

It’s not as if the bill had been overlooked, or misplaced, or forgotten; Obama’s arrogance has rubbed off on his campaign workers to the point that they feel no need to respond to phone calls from the people to whom they owe money. 

It is possible that Obama knows nothing about this unpaid invoice.  If he doesn’t, he should.  He is the responsible party.  He is responsible for organizing his campaign in such a way as to be sure invoices do not get overlooked.  He is responsible for organizing his campaign in such a way that people who inquire get answers, not recordings.  The circumstances surrounding this eight-month unpaid invoice ordeal reveals a lack of character and judgment that will disqualify him for the presidency in the minds of many voters.

Soaring rhetoric such as “change we can believe it,” and “yes we can,” and “this is our moment” is meaningless when it is supported by nothing but hot air.  On the other hand, refusal to respond to phone calls and letters about an unpaid invoice – for eight months - says more about the candidate than all the slogans and bumper stickers combined. 

Perhaps Obama’s campaign thinks the public will never learn about this, and other unpaid bills.  Vendors who have not been paid by the Obama campaign are welcome to email their claims, supported by evidence, and the whole world will soon know.

By Frosty Wooldridge

Anyone may look across the world landscape over the last 1,000 years to witness that racial conflict injects itself into every aspect of human life.

Such and such a group hates some other collection of people. Religious groups bomb other religious groups such as the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland. Muslims hate the Jews in the Middle East with thousands of killings.

You never hear about racism in mono-ethnic societies like China or Japan. Why? Everyone enjoys a similar background of values and cultural cohesion.

In America, with hundreds of different ethnic groups, especially black, white, brown, red and yellow, we exist in a tenuous but tolerant dance guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

It’s not been easy with Jim Crow Laws, the KKK, Watts Riots, separate but equal, anger of Malcolm X, white flight to the suburbs, smoldering and seething ghettoes and Pastor Jeremiah Wright in Chicago with “God D*** America….”

In 1965, Senator Teddy Kennedy created an even more tense society by immigrating millions from incompatible cultures that now call America home: Muslims, Hmongs, Koreans, Somalians, Ethiopians, etc. Additionally, he created even greater racial tension from competing and growing cultures that fail to assimilate into America as Americans.

We now designate Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Russian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, while our national identity drains into confusion and tension.

This week, in D Magazine, Texas journalist Trey Garrison wrote a piece titled: “Why I don’t want diversity in my neighborhood.”

“When I made the hard decision to forgo buying a house in Dallas, I knew I was gonna’ get it,” Garrison wrote. “The thing is, I really wanted to live in Dallas, but we just couldn’t do it. So we chose Plano.

“Once we pulled the trigger, the judgments came a-flyin’. Mainly it was from friends who are, well, urban yokels. You know the kind – hipper-than-thou provincialists, for whom where you reside in relation to a municipal taxing boundary defines you. This was fine. Friends tease you like that. But then I started getting comments from readers at one of my other publications about "diversity," whatever that means. Apparently, in choosing a house in one of the top school districts in the country, in a suburb where the poverty rate is low and the median income is high, I was guilty of the high crime of ‘white flight.’

“My humbled, guilty reaction consisted of two words: "So what?"

“I mean, what the heck does diversity mean? Some of my new neighbors in Plano include people from Thailand, Armenia, India, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Colombia and the Ukraine, but apparently that doesn’t count. And when a school is 85 percent white, it’s not diverse, but when it’s 85 percent Hispanic, it is?

“I was scolded that my daughter, by being in a Plano school, would be sheltered from – nay, ill-equipped for – life in the real world.

“Well, yeah. Probably. The real world is a lot bigger than Dallas, bigger than Texas, and bigger than the United States. The majority of the real world is dirty, violent, poor and absent indoor plumbing and two-ply toilet paper. More than half the world’s people live on something like $1 a day.

“I don’t think attending Woodrow Wilson High equips you any better for that kind of outdoorsy, back-to-nature lifestyle than Plano West, but I admit I don’t know much about Woodrow’s elective courses. I want a school that will prepare her for living in a professional, high-paying world so daddy won’t have to pound out columns in his dotage.

“I was also told, most oddly, that by subjecting my kid to suburban life and suburban schools, she’d get no exposure to people from other cultures. That’s when it got silly. So I’d harrumph in my best Ted Baxter voice that’s crazy – why, the lady who does her nails is Vietnamese, and our lawn guy is a Mexican from Costa Rica or Panama.

“Seriously, if the only exposure to other people your kid gets is when she’s sitting in a place where you move about like cattle at the sound of a bell and have to ask permission to go to the bathroom (i.e. school), what kind of sheltered life are you giving your kid?

“We’ve made "diversity" into some kind of totem, an end to itself, and we haven’t even defined what it is. Do I learn more about a different perspective chatting with my Ukrainian neighbor, or from a guy brought up five miles from me who happens to be black? I’m not entirely sold that diversity is automatically good.

“Look, diversity is great when it comes to nightclubs, workplaces, cultural experiences, restaurants and all that. But I don’t want diversity in my neighborhood.

“Now, put down the pitchfork. I don’t mean the superficial diversity of skin color. I mean diversity of values. That’s what I don’t want in my neighborhood, or my neighborhood school.

“I want uniformly boring neighbors with uniformly boring, middle-class values who spend Saturdays working on their lawns and whose kids know to stay off mine. I want neighbors with Home Depot on speed dial. That’s how I choose to live. Your mileage may vary. And isn’t that diversity, too?”

I agree with Garrison since I grew up in America with shared values, with love of country, with investment in my culture, language and neighbors. I refuse the moniker of hyphenated-American.

Hyphenated-Americans cannot pretend to be Americans because of their former countries take a position in front of this country. Iraqi-American? What’s that? Indonesian-American? Who’s that?

Do any of them know who George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, Joe DiMaggio, Susan B. Anthony and Mickey Mantle are? Doubtful most of them can even speak and read English.

Most do not share American values because their former cultures indented them with other loyalties counter to American society. We Americans, and soon, must stop unrelenting, massive and unending legal and illegal immigration before we fracture our culture into a seething, tenuous and incompatible ‘diverse’ mustard/strawberry/squash soup. Sounds terrible? Tastes worse!

We inject ourselves with more and unworkable ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’, which doesn’t work, won’t work, and given enough time and population overload, degrades into civil confrontation. You can see it in race riots in Los Angeles schools today. You can see it with Americans moving out of Mexican strongholds in major cities. You can see it in daily rapes of 12 year old girls by Mexican immigrants (it’s normal in their culture), honor killings by Muslims here in America (two in the last week) and a dozen other examples. It proved unfair and unworkable to the Native Americans whom we invaded, it proves unfair and unworkable to the French who now stand in the crosshairs of cultural/linguistic destruction, and most other first world countries that allow unending incompatible immigration.

Finally, the world grows by 77 million annually. Most of those third world humans arrive into horribly miserable circumstances. Endless millions line up to immigrate into America. We cannot sustain unending millions of people added our country—environmentally or culturally, as well as food and water! If we do continue–out of the next added 100 million people into America in three decades—over 70 million will be from third world countries. Do you want that for your children?

At some point, those people, those cultures and those nations must be responsible to their citizens, their populations and their futures. They must value their lives, their families, their countries and their personal responsibilities—more than accelerating birth rates.

We cannot save the world, but we’re on a path that most assuredly will destroy the United States of America. Cultural suicide leads to national suicide. We’re well on our way!

 By Stephen Brown

It had the atmosphere of the Cold War.

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s trip to Russia this month brought back memories of the 40-year East-West confrontation when Fidel Castro was the Soviet Union’s favorite Latin American dictator. The warm greeting, the fact it was Chavez’s sixth visit to Russia and his use of the familiar Russian ‘you’ (ty) when talking to Vladimir Putin indicated the closeness of the relationship that was once Castro’s.

Even the rhetoric was the same. Like El Presidente, Chavez insisted on a “strategic alliance” to meet “the threat of the United States” and requested the Russians establish a base on Venezuelan territory. The only thing missing was a mention of Cuba’s dismal fate, which Chavez seems bent on imitating.

The anti-American Venezuelan leader, who once described himself as “very Maoist all of my life”, is always welcome in Moscow. In the past, the outspoken dictator has left behind billions of dollars in orders for the latest Russian weaponry, making his country Russia’s third best customer for armaments after China and India. And Chavez did not disappoint his hosts this time either.

On his shopping list this visit were tanks, coastal surveillance aircraft, air defence systems and non-atomic submarines, all of which represent another instalment of the five to six billion dollars oil-rich Venezuela eventually plans to spend on Russian arms. This latest purchase, combined with the previous ones, have made the South American country Russia’s biggest arms customer in Latin America.

Already between 2005 and 2007, Venezuelan oil revenues bought an estimated two billion dollars in Russian weapons. Among these items was a controversial purchase of 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. Although Chavez claimed they were for home defence use, some of them, it is believed, were smuggled to leftist South American terrorist organizations in neighboring countries, such as FARC in Colombia.

Chavez has said the Russian weapons he has purchased will protect his country from an American invasion, a claim that Washington calls ludicrous. Venezuela’s president believes the United States may one day try to capture his country’s oil reserves. Venezuela is currently the world’s fifth-largest exporter of oil and provides America with about 15 per cent of its crude imports.

The real reason behind Chavez’s Russian arms purchases, however, is not self-defence. On the contrary, one analyst states they are meant to back up his ongoing quest to expand his influence in South America. Chavez’s end goal is the creation of an anti-American bloc with himself as leader, which would also satisfy his reported inclination to megalomania. In carrying out his plan, he is emulating his hero, Castro, who long tried to export communist revolution throughout the region.

For its part, the Kremlin’s main emphasis during Chavez’s trip was not on the arms sales but rather the signing of energy exploration agreements. In this the Russian leadership achieved its goal. Russian oil and gas companies had already been exploring in Venezuela; but the agreements Chavez signed during his recent visit have given the giants in the Russian energy field an expanded role.

“We can say that Russia and Venezuela have achieved a strategic alliance in the energy sphere,” he said.

Russia regards its support for Chavez as a countermove to the much disliked missile defence system the United States intends to set up in Czechoslovakia and Poland. The Chavez gambit is also seen as a response to American bases established in Central Asian countries that were once Soviet republics. The Kremlin still regards these states as being within its sphere of influence.

Moscow was also unhappy with the thousand American troops sent this month to Georgia, a country on its southern border, to conduct joint military exercises with Georgian forces. The Russian army immediately staged a counter exercise close by. And only last week Moscow announced as another countermeasure its intention to have long-range bombers refuel in Cuba, six years after it had closed its last base there.

But Russia’s and Venezuela’s attraction for one another may also concern the political nature of these states. Analyst and author Robert Kagan has written that the world’s new political alignment will see democracies line up against autocracies, citing as an example the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which consists of autocracies led by Russia and China. These two world powers, Kagan adds, will always offer fellow autocrats, like Chavez and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, refuge and assistance.

But with this Russian “assistance” in the form of weapons, Chavez has only succeeded in fuelling a regional arms race. Chile is now spending colossal sums on arms, as are Brazil and Colombia. London’s International Institute For Strategic Studies stated defence expenditures in Latin America in 2003 were 25 billion dollars, while last year they reached 38 billion. Such high outlays for weapons will probably see Venezuela’s economy eventually suffer the same bleak fate of Cuba’s and the Soviet Union’s, which also emphasized armaments and expensive foreign adventures to the detriment of internal development.

Such large arms purchases by South American countries also represent an obvious potential for regional destabilization, especially combined with Chavez’s dangerous unpredictability. These factors probably played a role in the decision to reactivate the U.S. Fourth Fleet last April after nearly 60 years. The fleet’s home port will be in Florida and it will patrol Caribbean and South American waters.

Predictably, it was the three leftist, anti-American regimes in South America, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba, who were most vociferous in protesting the fleet’s return. Castro, who knows about American naval blockades, even wrote an article against it in a Cuban newspaper. Chavez simply called it “an act of war.”

But one Latin American newspaper reported that Mexican drug cartel criminals are being sent to Iran via Venezuela for advanced training in building car bombs. If one such terrorist vehicle should ever be detonated, with Venezuelan assistance, in the United States, then Chavez would suffer a worse fate than Castro ever did. The Fourth Fleet would see to that.

By Andrew Cline

On Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives apologized for slavery. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat from Tennessee who represents a majority-black district and faces a black primary challenger. Or in other words, the U.S. House apologizes for slavery and Jim Crow not as a sincere gesture of the feelings of the American people, but to help a white incumbent beat a black challenger in a Democratic primary in Tennessee. Wonderful.

Then there is the additional irony that the current membership of the U.S. House apologized for an evil for which it was not responsible and that was ended in the century before last. The apology also included Jim Crow laws, so at least on that point some Americans who helped enforce those laws are still alive. (Perhaps some former Jim Crow enforcers are in the House.) But still, the electoral politics behind the bill — that its primary consequence will be to help a white incumbent defeat a black challenger — render its content meaningless.

If you’re wondering whether the vote really was scheduled to help Cohen, don’t. Politico.com wrote this yesterday: "But asked whether there was a link between the vote on the resolution and Cohen’s primary, a Democratic leadership aide was unequivocal: ‘What do you think? This just didn’t happen by accident.’"

And yet as offensive as this is, it raises a good issue. And that is, as long as the House is making apologies, it should offer some for the damaging acts for which it is actually responsible. Such as:

* Bankrupting the country. Couldn’t the House give us an apology for creating more entitlement programs than the people can possibly fund, then adding even more on top of those, then promising to add even more if re-elected this fall? The national debt is approaching $10 trillion. And despite the House’s paygo rule requiring any new spending to be paid for, the deficit spending continues unabated. Each newborn American baby enters the world a little more than $30,000 in debt thanks to runaway spending. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are directly responsible for this. But we won’t get an apology any time soon because then they’d have to stop spending.

* Refusing to lower oil and gas prices. Congress could lower the price of oil and gas tomorrow by passing legislation opening more of the outer continental shelf to oil and natural gas drilling and allow more nuclear power plants. The commodities markets would respond to the anticipated future supply immediately. Just as the price of oil dropped earlier this month after OPEC announced that the rise in next year’s demand would be lower than expected, it would drop again if Congress increased future supply by allowing more drilling and reduced future demand for home heating oil and natural gas by paving the way for more nuclear power plants. Instead, House leadership blames speculators and tries to force oil companies to drill where there is little or no oil.

* Leaving our borders dangerously insecure. If Congress wanted to secure our borders, it could quickly pass legislation fencing and putting under video surveillance every inch of the lines separating the United States from Canada and Mexico, putting Border Patrol agents along the whole thing and inspecting every cargo ship that docks at a U.S. port. But it won’t. If it couldn’t do that after 9/11, it’s not going to do it now. So untold numbers of illegals pass into our country daily, and there’s no telling what is smuggled into our ports. We have little control over our own borders, which is a huge national security risk, and they simply don’t care. It’s not on anyone’s agenda.

* Atrocious, indefensible pork-barrel spending. Every year, House members help themselves to our money in the name of helping us all. They spend millions collectively on things like teapot museums supposedly to help the people of their districts and to make sure they get something in return for all the money they send to Washington. But everyone knows it’s all about re-election. And yet they get away with it year after year because the folks back home just love getting federal funding for that local youth program or arts collective. The vote-buying is done in broad daylight, even with accompanying press releases. People are struggling to pay their gas and food bills, and yet Congress continues squandering millions on pork.

I could go on, but you get the point. (You can even come up with your own list.) As America’s economy reels, Congress ignores urgent matters such as dealing with high energy and food prices and instead passes resolutions apologizing for historical wrongs that ended before the average American (the median age is 36) was born. And as if designed to illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of Congress, that resolution was brought up solely to damage the electoral prospects of one of the people to whom the apology was directed.

Yes, Congress owes apologies, lots of them. But the American people will never get the meaningful ones. Congress isn’t done screwing us just yet.

Rather than risk getting caught, turn yourselves in.

That’s the latest government strategy in its ongoing effort to dramatically reduce the nation’s ballooning population of illegal immigrants.

Scheduled to be unveiled next week, it was announced Sunday by Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an interview with a Spanish-language television network.

Myers told the network that "Operation Scheduled Departure" will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records a chance to literally "self-deport" by turning themselves in to her agents.

She said the idea derived from a common complaint voiced by immigrant detainees: If given the opportunity, they’d rather just go home than be holed up in immigration prisons.

Under the new program, those still walking free will have the chance to walk into ICE offices, be processed and get a few weeks to arrange their affairs, pack their belongings and ship out of the country without being detained.

"The program basically gives an opportunity to those seeking an organized way to self-deport," Myers told Univisión anchor Jorge Ramos.

Myers said the program would allow immigrants to avoid the increasing risks of being picked up in a raid at home or at work, but would offer no additional incentives to turn themselves in — no chance at qualifying for an amnesty, for example.

ICE officials in San Antonio, Dallas and Washington refused to elaborate on the program, saying no details will be made available before the official presentation next week.

Proposal met with scorn

Immigrant advocates called it a laughable charade with little to no chance of succeeding without any carrots to offer self-deportees.

"It’s pure fantasy," said Doug Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum in Washington. "An attempt to entice people to sign away their rights and get out of the country as quickly as possible before even talking to a lawyer."

If people truly wanted to leave on their own, they’d buy their own bus or plane ticket home without checking in with ICE first, Rivlin said.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the country’s largest anti-illegal-immigration lobby group based in Washington, said he’d have to concede that point.

The government would have to offer some kind of incentive to entice immigrants to sign up, such as telling them that by leaving voluntarily they would be allowed to apply to come back legally, Mehlman said.

The concept of nudging undocumented immigrants into leaving on their own is one his group has long advocated.

"It certainly makes sense to create conditions to make people understand that if they’re here illegally, it’s not going to benefit them to stick around," he said.

While it remains to be seen whether the idea works for ICE, another federal agency that came up with the idea three years ago claims it has worked well.

"Fugitive Safe Surrender" offers non-violent criminals with arrest warrants a chance to give themselves up to the U.S. Marshals Service instead of being hunted down. So far more than 16,000 have accepted the offer.

Source

Heads_Up Dan Stein

“Myers told the network that "Operation Scheduled Departure" will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records a chance to literally "self-deport" by turning themselves in to her agents.”

Perhaps someone should inform Myers that illegal aliens ARE criminals.

 Via Live Leak:

Obama Is Here

 Lyrics:

I’m back on it like I just signed my record deal
yeah the best is here, the Bentley Coup paint is dripping wet, it got sex appeal
never should have hated
you never should’ve doubted him
with a slot in the president’s iPod Obama shattered ‘em
Said I handled his biz and I’m one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I’m ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that b^$&%* is irrelevant
Jesse talking slick and apologizing for what?
if you said it then you meant it how you want it have a gut!
and all you other politicians trying to hate on my man,
watch us win a majority vote in every state on my man
you can’t stop what’s bout to happen, we bout to make history
the first black president is destined and it’s meant to be
the threats ain’t fazing us, the nooses or the jokes
so get off your ass, black people, it’s time to get out and vote!
paint the White House black and I’m sure that’s got ‘em terrified
McCain don’t belong in ANY chair unless he’s paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped
Ball up all of his speeches and I throw em like candy wrap
cause what you talking I hear nothing even relevant
and you the worst of all 43 presidents
get out and vote or the end will be near
the world is ready for change because Obama is here!
cause Obama is here
The world is ready for change because Obama is here!

 Giant cross secular symbol atop Mount Soledad

The giant cross atop Mount Soledad can stay, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

The La Jolla landmark has been the subject of nearly 20 years of litigation, public votes and legislative maneuvers as critics complain it’s unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land.

But yesterday, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said the cross – visible for miles – has become a memorial to veterans, and its secular message outweighs any religious meaning.

“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death, and sacrifice,” Burns wrote.

As a result, the congressional takeover of the cross by eminent domain – an action that followed another federal judge’s order that the cross could not stand on city-owned land – is constitutional, Burns ruled.

Charles LiMandri, a lawyer fighting the cross’s removal, said he was delighted though not surprised with the ruling.

“The people of San Diego wanted and deserve this result,” LiMandri said. “They’re not going to be able to take that cross down, and they should just deal with it.”

The ruling troubled the lawyers who challenged the transfer of the cross and surrounding veterans memorial to the federal government.

“The central fact of the case is it’s a 43-foot-tall cross,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “There’s nothing more religious than a cross.”

Philip Paulson, the late atheist and Vietnam War veteran, sued over the cross in 1989, and two years later, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson said its presence on city land violated a ban on government preference for religions in the California Constitution.

In 2006, after giving the city years to fight or otherwise deal with his ruling, Thompson gave the city an ultimatum: take down the cross or pay daily fines.

That year, Congress passed a law taking the cross and the land on which it sits by eminent domain and giving it to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Paulson died in 2006. Two lawsuits were filed after the federal takeover, one by a friend of Paulson’s, another by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America and three people.

Unlike Thompson, Burns based yesterday’s ruling on his reading of the U.S. Constitution, which has a more lenient standard on how religious symbols might appear on federal property than the state constitution.

Two Supreme Court decisions on which he relied were decided by 5-4 votes in 2005. In one, the court said the Ten Commandments couldn’t be displayed in Kentucky courthouses because they were “unmistakably religious,” but their display among other monuments on the Texas Capitol grounds was constitutional.

Steve Hut, an attorney for the Jewish veterans group and other cross critics, said he thinks Burns misunderstood the law.

“We think we will ultimately be able to persuade a higher court our view of the facts and the law are correct and Judge Burns’ view is not,” Hut said.

Others expect just such an appeal, even if they don’t support it.

Harley-Davidson dealership owner Myke Shelby, who is Jewish, helped spur a local ballot measure calling for the federal takeover.

Reached in Pennsylvania last night, Shelby said, “I’m thrilled to hear it. I think it’s a long time coming, and hopefully this is it, and the people who want to destroy that war memorial and want to destroy the cross will realize it’s over, let it alone, let it be done, walk away.”

William Kellogg, president of the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which built and maintains the cross, said the judge echoed what his association has been saying for years – that the memorial is meant for veterans, not Christians.

“That makes me feel terrific because that truly is what it’s all about, honoring veterans,” Kellogg said. “Our mission has been to communicate that to the public for so many years, so I think the language there is very appropriate.”

Source

 OP-ED Mark Cromer

If Americans needed another horrifically bloody testament to the absolute chaos the federal government has allowed our immigration system to collapse into, the "sanctuary city" of San Francisco has delivered it again in spades. The outrage over San Francisco’s policy of hiding illegal-immigrant drug dealers by sending them to a safe-house in Southern California (where many of them simply walked away) had just settled to a low boil when the story of Edwin Ramos came to light earlier last week.

Mr. Ramos was arrested on three counts of murder in June following the shooting deaths of Anthony Bologna and his two sons, Michael and Matthew. The three died in a hail of gunfire as they returned home from a family picnic.

As details of the story have emerged this week, it’s hard to imagine a more damning indictment of President Bush, the commander-in-chief who has absolutely refused to secure the nation’s borders and assert federal jurisdiction over immigration enforcement in our cities and towns during a time of war.

While it might be difficult to envision Mr. Bush working hand-in-hand with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in fact both executives are directly responsible for the conditions that led to the murder of the Bolognas - and God knows how many other Americans.

On Mr. Newsom’s end of this Faustian bargain we have the alleged killer Mr. Ramos, an illegal immigrant gang member with multiple felony busts under his belt in the Bay, including being taken into custody for attempting to rob a pregnant woman and savagely attacking a bus passenger. As a hardcore member of the MS-13 street gang, Mr. Ramos benefited from San Francisco’s policy of shielding illegal-immigrant criminals who claim to be juveniles - even though there is no way of independently determining the actual age of the criminals. But since Mr. Ramos told authorities he was 17 years old at the time, he was protected from deportation.

The nadir came in June, when a clearly adult Mr. Ramos was yet again released back on to the streets after being arrested instead of being held for deportation. That arrest came as a result of a traffic stop in which police recovered a gun traced to a double-homicide. Free to roam the streets of San Francisco, police say Mr. Ramos opened fire and slaughtered Mr. Bologna and his two sons after the car they were in had briefly blocked Mr. Ramos’ car on a narrow street.

While Mr. Newsom didn’t create the sanctuary policies in San Francisco, he championed them with a righteous zeal, ridiculing those who opposed them as dangerous and wrongheaded. The fate of the Bologna family is the direct result. But the blood is even more indelible on Mr. Bush’s hands.

San Francisco’s policy lays bare the president’s willful surrendering of federal jurisdiction over this crisis; which is a cold-blooded abrogation of Mr. Bush’s sacred responsibility to defend Americans.

Mr. Bush’s dereliction of duty in the face of mass illegal immigration into the United States comes as we face an enemy that crosses our borders not with armored divisions, but individual by individual, where violent criminals blend in with economic refugees, just as al Qaeda seeks the cover of civilians. Just what is the difference in the blood spilled by al Qaeda on Sept. 11 and the slaughter perpetuated by illegal immigrant gang members like MS-13? In the not-so-distant past, a defiant challenge to federal authority like San Francisco’s sanctuary policy had swift and certain consequences - occasionally delivered at bayonet point - as Southern governors George Wallace and Orval Faubus discovered the hard way.

But strange bedfellows as they may be, it is clear that Mr. Bush and Mr. Newsom share a common goal: the subversion of immigration laws at the behest of a coalition that includes big-business interests and ethnic lobbying groups.

The price of such subterfuge and betrayal is to be paid by the American people.

The depth of the tragedy that has befallen the surviving members of the Bologna family almost defies comprehension, and one need only listen to the absolute agony of Danielle Bologna as she describes taking her 16-year-old off life support to understand that part of her has been killed as well. But the spilled blood of the Bologna family is little more than cheap wine to officials like Messrs. Newsom and Bush.

Indeed, Mr. Newsom may be the poster boy for sanctuary policies, but he’s hardly the only elected official engaged in promoting them. Mayors such as R.T. Rybak in Minneapolis, Richard Daley Jr. in Chicago and Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, among others, have all publicly declared their desire to undermine federal enforcement of immigration laws to varying degrees.

These mayors of sanctuary cities sleep easy knowing that if Mr. Bush does anything, it will be to use a debacle like San Francisco’s protection of illegal-immigrant, drug-dealing gang members as an excuse to again call for a mass amnesty under the guise of "comprehensive immigration reform." As the enforcement of immigration laws continues to evaporate, and with them the fundamental safety that Mr. Bush swore on a Bible to deliver, it’s not hard to imagine the day when deporting virtually anyone for any criminal act will be considered by officials such as Mr. Newsom and soon John McCain or Barack Obama as passe, if not nonsensical.

After all, just where does a nation without borders deport someone?

By Scott Ott for ScrappleFace

Presumptive U.S. President Barack Obama today announced his plan to “end America’s dependence on foreign oil, dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power by unleashing new technology that will tap a recently-discovered source of renewable energy.”

According to an outline of the plan, Sen. Obama’s own “personal power and magnetic energy” will form the core of an entirely new system for keeping the lights on and the wheels rolling across the nation.

“The energy that we have generated among Democrats, journalists and Germans can, and should, be tapped,” he said. “When I’m sitting in the Oval Office I’ll issue an executive order to the Department of Energy mandating that it find a way to capture and deliver my personal power and magnetism to the energy-starved masses across this great, but tragically-flawed land.”

“People of world, it’s time to stop drilling the earth,” said Sen. Obama. “It’s time to start drawing warmth and light from an inexhaustible source. When we put our minds to it, there’s nothing I can’t do.”

Postville, Ia. — Federal agents who raided the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant here in May found evidence that a human resources department employee helped distribute false immigration documents to workers, court papers say.

The agents said they found about 96 fraudulent resident-alien cards in the human resources department. Many of the cards were grouped in stacks. Most of the cards, commonly known as green cards, appeared to have been made by the same forger, the court papers say.

About a dozen of the cards had photos of people who worked at the plant but different names than those people used on the job, the court papers say.

The court papers do not say who is suspected of making the cards.

The green cards were discovered during the May 12 raid at Agriprocessors, in which 389 workers were arrested. Most of the workers were charged with using false identities to obtain jobs even though they were in the country illegally.

The raid, the largest in U.S. history at a single site, took nearly half of Agriprocessors’ work force. Members of the family that owns the plant say the workers duped company executives into believing they were in the United States legally. A company representative declined to comment on the allegations in the court papers, saying lawyers have told company leaders not to speak about any part of the investigation.

The allegations about the human resources department are contained in papers that federal prosecutors filed this month to support criminal charges against Agriprocessors supervisor Juan Guerrero-Espinoza, who oversaw the beef kill department. He and another supervisor were charged with aiding the use of fraudulent identity documents and encouraging immigrants to reside illegally in the United States. Guerrero-Espinoza also faces one count of aiding and abetting identity theft.

The plant’s owners and top executives have not been charged in the case, but court documents indicate a federal grand jury continues to look into the matter.

Immigration agents said in court papers that several former plant workers who were in the United States illegally said Guerrero-Espinoza told them that they needed new cards and Social Security numbers and that they should give him $200 to $220 and a photograph of themselves.

The workers told authorities that a few days later, an unidentified human resources employee handed them the false cards.

A national expert was surprised to hear that an employee in a company’s human resources department was accused of helping distribute false green cards. "I’ve never heard of that before," said Nadine Wettstein, legal director of the American Immigration Law Foundation. "That doesn’t mean it’s never happened, but we don’t usually see that kind of smoking gun."

An immigration lawyer representing 49 of the former plant workers said the allegations dovetail with what her clients have told her. Sonia Parras Konrad, who works for the Benzoni firm in Des Moines, said former workers told her that in the weeks before the raid, supervisors told them that they had to pay for new identification cards. "The choice was pay $200 and get a new card or be fired," she said. Supervisors did not say why the new cards were needed, but they reportedly offered to let the workers borrow the money, if need be, she said.

Parras Konrad said some workers told her that they received their new cards from the human resources department. She said they told her the process seemed official. "You might think they were naive or they’re lying, but some of them thought these were good documents," she said.

Most of the workers who were arrested were immigrants from Guatemala. Supporters have said they were poor, uneducated people who came to Postville looking to work. Immigration lawyers have argued that their clients are not guilty of purposely stealing identities, because they didn’t understand what was involved in obtaining the false identification cards.

Wettstein said that if prosecutors hadn’t pressured the former workers into quickly pleading guilty, defense lawyers might have been able to use evidence of the human resources official’s complicity to argue that their clients did not intend to commit the crime of identity theft.

Nobody from the human resources department has been charged publicly. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on the matter.

Members of the Rubashkin family, which owns the plant, have said the company unknowingly hired immigrants who presented false papers.

"People coming there looking for jobs - they bring ID with a photo, with a number," company founder Aaron Rubashkin told the Jewish news agency JTA in June. "With the same card, the person go to the bank. With the same card, he got his credit card. With the same card he bought a car."

Rubashkin’s grandson, Getzel Rubashkin, made a similar point to reporters Sunday in Postville. "The high number of illegal people who were working here is more a testimony to the quality of their deceit, of their papers," Getzel Rubashkin said, emphasizing that he was not speaking as a representative of the company.

Company leaders say their replacement employees now are being hired by staffing agencies that use a national, computerized system to ensure that immigration papers are valid.

Source

 By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

“They’ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,” Dr. Graham said. “Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.”

Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,” Graham said. “Why would they do that?”

Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress in 2001.

The commission examined the Iranian tests “and without too much effort connected the dots,” even though the U.S. intelligence community previously had failed to do so, Graham said.

“The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,” he said. “And that’s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.”

The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation’s critical infrastructure.

"If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated anywhere between 40 kilometers to 400 kilometers above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned.

While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city.

“The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. We would not physically feel anything in our bodies,” Graham said.

As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be “truly massive traffic jams,” Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave.

“So you would be walking. You wouldn’t be driving at that point,” Graham said. “And it wouldn’t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn’t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.”

The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because “we wouldn’t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,” Graham said.

The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.

“Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said.

America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory.

In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care.

Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Graham says.

“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”

Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply.

“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.

“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.

America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain.

The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.

In his recent congressional testimony, Graham revealed that Iranian military journals, translated by the CIA at his commission’s request, “explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.”

Furthermore, if Iran launched its attack from a cargo ship plying the commercial sea lanes off the East coast — a scenario that appears to have been tested during the Caspian Sea tests — U.S. investigators might never determine who was behind the attack. Because of the limits of nuclear forensic technology, it could take months. And to disguise their traces, the Iranians could simply decide to sink the ship that had been used to launch it, Graham said.

Several participants in last weekend’s conference in Dearborn, Mich., hosted by the conservative Claremont Institute argued that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was thinking about an EMP attack when he opined that “a world without America is conceivable.”

In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.

But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then.

The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.

While not explicitly naming Iran, Rumsfeld revealed that “one of the nations in the Middle East had launched a ballistic missile from a cargo vessel. They had taken a short-range, probably Scud missile, put it on a transporter-erector launcher, lowered it in, taken the vessel out into the water, peeled back the top, erected it, fired it, lowered it, and covered it up. And the ship that they used was using a radar and electronic equipment that was no different than 50, 60, 100 other ships operating in the immediate area.”

Iran’s first test of a ship-launched Scud missile occurred in spring 1998, and was mentioned several months later in veiled terms by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a blue-ribbon panel also known as the Rumsfeld Commission.

I was the first reporter to mention the Iran sea-launched missile test in an article appearing in the Washington Times in May 1999.

Intelligence reports on the launch were “well known to the White House but have not been disseminated to the appropriate congressional committees,” I wrote. Such a missile “could be used in a devastating stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned defense.”

Few experts believe that Iran can be deterred from launching such an attack by the threat of massive retaliation against Iran. They point to a December 2001 statement by former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who mulled the possibility of Israeli retaliation after an Iranian nuclear strike.

“The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the Islamic only would cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” Rafsanjani said at the time.

Rep. Trent Franks, R, Ariz., plans to introduce legislation next week that would require the Pentagon to lay the groundwork for an eventual military strike against Iran, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and EMP capability.

“An EMP attack on America would send us back to the horse and buggy era — without the horse and buggy,” he told the