Fox's fake independent council

Fox TV has set up an independent council to examine allegations by Corey Clark that Abdul trained him while the pair was conducting a secret affair. However, Fox's Peter Liguori said Abdul was expected to return as a judge for the fifth series of the hit show.
Singer Abdul denies the claims and has called Clark "an admitted liar".

Clark, 25, was ejected from the second series of American Idol, in 2003, for concealing a prior arrest. He went public with his allegations about Abdul, 43, on ABC's Primetime Live in May this year. Corey Clark, left, made the allegations on ABC's Primetime Live
Mr. Liguori said investigations into improper conduct on the hit talent contest began soon after, but might not be completed before production began on the next series.

"At this point, we have nothing that specifically says she shouldn't be showing up for work," said Mr. Liguori, referring to Abdul's role as a judge on the fourth series.

"The audience loves Paula." However, he acknowledged that the independent council was led by a lawyer hired by Fox and the producers of American Idol. "It's as independent as one can make it," he said "The sanctity of the competition is first and foremost. The line is whether or not it affects the outcome of the competition."

Auditions for the new series of American Idol begin on 18 August, with the series due to air in January 2006. Abdul recently joined Fox's latest reality show So You Think You Can Dance, traveling the US giving dancing tips to the general public.

A terrorist's best option to kill

Despite the downside of massive sustained illegal immigration, the government has systematically abandoned the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. This began under President Clinton when he stopped enforcing employer sanctions, penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, and by reducing border management to nothing more than an expensive, dishonest, and demoralizing display of empty ritual.

The Clinton administration did not act alone. Some members of the very Congress that passed the laws in the first place pressured enforcement agencies not to enforce the law at the behest of business interests that profit from an unchecked flow of tractable labor. The Bush administration completed the process by ending what remained of interior enforcement and by continuing the charade of border controls.

The Livermore Sector of the Border Patrol in the San Francisco Bay Area was, according to one former senior Border Patrol official, "man for man the most productive in the country." It was shut down in 2004.

The 9/11 Commission recommended an increase in the manpower of the Border Patrol, and in 2005, following those recommendations Congress authorized the hiring of 2,000 more Border Patrol agents. But the president's budget allocated only enough money for 210 agents, not even enough to cover attrition. When asked about the paltry sum, outgoing Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge said that money for such purposes is "fool's gold."

Since June 2004 the Border Patrol has been restricted to the border itself and to stationary points, thus ending one of its traditional missions -- sweeping interior regions for illegal aliens. One frustrated agent says this unprecedented policy is the equivalent of putting a ten-yard limit on bank robbery: if the robber gets beyond that point he can keep the money.

Joe Dessaro, a recently retired Border Patrol agent and union chief, wrote in his farewell letter to the union that the Border Patrol is "one of the most inefficient and misleading agencies in the history of government." Echoing this sentiment another agent hundreds of miles away observes that "the whole thing is the biggest bunco job in history, spending millions not to do the job."
None of this is lost on those who would cross the border illegally. They know that once across the line they are home free, and that if caught at the border they will be returned to try again until they make it. One agent says he caught the same man three times in one shift at the same place on the fence. Border crossers also know the routine. When they are picked up and put in vans, some ask, "Where are my juice and crackers?"

Is the creator of BitTorrent being leeched dry?

BitTorrent programmer Bram Cohen may be in legal jeopardy after the discovery on Wednesday of an old agenda buried on his website saying he creates programs to "commit digital piracy." The polemic would have been of little interest a week ago. But on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the intent behind a file-sharing program can be a decisive factor in determining whether the creator can be sued for its users' copyright infringement.
Cohen said the agenda was written years before he started work on BitTorrent, and that it was written as a parody of other manifestos. "I wrote that in 1999, and I didn't even start working on BitTorrent until 2001," Cohen said. "I find it really unpleasant that I even have to worry about it." Undated and less than 200 words long, Cohen's "Technological Activist's Agenda" says he creates and gives away software in furtherance of laissez-faire political objectives. "I further my goals with technology," the manifesto reads. "I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously and secure machines and homes."

In a unanimous ruling penned by Justice David Souter, the Court found that file-sharing software companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks can be sued because "the record is replete with evidence" showing the companies took steps to encourage infringement. The case has been returned to the lower courts for trial. Cohen has never publicly encouraged piracy, and he has consistently maintained that he wrote BitTorrent as a legitimate file-distribution tool. That would seem to make him and his budding company, BitTorrent, safe under the Grokster ruling.

But legal experts worry the newly discovered manifesto extolling "digital piracy" could put him on less certain legal ground. "Before I saw the manifesto, it always seemed clear to me that he's had a very clean record," said Mark Schultz, a law professor at Southern Illinois University Law School. "A good lawyer will try to nail him to the wall with that, and any other statements they can find. It's circumstantial evidence of intent. It's not a slam dunk but it hurts his case a little." Cohen said although he contributed to an earlier peer-to-peer tool, MojoNation, the text wasn't alluding to that system either.

Cohen said he's unhappy that the Supreme Court's decision is forcing him to confront something he wrote more than five years ago. "The way they talked about intent is so vague that it can cause people to pay attention to things that they wrote years and years ago, having nothing to do with what they're doing right now," Cohen said.

"Anybody who thinks that they might produce technology at some point in the future that might be used for piracy has to watch everything that they say," he added. Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented StreamCast Networks in the recent case, said Cohen has a good point. "I don't think it's anything that Bram needs to worry about but the Supreme Court seems to think that everything is relevant to the discussion," he said. "It raises the question of (whether) anything you've ever said can be used as evidence against you later." But von Lohmann said if the Motion Picture Association of America wanted to go after Cohen, it would have done it a long time ago.



Bram Cohen
1166 Pine #11
San Francisco, CA 94109
415-775-6963
bram@bitconjurer.org

Invasion of OTMs - Other Then Mexican

After decades of attempting to dam the flow of Mexican immigrants crossing into the United States illegally, federal agents say a new crisis is emerging along the southern border and they are helpless to stop it. Non-Mexicans are spilling over the border in record numbers - some from countries with terrorist ties - and most are set free soon after being captured. Already this year, the number of non-Mexican apprehensions has far outpaced last year's total in just eight months. And while they are still a relatively small percentage compared with the number of illegal Mexicans, critics say the federal government's policy in dealing with them is far more dangerous.

Because OTMs, or "Other Than Mexicans" as the Border Patrol classifies them, must be returned to their country of origin, they cannot be simply sent back across the southern border, as most Mexicans are. Under US law, they must be detained (in the US) pending a deportation hearing. The problem is, immigration detention centers are packed, so most OTMs are given a court summons and told to return in three months. A full 85 percent don't. According to the Border Patrol, some 465,000 OTMs have taken advantage of this "catch and release" policy to settle here in the US.

"It's an insane policy which encourages OTMs to come into the country illegally, and we shouldn't be shocked that they are coming in record numbers," says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents more than 9,000 agents. In fact, he says, after crossing the border, many OTMs simply flag down agents or walk up to them and surrender, knowing they will be released.

"The word is out," says Mr. Bonner. "They know that as soon as they are caught, they will be free to roam at will." In a hearing in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security earlier this month, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar reported that his agency has apprehended 919,000 illegal immigrants so far this year - 119,000 of whom were OTMs.

That puts the agency on pace to hit 150,000 such apprehensions by the end of the fiscal year, almost triple last year's high-water mark of 65,000 OTM apprehensions. In fiscal 2003, the numbers were around 40,000, and in 2002 and 2001, around 30,000 each.

"We should be greatly concerned because OTMs do not register, their travel documents are suspect, and they have no biometric records that can be checked to verify identity," remarked the appropriations subcommittee's chairman, Harold Rogers (R) of Kentucky.

Most are from Brazil and Central America, but Mr. Aguilar reported that last year 644 came from "countries of concern." What's most disturbing, say immigration experts, is that the increase in OTM apprehensions comes on the heels of the US war on terror.

"We are not protecting Americans against the next terrorist attack," says Michael Cutler, a former special agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. "There are so many holes in the system."

He points to the OTM loophole as one example. Another is the Visa Waiver Program, which allows residents from 28 countries, including Canada, to enter the US without getting a visa in their home country. Mr. Cutler believes everyone entering the US, no matter what their country, should have to obtain a visa that documents personal information, the purpose of the visit, and contact information once they arrive. Shoe bomber Richard Reid, for instance, was born and raised in London and boarded a plane for the US with only a passport.

"We are all fixated on his shoes, and now passengers are required to take off their shoes, yet nobody wants to deal with the issue of how he was able to enter the country in the first place," says Cutler. Other critics say the guest-worker proposal, which is being touted as a way to know who is here, ultimately leaves the door open for document fraud and illegal entry.

In the end, says Cutler, "the number of OTMs coming in is a barometer of how effective we are at deterring illegal immigration." To help combat the increase in non-Mexican crossings, two US cities have been participating in a pilot initiative, known as the "expedited removal" program. Border Patrol agents in Laredo, Texas, and Tucson, Ariz., are able to make decisions without the help of immigration judges in deciding whether a person has a valid case to fight deportation. And agents in the Rio Grande Valley sector, where the majority of OTMs cross, are being trained in the program.

Still, even under the expedited process, agents are finding a familiar problem: There is nowhere to house the immigrants while they wait to be deported. Border-state politicians have been clamoring for years for more funding for detention centers, and some worry that if apprehended Mexicans began requesting immigration hearings instead of taking "voluntary departures," the problem would become even more dire.

Already, says former INS agent Bonner, the recent surge in OTM apprehensions is tying up precious time and manpower along the border. In some areas, like the Rio Grande Valley, some 75 percent of the sector's resources are devoted to dealing with the problem. Border Patrol agents, he says, know that most OTMs have no intention of returning for the court hearing - and that is incredibly frustrating for them.

"It's more than a little demoralizing," he says. "They feel like social workers. They are not enforcing the law; they are simply enabling people to break it - and that goes against the grain of any law enforcement officer."

CLEAR Act Introduced In U.S. House

The Clear Law Enforcement for criminal Alien Removal Act of 2005 – CLEAR - was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Georgia Congressman Charlie Norwood, Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth, Iowa Congressman Steve King, and 29 other House Members today in Washington. The introduction was announced in a Capitol Hill news conference by Norwood, Hayworth, King and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The Southern States Police Benevolent Association and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America also endorsed the bill through written statements.

Norwood referenced the ongoing search in Georgia for 24-year-old Cornelio Rivera Zamites, an illegal alien and convicted criminal, being sought for the Saturday kidnapping, molestation, and murder of a 4-year old Gainesville girl as prime evidence for the need to use all possible resources to combat the illegal immigration crisis. According to the Hall County Sheriff’s Department, Zamites had been previously deported for criminal offenses including illegal immigration, only to return illegally.

“It’s time to bring this insanity to an end,� said Norwood. The former dentist said America must secure its borders against illegal entries, and then begin actively “arresting and deporting criminals like Zamites who are in this country right now.�

Hayworth, representing the state with the worst border problems in the country, said, “We’re here today to give voice to the growing concern among Americans who understand that stopping the invasion of illegal immigrants into this country begins with enforcement, not amnesty; with enforcement, not a new coat of paint on a failed immigration policy; with unflinching enforcement, not surrender to the selfish interests of business, labor, and the politicians. The CLEAR bill is a common sense, crucial step toward the effective interior enforcement that will reverse the tide of illegal immigration."

FAIR President Dan Stein said, “The magnitude of the problem of illegal immigration demands a coherent and comprehensive law enforcement strategy,� said Stein. “The federal government cannot be everywhere, but with the assistance of local law enforcement agencies we can finally mount a meaningful immigration enforcement strategy in the interior of the country.�

Southern States PBA President Jack Roberts said in a written release, “Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. But when the federal government won’t do the job, and we’re left policing the mess, our agencies should at least be paid for the costs incurred, and given some sort of safety valve for keeping criminal illegal aliens off the streets after we apprehend them.� Roberts praised the bill’s protections against unfunded mandates on local law enforcement agencies, and said the legislation was “precisely the remedy local law enforcement has sought in dealing with America’s illegal immigration crisis.�

The CLEAR Act removes all legal questions on whether state and local law enforcement agencies should engage in immigration law enforcement, and encourages coordinated efforts and training with the Department of Homeland Security.

Key measures in the proposal include:

1. Expanded Transport Authority: Local law enforcement is authorized to transport illegal immigrants across state lines to the nearest federal detention center, at federal expense.

2. New Federal Detention Centers: 20 new federal detention centers, each capable of housing at minimum 500 detainees.

3. Immigration Enforcement Training: 100% federally funded training by the Department of Homeland Security, at the request of the local agency.

4. Tougher Penalties for Illegal Immigration: Illegal immigration raised from a civil to a criminal offense, punishable by expanded jail terms and fines.

5. Crackdown on “Sanctuary� Cities: Locales that refuse to cooperate with DHS on immigration law enforcement will no longer be able to claim SCAAP funding.

6. Protection of Immigrant Crime Victims and Witnesses: Local law enforcement agencies are not required to charge crime victims and witnesses for immigration violations.

The full text of the legislation will be available on the web at www.house.gov/norwood.

Just plain common sense

When our national security is on the line, "racial profiling" — or more precisely, threat profiling based on race, religion or nationality — is justified. Targeted intelligence-gathering at mosques and in local Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when we are at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, last week, the FBI came under fire for questioning Muslims in Seattle about possible terrorist ties. Members of a local mosque complained to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who called for a congressional investigation of the FBI's innocuous tactics. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington accused the agency of "ethnic profiling."

But where else are federal agents supposed to turn for help in uncovering terrorist plots by Islamic fanatics: Buddhist temples? Knights of Columbus meetings? Amish neighborhoods?

Some might argue that profiling is so offensive to fundamental American values that it ought to be prohibited, even if the prohibition jeopardizes our safety. Yet many of the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure "diversity" or "parity" in peacetime. The civil-rights hypocrites have never met a "compelling government interest" for using racial, ethnicity or nationality classifications they didn't like, except when that compelling interest happens to be the nation's very survival.

In the wake of 9/11, opponents of profiling have shifted away from arguing against it because it is "racist" and now claim that it endangers security because it is a drain on resources and damages relations with ethnic and religious minorities, thereby hampering intelligence-gathering. These assertions are cleverly fine-tuned to appeal to post-9/11 sensibilities, but they are unfounded and disingenuous. The fact that al-Qaeda is using some non-Arab recruits does not render profiling moot. As long as we have open borders, Osama bin Laden will continue to send Middle East terrorists here by land, sea and air. Profiling is just one discretionary investigative tool among many.

Continuous non-enforcement

The Department of Homeland Security says it has no plans to enlist citizen volunteers in patrolling U.S. borders, rebuffing a proposal by its top border enforcement official. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner told The Associated Press on Wednesday his agency was considering the training of volunteers to create “something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary.�

But Homeland Security spokesman Brian J. Roehrkasse said Thursday that Bonner, whose agency is part of Homeland Security, had not provided “any specific details� of his proposal to agency officials.

“There are currently no plans by the Department of Homeland Security to use civilian volunteers to patrol the border,� Roehrkasse said. “That job should continue to be done by the highly trained, professional law enforcement officials.�

Before a high-profile civilian campaign to fight illegal immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border was launched in April, Bonner had urged citizens not to interfere with his agents’ work, saying “ordinary Americans� weren’t qualified for what can be a dangerous task. But the so-called “Minuteman Project� apparently had an effect on his thinking. He said this week his agency decided to look into involving citizens after seeing how eager volunteers were to stop illegal immigration.

“It is actually as a result of seeing that there is the possibility in local border communities, and maybe even beyond, of having citizens that would be willing to volunteer to help the Border Patrol,� Bonner said in an interview Wednesday while visiting the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex.

Bonner said the idea was still conceptual and that details such as whether citizens would be deputized to enforce federal immigration law hadn’t been worked out. A spokeswoman said a range of proposals were being considered, including having volunteers do clerical work so more agents could work in the field.

Chris Simcox, a co-organizer of the Minuteman Project, said he wasn’t surprised that Bonner’s proposal was rebuffed, nor was he disappointed.

His organization “does not need the federal government to put its rubber stamp on us,� Simcox said. “Why would we want a federal government who can’t manage the borders as it is to co-opt our movement?�

FAA Certifies Illegal Immigrants

Federal agents arrested 27 illegal immigrants at the Piedmont/Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina. What were these guys doing when they were arrested? They were working on commercial jet airliners! These 27 men originally came from a variety of countries, including Sudan, Chile, Peru, Zimbabwe, the Philippines, Venezuela, Mexico, and Laos. But they had one thing in common: they almost all possessed valid North Carolina driver’s licenses — as well as other documents including airplane-repair licenses, phony Social Security documents, counterfeit green cards, and even a falsified passport.

Were these illegal aliens really terrorists? Probably not; at least there’s no evidence of that so far. But the problem is, any one of them could have been. Remember, the 9-11 hijackers used state-issued driver’s licenses to board the planes.

“Practically everybody we arrest has a North Carolina driver’s license on them,� said Thomas O’Connell of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Lots of people even come from other states, because under liberal Gov. Mike Easley, it’s really easy to get North Carolina licenses. “

What’s more, in the official AP wire story that did run, the lead paragraph was NOT about the national security threat of having illegal aliens working on jet airliners at an international airport inside the heartland of America. Rather, it was about how leaders of El Pueblo, a so-called “Hispanic advocacy group,� were going to Washington to protest the potential passage of the “Real ID Act� in Congress next month.

“If something like Real ID passed, it would be devastating for many in our community,� said Andrea Bazan Manson, director of the Raleigh-based group that organized the lobbying effort to protest tougher regulations against giving licenses to illegals. These Hispanic activists believe the proposed law “unfairly targets hardworking immigrants and could result in public safety problems,� according to AP.

These intruders have some good attributes, like hard work, but they are still here in America illegally. That very fact constitutes a threat, not to mention an economic liability, for our country. Giving illegal aliens government-issued IDs is simply wrong. They are breaking our laws and we are rewarding them for doing so. The “face� of illegal immigration is definitely changing. The stereotype of all illegal immigrants being manual laborers is clearly false. The incident at PTI Airport illustrates that fact. The FAA has to train and certify these aircraft technicians. Proper security and screening never should have let this incident happen.

That is the first part of the story. The second might even be worse. We have CEOs of big companies who have an affair with their secretaries, and that makes national front page news. Yet, when illegal aliens with false documents are found to be secretly working on jet airplanes, that story passes under the radar screen without even a blip. Are we trying to revisit September 11th?

Bush Nuclear Deal may be criminal offense

President George W. Bush signed an agreement Monday with the Prime Minister of India to help the nuclear armed country develop its civilian nuclear power capability. But a measure passed by members of the House of Representatives Tuesday disapproves that arrangement for India, which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

During their meeting at the White House on Monday, President Bush told India's Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, that as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states. The two leaders signed a joint statement to lift a ban on sale of U.S. civilian nuclear technology to India. Recognizing India's continued unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, President Bush expressed his appreciation to the Prime Minister over India's "strong commitment" to preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and said he will "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India" as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security."

Under the agreement, India would be allowed to buy nuclear fuel and reactor components from the United States and other countries. In exchange India would allow international inspections and safeguards on its civilian nuclear program, but not its nuclear-weapons arsenal, and not detonate any more weapons tests.

U.S. law bans export of technology that could support a nuclear program of any country that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and India has not signed it.

On Tuesday, the same day that Prime Minister Singh addressed a joint session of the House and Senate, a bipartisan energy panel of the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a measure forbidding export of nuclear technology to India and other countries not party to the nonproliferation treaty and which have detonated a nuclear device. House Members have vowed to continue press for action to address their concerns over the exportation of nuclear materials to non-nuclear states.

President Bush told the Indian leader that he will seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies to allow the export of nuclear technology to India. In addition, Bush promised, the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur.

Al-Jazeera set to publish terrorism guide

Not that our government should need any further incentive to secure our borders and ports during war time, but the voice of the Islamic jihadist crusade against the west, the Arab TV news network, Al-Jazeera, announced recently its intention to document the porous condition of the US/Mexican border. The Arab network sought interviews with Chris Simcox, leader of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corp, but received a flat rejection of the offer. Mr. Simcox said, “I’ll have no part in aiding and abetting the enemy, and will continue to work to protect our country from terrorists who are clearly looking at our unsecured borders as the pathway to destroy America.�

In absence of any response whatsoever from the US State Department or Department of Defense or Homeland Security, the Minutemen once again had to fill in the gap in our national insecurity apparatus by identifying Al-Jazeera for what it is, “the world’s most prolific terrorism television network� and vowing to resist any filming of their activities along the border. At least one Congressman, Trent Franks (R-Arizona) agrees saying, “It is insane policy to allow al-Jazeera to film Arizona’s unsecured border with Mexico and then broadcast it to the very people who perpetrated 9/11.� Apparently, even this small opposition was enough to cause Al-Jazeera to cancel the launching their study during the 4th of July weekend out of concerns for the safety of their staff although they have not decided to abandon the project.

Al-Jazeera’s motives could indeed be sinister. Their reporting to the entire jihadist world how easy it is to infiltrate the “Great Satan� through its southern border is an open invitation and a go ahead signal to attempt it. The information from Iraq is that most of the suicide attacks against civilians and coalition forces are being committed by foreign fighters crossing the border from Syria to carry out their death-dealing missions. At the present time, there is enormous reporting by Al-Jazeera about the lax security along the US southern border.


To all interested parties: A guide to destroy America

The risks and complications of invading the United States of America are extremely low. In fact, why sweat it out in Iraq and Afghanistan risking certain annihilation by Iraq security forces and the most power military in the world, when there are so many infinite “soft� targets in the heart of the beast. With American forces spread all around the world guarding the borders of so many other ungrateful countries, there is no one left at home to guard their own borders except for older retirees and grandmothers.

There are plenty of guides available (coyotes) to assist you and even the Mexican government has put out a “tour guide� for any inexperienced terrorist to follow in their trek into the US. And if you “mule� in some drugs on your journey for the ex-Mexican special forces turned drug peddling Zetas, they will make your trip worth your while financially. Don’t worry about connections. The drug cartels have networks to numerous major city operations.

Crossing is no problem as there are so few U.S. Border patrol agents to cover the wide expanses of desert and the automatic surveillance equipment is so faulty and inadequate that there is little chance of detection. Furthermore, humanitarian groups have set up rest stations and water reservoirs along the way in case your supplies run a little short. The only worry you have might be detection by those pesky Minutemen volunteers. However, that risk is negated by the helpful tactics of the ACLU and other anti-Minutemen groups who plan to harass the Minutemen and make noises and flash headlights so that trespassers are warned away from the observation posts. Anyway, if you are detected, they still have to rely on the Border Patrol to arrest you. You could be miles away before the agents arrive and besides their superiors have ordered them to “stand down� on making any arrests in areas where the Minuteman are active.

Once inside the country, be sure to head for many of the sanctuary communities where police officers and local officials refuse to detain any illegal aliens despite appeals from the Homeland Security federal office. You need not worry about the locals either. They are either so gullible as to believe their government is protecting them, or are so obsessed with their own personal lives, or are so cowardly as to hide from reality, or are so intimidated by the political correctness dogma of the day, or are so neutered by their own respect for law and order and proper authority that they shy away from taking any action on their own. Just watch out for Army Guard Reservists or National Guardsmen back home from Iraq or Afghanistan on leave. They might just try something as foolish as a citizen’s arrest of an alien invader.

If you are arrested, you need not be overly concerned. In all probability you will be released due to lack of jail space or time and resources to pursue your individual case. The legal requirement of handling OTM’s (other than Mexican) by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “catch and release.� Most likely, they will give you a citation to appear in court at a later date, but of course you will could be half way across the country and have blown up two schools and a hospital by then.

And if by some fluke, you are actually detained, you need not worry. The ACLU will take good care of you. If possible, alert the liberal media of your plight. Since you can’t blow up any buildings, fly crop dusters over population centers, or cut off any heads where you are at, you can at least broadcast your anti-west, anti-Christian and anti-Jew propaganda over the US media industry. Amnesty International and the American Red Cross are big suckers for this. You might even score big and get some liberal Democrat puppet suffering from political power withdrawal symptoms who despises his own country and the soldiers who protect him and who is the most easily frightened into surrender to complain in the halls of Congress about how you are being so misunderstood

Don’t forget to bring your Koran so it can be disrespected. If all else fails, don’t fret because the US Supreme Court has your interests in mind. After all, what’s the worst that can happen? You might even get sent to Gitmo, where you will receive three squares, a comfortable bed, an air-conditioned room, musical entertainment, female companionship in the form of lawyers and interrogators, and structured religious activities just in case you have been a bit undisciplined lately. All things considered, the only down side from crossing the border is that you might gain an extra fifteen pounds while waiting for the US to implode or explode which ever happens first.

From: A Liberal Dose - Just more BULLSHIT

Why Does John G. Roberts Hate Our Soldiers?

What do we know about Bush's shiny new Supreme Court nominee? We know he's Bush's top pick to replace the swing votes of Sandra Day O'Connor, who proved to be a wild card over her tenure. Aside from that, apparently not much. We do know he was a previously unsuccessful elder Bush nominee and has only been a judge for the two years since Junior appointed him. Aside from subordinate positions in the White House for five years, Roberts clerked for William H. Rehnquist in 1980 and was tobacco money pit bull Kenneth Starr's principal deputy from 1989 to 1993, helping formulate White House Supreme Court strategy.

Is Vice President Dick Cheney under investigation?

The reports that Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was the second possible source in the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent to Time magazine elevates the scandal to a whole new level. It is bad enough for Karl Rove to be accused of being a leaker, since he is President Bush’s chief political strategist. But if Time’s story holds, I. Lewis Libby’s involvement represents an even more insidious abuse of power. The Bush administration is being accused by democrats of leaking the name of Valerie Plame in retribution for a New York Times op-ed article written by her husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson.

So much smoke is being blown over White House v. Wilson/Plame that it is becoming almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Bewildered houseguests from outside the Beltway throw up their hands: "It's all just politics...and character assassination." And that may well be precisely the impression the media wish to leave with us.

Rumors are spinning that Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is handling the investigation, most likely has enough information to indict Rove on already, as well as Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, and even Joe Wilson, but will likely wait until all the investigation is rounded up before letting us all in on what he's going to charge anybody with. But who really knows? As the media wrestles over the ins-and-outs of Bush's latest Supreme Court pick, the real wrangling that is going on will not be on the front pages of The Washington Post, as Fitzgerald has kept a rather tight seal on his investigation.

Massive boycott of 'United Americas Bank' out of control

The American Resistance Foundation and concerned American citizens will rally in front of the United Americas Bank, 3789 Roswell Rd, Atlanta, at 10:00 AM Saturday, 23 July 2005. The rally is part of an ongoing effort to draw public attention to the bank’s practice of making mortgage loans and opening accounts for thousands of people residing in the U.S. illegally. According to bank officials, United Americas Bank accepts as valid ID the unsecure and easily forged Mexican issued Matricula Consular ID, and, in violation of IRS guidelines, the IRS issued Individual Tax Identification Number.

Georgia State Senator - and national board member of MALDEF - Sam Zamarripa is a founding partner and Director of UAB.

“Because of its ease of forgery, the Mexican Matricula Consular ID is not accepted in most banks in Mexico� observed D.A. King, founder of T.A.R. “Opening accounts for illegal aliens, handling funds received as payment for illegal labor - and making mortgage loans to illegal aliens amounts to money laundering by those who profit from this activity�. “It is a violation of USC 8, section 1324 to encourage an illegal alien to remain in the United States� said King.
The American Resistance Foundation opposes illegal immigration and those who profiteer from that crime, as well as any amnesty proposal for illegal aliens.

Is the European Union (EU) crumbling before us?

Over the past few weeks, Europe has not dominated the headlines even though there is widespread feeling that the EU is now at a crossroads. The public debate, however, seems at times to confuse several separate issues – the proposed constitution, the single currency and the performance of the European economy. From the UK’s perspective, they are in many ways inter-related.

When this government first came to office in 1997, it was transparently Europhile, committed to placing the UK at ‘the heart of Europe’. Now, as Tony Blair starts on his final term, that stance has shifted almost 180 degrees. Hostility to the constitution and talk of the single currency area breaking up both appear to be the result of the continuing stagnation of the eurozone economies. The British public’s scepticism about closer integration seems justified and the politicians are following suit.

Since the single currency was conceived at Maastricht, the eurozone’s economic record has been deplorable. In terms of growth and job creation, the 11 members have consistently lagged behind the UK. As a result, in 2004 the unemployment rate averaged 8.6% in the eurozone (and even higher in France, Germany and Spain), compared with the UK’s 2.7%.

In the search for the guilty, European fingers point to the single currency. Polls in several countries suggest that a majority would favour the restoration of their original currency. While this is technically difficult and expensive, the sentiments are understandable. As many claimed at the time, the eurozone countries are very different from each other and at different points in their respective business cycles: they do not form an optimal currency area. It is not surprising, therefore, that a policy designed to suit the average works for hardly anyone.

The eurozone interest rate is set by the European Central Bank, which has an inflation remit less flexible than the terms of reference set by Gordon Brown for the Bank of England. As a result, the ECB has been inflexible and cautious, focusing more on inflation than growth. Fiscal policy has also been a problem. By locking themselves into the growth and stability pact, governments gave up a weapon to counter cyclical downturns in their own countries. In fact, during the long gestation period between Maastricht and the launch of the euro in 1999, too much policy attention was paid to getting countries ready in terms of the inflationary and budgetary convergence criteria and not enough on the structural issues which determine economic performance.

While euro-related policies are partly responsible, the so-called structural issues are a much bigger factor in Europe’s deep-seated malaise. In the period since 1945, Europeans enjoyed a rising standard of living, improvements in social protection, longer holidays, high social benefits and shorter working weeks. Any threat to reform this social model is fiercely resisted by electorates.

But the global economy has moved on from the time when Europe was a dominant economic force. Today, European workers cost about 20 times as much per hour as the Chinese, even though China produces increasingly sophisticated goods in direct competition with Europe. In the modern world, it is not enough for Germany or France to be more competitive than Italy or Spain: they have to be able to take on China and other Asian suppliers. This means wholesale changes, liberalising many parts of their economies, particularly the labour market. To many Europeans, such reforms are seen as an attack on the coveted social model. This was a major factor in the French rejection of the constitution – the feeling that they would have to embrace the Anglo-Saxon market approach to life.

It is something of an irony that while sentiment in Britain seemed to be opposed to the constitution, many Europeans were against it because it appeared to threaten them with the free market principles that have served the UK well since our own painful reforms of the 1980s. European politicians are caught in a classic catch 22. Many governments are unpopular because of slow growth, declining living standards and unemployment. Radical restructuring of welfare states, tax systems, labor markets and public sectors are a necessary prerequisite to reverse the downward trend, but this would only make politicians even more unpopular. Those not brave enough to face up to the need for change have one alternative – protectionism – and this promises an even faster slide downhill.

Incoming retaliation from China

China's foreign ministry today protested against a U.S. Pentagon report which correctly and accurately stated the communist Asian nation of China is rapidly boosting its potential to severely strike Taiwan and beyond and jeopardizing the balance of power in the region. The White House spokesmen affirmed Taiwan's sovereignty, and pledged to protect all Taiwanese land and recourses against any invader or any oppressor of freedom. ``The report unreasonably attacks the modernization of Chinese national defense and rudely castigates China's normal national defense constructions and military deployment,'' Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in a statement posted on the ministry's Web site.

China continues to deploy its most advanced weapons against Taiwan and is increasing emphasis on new technologies and strategies with the aim of winning ``short-duration, high- intensity conflicts,'' according to the annual Pentagon report released on Tuesday. China is increasing the number of short- range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan by about 100 per year, said the report released today. The balance of power in the Taiwan Strait appears to be shifting toward China because of its expanding economy, growing diplomatic leverage and improvements in military capability, the report said. Meanwhile, Taiwan's defense spending has declined, leaving vulnerable the island-nation China regards as a renegade province.

The U.S. had violated the basic principles of international relations and the three joint communiqués between China and U.S., Yang said in the statement. The U.S. has received gestures from China threatening to leave to six party talk with North Korea over comments of military build-up, or the blocking of lucrative oil with the communist Chinese government.

Can't we all just get along?

And so the country takes a brief breath before what promises to be a politically bloody summer with probably two Supreme Court seats up for grabs. The prospect: polarization of the left and the right and a testing of the center as never before. Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees.

With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

The distinction is crucial because Democrats want to force Bush to pick a centrist, not a staunch conservative as many activist groups on the political right desire. Holding only 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, Democrats have no way to block a Republican-backed nominee without employing a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to stop.

Part of the problem is the political context of early 21st century America. If the right feels at times under attack and the left feels at times under attack, in a polarized polity the center is always under attack. The extremes are entrenched - they have a well-established apparatus of fund-raising and institutional support that the centrists cannot currently equal on a consistent basis. The center has briefly proved that it can hold against enormous pressure on both sides, but it will need to adopt far greater discipline and organization and a more coherent identity if it is to permanently turn the tide and restore proportionate influence to the moderate majority of Americans.

Wahhabism, The silent growing threat in America

When the horror of September 11 happened, Americans experienced a great deal of confusion and heard a great deal of speculation about the motives for anti-American terrorism. It was natural for most of us to assume that we were attacked because of who we are: because we are wealthy, because we are a dominant power in the world and because we represent ideas that are in conflict with the ideas of radical Islam. Many also assumed – wrongly I think – that it had mostly to do with the Middle East and Israel. But almost immediately a very interesting fact emerged: of the 19 suicide terrorists on September 11, 15 were subjects of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Why is this important? It is important because these were not poor people from refugee camps on the West Bank or in Gaza. These were not people who had grown up feeling some grievance against Israel and the United States because they lived in difficult conditions. These were not people from the crowded and disrupted communities of Egypt or Pakistan, or people who had experienced anti-Islamic violence in the last 20 years and had therefore turned against the United States. These people had grown up in the country that Americans often think of as our most solid and dependable ally in the Arab world – the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The ideology of Saudi hardliners is, unfortunately, of great relevance even inside the United States. One doctrine of Islam dominates in Saudi Arabia: It is called Wahhabism. Wahhabism is the most extreme, the most violent, the most separatist, the most expansionistic form of Islam that exists. It’s a form of Islam that not only lashes out at the West, but that seeks to take over and impose a rigid conformity on the whole Muslim world.

Islam was new in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, because of changes in the immigration laws, the American Muslim community suddenly became much larger. Most Muslims who came to the United States were not Arabs. The plurality have been people from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. And as Islam originally emerged as a major religion in the U.S., it – unlike other American religions – didn’t have an establishment. A disparate group of Muslims arrived and established mosques in various places. They represented different ethnic groups and lacked any structure to bring them together and unite them. But that didn’t last long. And why? Because the Saudis decided to create an American Islamic establishment based on the radical doctrines of Wahhabism. In order to bring this about, they created a system of organizations that would speak for American Muslims to the government and the media and through the educational system and the mosques.

There are three other areas where the Saudi government and its Wahhabi ideology have gained tremendous influence in the U.S. The first is in the American prison system. With one single exception, all of the federal and state chaplains representing Islam in American prisons are Wahhabis. That is, they are certified by groups originating in Saudi Arabia; the curriculum they follow was created in Saudi Arabia; and they go into our prisons and preach an extremist doctrine. This is almost the same as saying that they go into our prisons and directly recruit terrorists – although there have been cases of that. But anytime you go into a prison – an environment of violence, obviously populated by troubled people – and preach an extremist doctrine, there are going to be bad and dangerous consequences.

The second area is in the military services. Every single Islamic chaplain in the U.S. military has been certified by Saudi-controlled groups – which means that our military chaplains also hold to Wahhabi doctrines. Is it surprising, then, that we had the incident of the Muslim solider in Kuwait who attacked his fellow soldiers? Or the problems with military personnel at Guantanamo? Or the Muslim military man in Washington State who was trying to turn over useful information to Al-Qaeda?

And finally there is the problem with what are known as the Islamic academies: Islamic elementary schools, middle schools and high schools throughout the U.S. that are supported by Saudi money and preach the Saudi-Wahhabi doctrine – in some cases to Saudi expatriate children living here, but in many other cases to Muslim children who are U.S. citizens.

*BULLSHIT* White House spy leak implicated in London terror deaths *BILLSHIT*

This is a bullshit warning. Do not believe what you read on Eric Smith's blog. He is a terrorist sympathizer from North Carolina. Here are a few articles proving him wrong.

http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2004/08/02/cia-has-broken-al-qaeda-code/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1202798,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128084,00.html

*-*-*-*-*
posted by New American Patriot

Thanks to Daithí Mac Lochlainn, who pointed out this
unbelievable, horrific scandal to us.It appears that the Valerie Plame leak was
only one of the White House's spy leaks that may lead to the deaths of coalition
agents and civilians. ABC and the Pakistani government have gone on record
saying that last year, timed to coincide with the height of the media hype
surrounding the Democratic convention, the White House prematurely leaked news
of a Pakistani Al Qaeda capture in order to steal the media thunder of candidate
Kerry. Turns out the prisoner, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, had become a deep cover agent for the UK and Pakistani governments, and HAD ON HIS LAPTOP THE PLANS FOR THE BUS BOMBING THAT JUST OCCURRED IN LONDON! His mission had to be prematurely aborted as a result, and the first Al Qaeda mole was a bust. But Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security got the headline grabbing story and stole the media thunder from the Convention.

A simple fence could solve our invasion problem

Currently, the roads are a nightmare for Border Patrol officers and a huge advantage for the illegal aliens who slip through here every night. The solution, is to cut down the hillsides and use the dirt to fill a portion of the bottom of the gulch, creating a 90-foot-wide roadway across the top that can be fenced and lighted and patrolled 24 hours a day.

"At some point in time, we have to have an enforcement zone here," he said. "There's a problem at the border, and it needs to be fixed. Ignoring it is not going to make it go away." Since 1997, the Border Patrol has been building a barrier wall extending 14 miles inland from the point along the coastline where Mexico and the United States meet. It started as a 10-foot-high wall made of military surplus steel landing mats used for aircraft in Vietnam.

Over the years, the wall has been supplemented by a second fence made of steel mesh, with a lighted roadway between the two fences that is constantly monitored and patrolled by Border Patrol vehicles. But 3.5 miles of the project remain to be completed, and Smuggler's Gulch is the most vulnerable spot along that span between the ocean and the San Ysidro border station five miles inland. The Border Patrol wants desperately to complete the last section but has been stymied until now by environmental and regulatory roadblocks.

This spring, as part a military spending bill, Congress gave the Border Patrol a green light to complete the border fence, essentially pre-empting the state laws and federal environmental regulations that opponents had used in court to stall the project. The act left some state officials powerless, and fuming.

Opponents say that not only would such a project alter the landscape, but it also would create a huge problem of silt build-up in the Tijuana River Estuary, which runs from the gulch northwest to the Pacific shore. The estuary is a federally protected wetland and wildlife refuge that is home to a number of endangered bird species, including the light- footed clapper rail, the California least tern, the least Bell's vireo and the American peregrine falcon.

The project divides the area's congressional delegation as well. The primary sponsor of the barrier is Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, represents the district that includes the border and is a staunch opponent of the project, at least as currently designed.

Filner said the border fence would take $50 million to complete, money better spent elsewhere defending the border. But Hunter, who has been agitating for tighter security along the border for more than a decade, said the fence was necessary to protect the security of the nation. "There's just no sense in having that big a hole just a few miles south of the biggest naval base in the country," he said.

"Security concerns should override what I now consider to be frivolous opposition to this project," Hunter said. "I think it's time to move ahead and get this thing built."

The San Diego border fence has undeniably reduced the illegal traffic across the border in the southwest corner of California. In the early 1990s, the Border Patrol apprehended an average of 500,000 illegal border crossers a year in the San Diego sector, representing half of all apprehensions along the entire 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Last year, the total was 138,000.

But as the traffic in San Diego has decreased, there has been an exponential rise in crossings in the Arizona desert, a far more hazardous route, as migrants have sought a less fortified path. In 1997, before construction of the San Diego barrier, the Border Patrol recorded 129 deaths among illegal migrants. Since then, the average has been close to 400 deaths a year, largely attributable to the more dangerous routes through desert and mountains of eastern California and Arizona.

Eric Smith is a scared bitch

Eric Smith has lately been made temporary famous by a post he put on his blog
about Karl Rove. Ever since he was discussed on leading news networks, comments
started rolling in on his blog. Unfortunately, the comments that were against
his point of view were deleted. One of the comments that was deleted contained
his home address in Japan. So, to make sure he doesn't delete them again, I'm
also going to post his address on my blog. And if you are reading this in Japan,
go ahead and take a trip to his house and shit on his yard.



Eric A. Smith
#301 Kami-Itabashi Apartments19-8
Toshinchou, 1-chomeItabashi-ku
Tokyo, Japan
174-007481-03-3959-5371

snowdog@juno.ocn.ne.jp

Illegal Alien Terrorism Connection

Illegal border crossings and apprehensions have dropped slightly in some portions of Arizona but now are soaring in the Yuma area of Arizona and California's Imperial Valley. Tighter border security in Tucson and San Diego appears to be pushing illegal crossers into the area which is now recording a record number of illegal immigrant apprehensions. There have been 109,000 illegal immigrant apprehensions in the Yuma sector since last October. That number is up 53 percent from the same time period in 2004. It also has broken the annual record of alien apprehensions in that sector which was 108,000 in 2000. Plus, there still are a couple of months left in the current fiscal year, which will push the annual total up even more.

The U.S. Border Patrol and the federal government recently dedicated more resources to the Tucson sector in an effort to stem a tidal wave of illegal crossings that occurred in Arizona after urban border crossings in San Diego and Texas were better secured after the Minutemen Project. The result has been a decrease in Border Patrol apprehensions in the Tucson region (which covers most of Arizona) but a record jump in illegals being caught in areas near Yuma and California's Imperial Valley west of San Diego and just across the Colorado River from Arizona.

In the Tucson sector of the U.S./Mexican border, there have been 361,000 illegal immigrant arrests, which is down from 367,000 a year ago. However, the Tucson border region, which covers most of the state, is reporting that marijuana seizures are up 10 percent. Border Patrol officials credit increased manpower and resources in the Tucson region for the drop in illegal crossings as well as hot weather which has dissuaded some crossers during the summer months.

Overall, the two U.S. Border Patrol sectors covering Arizona are showing an increase in illegal immigrant apprehensions (470,000 versus 438,000 in the same time period in 2004). Illegal immigration has a huge economic and fiscal impact on the state. Illegal immigrants are a major strain on government services, hospital emergency rooms and state prisons. The unsecured border also makes Arizona a top U.S. entry point for Mexican drug cartels and crystal meth distribution. There also are worries Al-Qaeda terrorists could use Arizona as a portal into the U.S. for a domestic attack. Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl held congressional hearings earlier this summer to show an increase in the number of 'other than Mexicans' caught trying to enter the U.S.

For the People, by the People, not against the People

One side says the problem is that Washington will not enforce the existing immigration laws. The other says the existing laws cannot be enforced, and that the United States should be more like the EU with completely open immigration for anyone.

Those concerned Americans who are banking on enforcement know that America can radically reduce the number of migrants crossing illegally from Mexico when the border is closed down and under control. This propelled the legislation President Bush recently signed that banned states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission since all radical fundalmentalist muslims who attacked the WTC were able to get legetiment driver's licenses, and move around the country unstopped. Many Americans cheered the "Minutemen" who sealed a streach of the border in Arizona with volunteer patrols this spring. Many were surprised to learned that the Minutemen were able to stop more illegal aliens in the month they were active then the entire border patrol for the month. The Minutemen wants to fortify the U.S. Border Patrol with more agents and advanced technology. And it's pushing a bill that would nudge local law enforcement agencies to assume more responsibility for pursuing illegal immigrants, which is set to pass soon.

The assumption linking these ideas is that so many illegal immigrants cross the border (around 2 million a year) because America hasn't tried to stop them. "The immigration law is designed to look tough but not be enforced," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.In a recent paper, "Downsizing Illegal Immigration," Krikorian laid out a sweeping long-term strategy for the enforcement camp. In it, he proposed a policy of "attrition" that would impose more enforcement pressure on the border and at the workplace and also demand proof of citizenship at all the checkpoints of modern life, "such as getting a driver's license, registering an automobile, opening a bank account and obtaining government services of any kind." The goal, he writes, wouldn't be to significantly increase arrests but to make it so unpleasant for illegal immigrants that more will leave and fewer will try to enter this country. In Arizona a proposition was passed by the voting citizens restricting government services only to U.S. citizens, but was struck down by activist judges.

The other side argues that the economic incentives are so great for Mexicans to migrate illegally to the U.S. Last month, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, offered powerful ammunition to those skeptical of an enforcement-first solution. In a study, Princeton University sociologist Douglas S. Massey used government statistics and data from a Princeton project tracking Mexican migrants to argue that the big increase in U.S. enforcement spending over the last 20 years has been not only ineffective but also counterproductive.By toughening enforcement in the most frequently trafficked areas, Massey wrote, the U.S. has compelled illegal immigrants to cross in more remote locations. But that shift, he concluded, has failed to reduce the overall level of illegal entry and instead has triggered a series of unfavorable consequences. One is a rising death rate for migrants. Forcing Mexican migrants to cross in more remote areas has increased the amount they spend to reach America, Massey acknowledges. But in a final irony, he reports his data show that the average illegal immigrant now stays longer in the U.S., presumably in part to earn back the increased cost of their crossing.For Massey and others in this camp, changing the law is the key to enforcing it. It includes some measures to stiffen border security. Massey's research makes a powerful case that enforcement alone will never end illegal immigration. But a comprehensive attack on the problem probably won't pass Congress without more support for enforcement. Each side in this debate thus needs the other. Without a greater investment in enforcement, it probably won't be possible to modernize the immigration laws through an effective guest worker plan. But without modernized laws, a greater investment in enforcement probably won't yield much more control over the border.