However, in spite of White House rhetoric — and euphemisms – and news media spin, most border state Americans know the truth about illegal immigration: That the Mexican government practically exports its poorest citizens to the United States for a number of reasons.

First, it relieves Mexico’s government of the responsibility of providing social and healthcare services for them. Second, it provides that country’s economy with an influx of US cash when these illegal workers send money they earn in the US back home. And third, it defuses problems with far-left groups who are usually successful in using the poor to advance their political agenda.

But there is another benefit to the exportation of Mexicans into the US – President Calderon saves money on his criminal justice system by exporting his criminal population to the United States. Thus, Mexico’s crime problem becomes a U.S. crime problem; Mexico’s prison problem becomes the U.S. taxpayers’ prison problem.

“As it stands today, the United States has become Mexico’s penal colony. While their police and military officers supplement their incomes by providing protection for Mexican organized crime organizations, they actually aid illegal aliens with maps, water and other assistance,” said former NYPD detective and military intelligence officer Sid Franes.

“While President Calderon launched his vitriolic attack on Arizona, his own police routinely check the immigration status of people residing or visiting Mexico, as well,” he added.

It’s difficult to ascertain just how many criminals from Mexico are currently committing their criminal offenses. In fact, the mainstream news media when covering crime cases intentionally neglect to mention that an illegal alien is responsible for a murder or a rape that’s being covered.

You’ll rarely, if ever, read a story in the New York Times about criminal aliens who routinely kill, assault, rape and rob American citizens. And when hundreds of illegal aliens were discovered working at military installations and nuclear power plants, where were the reporters from the wire services?

It is safe to assume, however, based on a number of government reports, that there are upwards of 200,000 criminal aliens residing in the US. That doesn’t include gangbangers such as MS-13, a group boasting as many as 15,000 gang members nationwide.

For example, Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, AZ Sector have apprehended 27,834 illegal aliens with criminal records, 74 of which were for homicide. Last fiscal year, the Tucson Sector apprehended 14,506 illegal aliens with criminal records. These figures do not include the thousands of criminal aliens apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or those in other Border Patrol sectors.

SAMPLE APPREHENSIONS

Border Patrol agents of the Tucson Sector apprehended an illegal alien with an outstanding murder warrant for his arrest in New York City. The suspect killed his victim, escaped back into Mexico and then re-entered the US at a later date.

Border Patrol agents from the Casa Grande station apprehended a group of 13 illegal aliens west of Sells, Arizona. All 13 subjects were transported to the Nogales Processing Center where their fingerprints were entered into the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), for comparison with the FBI fingerprint database.

One of the individuals, Jose Luis Castaneda-Cardenas, a 23-year-old Mexican National, was identified as having an outstanding felony warrant for “Felony Murder” and “Misdemeanor Criminal Possession of a Weapon,” in New York City. The New York City Police Department verified the warrant, and confirmed extradition of Castaneda.

The southern border of the US is a region particularly vulnerable to cross-border criminal organizations and enterprises and the violence associated with them. In recent years, US citizens in the region have witnessed an unprecedented surge in brutality by drug and human smuggling and trafficking organizations along the Southwest border.

Some state and local governments have expressed concerns about the impact that criminal aliens have on already overcrowded prisons and jails and that the federal government reimburses them for only a portion of their costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. Congress requested that the General Accounting Office provide information concerning criminal aliens incarcerated at the federal, state, and local level. For the criminal aliens incarcerated, the state and local governments that received reimbursement only received about 25 percent of the costs
At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004 — a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years — about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico.

It is estimated the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens – Bureau of Prison’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments – totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004. BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminal aliens rose from about $950 million in 2001 to about $1.2 billion in 2004 – a 14 percent increase. Unfortunately, the BOP does not provide more up-to-date statistics regarding illegal aliens residing in correctional facilities.

It’s one thing to say that Obama’s administration showed ineptitude and mismanagement in its handling of the Gulf oil spill. It is quite another to grasp the situation up close, as I did during a recent visit to Alabama.

According to state disaster relief officials, Alabama conceived a plan — early on — to erect huge booms offshore to shield the approximately 200 miles of the state’s coastline from oil. Rather than install the relatively light and shallow booms in use elsewhere, the state (with assistance from the Coast Guard) canvassed the world and located enough huge, heavy booms — some weighing tons and seven meters high — to guard their coast.

But … no sooner were the booms in place than the Coast Guard, perhaps under pressure from the public comments of James Carville, uprooted them and moved them to guard the Louisiana coastline instead.

So Alabama decided on a backup plan. It would buy snare booms to catch the oil as it began to wash up on the beaches.

But … the Fish and Wildlife Administration vetoed the plan, saying it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches.

So Alabama — ever resourceful — decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches in person, scooping up oil that had washed ashore.

But … OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) refused to allow them to work more than 20 minutes out of every hour and required an hourlong break after 40 minutes of work, so the cleanup proceeded at a very slow pace.

The short answer is that every agency — each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda — was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.

Where was the president? Why did he not intervene in these and countless other bureaucratic controversies to force a focus on the oil, not on the turtles and other incidental concerns?

According to Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, the administration’s “lack of ability has become transparent” in its handling of the oil spill. He notes that one stellar exception has been Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, without whom, he says, nothing whatever would have gotten done.

Eventually, the state stopped listening to federal agencies and just has gone ahead and given funds directly to the local folks fighting the spill rather than paying attention to the directives of the Unified Command. Apparently, there is a world of difference between the competence of the Coast Guard and the superb and efficient regular Navy and military.

Now the greatest crisis of all looms on the horizon as hurricanes sweep into the Gulf. Should one hit offshore, it will destroy all the booms that have been placed to stop the oil from reaching shore. And there are no more booms anywhere in the world, according to Alabama disaster relief officials. “There is no more inventory of booms anywhere on earth,” one told me in despair.

The political impact of this incompetence has only just begun to be felt. While administration operatives are flying high after a week in which the president’s ratings rebounded to 49 percent, per Rasmussen, after his firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the oil is still gushing and the situation is about to worsen.
The obvious fact is that Obama has no executive experience, nor do any of his top advisers. Without a clear mandate from the top, needed efforts to salvage the situation are repeatedly stymied by well-meaning bureaucrats strictly following the letter of their agency policy and federal law. The result, ironically, of their determined efforts to protect the environment has been the greatest environmental disaster in history. But some turtles are OK!

While Obama was unsuccessful at putting a moratorium on oil drilling, he was able to accomplish the same thing by putting a stranglehold on oil refining which accomplishes the same thing. With 1/3rd of the country’s oil refining gone what do you think this will do to the economy? This was the inherent threat that Obama had presented for months. Either give him Cap and Trade or we will shut everything down through the EPA.

What do you think this will do to the economy of Texas.

Let’s recap what has happened in the last 90 days.

Obama is going after Arizona and trying to cut off all border security aide while suing the state even though the state of Missouri hashad  the identical Arizona immigration law for the last five years.

He is making no attempt to stop the oil leak in Louisiana. This is now affecting the economies of Louisiana, Texas, Georgia and Florida.

He is going after Texas and with this double whammy of shutting down the refineries and the oil spill the state that was doing the best in the country is now being taken down.

So far Obama has completely trashed five states and is in the process of destroying their economies. What chance do you think there is of a recovery

Hope and change! Totalitarianism is here!

Obama’s acceptance of international help is too little, too late – over two months late to be exact.

We now learn that he is starting the process of allowing international help, a process that will take weeks or months and will likely be strangled and restricted by the EPA anyway.

Foreign ships have been prevented from helping in the clean up process. Every effort has been made to stop outside involvement in the situation and almost everything we learn about the crisis comes directly from BP or the federal government. This strictly enforced cover-up shows that authorities are more concerned about protecting their information lock down than actually cleaning up the spill.

Obama initially blocked international help, citing the Jones Act, which forbids foreign ships from operating between U.S. ports, and thereby preventing the use of sophisticated technology which foreign firms insist could have sealed the leak.

The Jones Act can be waived in in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. Belgian company DEME contends that it has the specialist vessels to fix the oil leak within two to four months, technology the U.S. does not have. By taking bids on a contract to fix the oil leak from international companies, Obama could have the problem solved within a matter of weeks, but he immediately refused the help of “thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion.” This is another clear example of the government’s motivation to allow the crisis to drag on indefinitely until they can use it to ram through their carbon tax agenda.

Obama’s two month delay in refusing international help ensured that the window of opportunity was missed to fix the leak before the start of the hurricane season, which will make the crisis immeasurably worse.

“Hurricane Alex, which strengthened overnight from a tropical storm, is heading for the coastline near the Texas-Mexico border and is starting to churn oil from the massive BP spill on to beaches along the Gulf of Mexico,” reports MarketWatch.

Why did Obama reject all the help he could get unless the federal government wants the crisis to get worse so it can exploit the hysteria surrounding the issue to push its ultimate goal of imposing a consumption tax on the American people?

How will imposing a carbon tax fix the oil spill? It won’t, but by exploiting the crisis in the name of ‘reducing our dependence on oil’, the government will seek to raise prices, much to the glee of companies like BP who are founding members of the cap and trade lobby. Reducing your dependence on oil means reducing your ability to fill your tank because it will be so much more expensive once the carbon tax is in place.

Indeed, BP has been a faithful supporter of John Kerry’s climate legislation because the company has “explicitly backed” a “higher gas tax”. If Obama is able to exploit the oil spill to ram through his cap and trade program, BP stands to profit to the tune of billions. Allowing the crisis to worsen in pursuit of this goal is mutually beneficial to both the Obama administration and British Petroleum.

Obama has now indicated that he will push for cap and trade to be added to a weaker energy bill after the mid-term elections in November. Every week that the oil spill crisis drags on, Obama’s political capital for the purpose of pushing a carbon tax increases.

The government has every interest in seeing the crisis worsen, not merely to justify cap and trade but also to mothball plans for new exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic, something to which the administration had never wanted to fully commit. As a result of the oil spill, which every action of the federal government has made worse, that drilling has now been postponed.

As we have documented, every action on behalf of the feds has been about delaying and hampering the response to the oil spill. This, allied to the abundant evidence of deliberate negligence and even sabotage of the oil well, makes it clear to any rational observer that it’s in the best interests of both BP and the federal government to let the crisis roll on indefinitely.

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?  Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day?  Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?

Declaration of Independence ?

Bill of Rights?

Didn’t think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England?  No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America?  No, they did not.  In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.  Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.”  Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country?  Not present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era?  Again, not present.  In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture.  So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband.  Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?

Where were Muslims during World War II?  They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.  The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?  If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East…  No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day.  Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.  To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.  They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 – the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America.

Theologically – no … Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously – no … Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally – no … Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically – no … Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially – no . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically – no … Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically – no … Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually – no … Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically – no … Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually – no … Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation … Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both “good” Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a Muslim be a good soldier? Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S. An Unguarded Strength is a double weakness. “Small God – big problems. Big God – small problems”. Greg Laurie “Evil prevails when good men do nothing”. Thoughts?

It’s a strange paradox that, now that Britain is tied to France in the Republican marriage that is the EU, we’re less interested than ever in what happens next door (with the exception of stories that involve Carla Bruni and Nicolas Sarkozy, or for that matter any adultery-related gossip that reminds us Brits just how sexually inadequate we are).

Which is a shame, because France is the future, and I mean that in the worst possible way. Mark Steyn might have been exaggerating when he said that France will be the world’s third Islamic nuclear power, but I’m certainly not sure whether I should bother teaching my kids French, or if Arabic may be more handy on their trips across the channel.

But if Steyn’s prediction does turn out to be true it will be because of the French habit of sticking their heads in the sand. France was, after all, the first country in Western Europe to ban opinions when it passed its ridiculous Holocaust Denial law, which set the ball rolling for restrictions on free speech across Europe. And laws once used against Nazi-loving cranks are now used to criticise any opponents of mass immigration.

This is a country that, as anyone who’s visited its seedy cities in recent years can testify, has undergone enormous immigration from North and sub-Saharan Africa, and not all of it has been “enriching”. Not that we can know exactly what the downsides are, because France bans statistics on ethnicity and crime.

Now a French journalist called Éric Zemmour is being tormented by the establishment in a sinister witch-hunt for speaking the truth. On March 6 Zemmour said on a Canal+ talkshow, Salut les terriens, that “French immigrants were more closely monitored than other Frenchmen because most of the drug traffickers were black or Arab… It’s a fact.”

We don’t know for sure whether this is a fact because official statistics are, of course, impossible to find, but there are various studies that suggest that what Zemmour said is broadly true – the nature of the prison population, for example. However, a few days later the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) announced it would take action against him – strange, since Zemmour is Jewish and from a Berber family himself, and certainly does not come from the Catholic-fascist de Maistre tradition of French politics.

The following week, MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples, a Communist Resistance group which has morphed into a familiar-sounding “anti-racism” body) and the Club Averroès, which “defends diversity in the media”, took their case to the CSA, the TV regulation authorities, because Zemmour’s remarks “have racist tones.”

And on March 17, CRAN (Representative Council of Black Associations)) announced that it had protested to the CSA, and to France Télévisions, concerning remarks by Zemmour that he considers discrimination in hiring practices to be a “right”. On that day SOS-Racism, yet another anti-racism group, also lodged a complaint for “racial defamation” against Zemmour’s drug dealer comments, summoning him to appear before a criminal court.

The group said: “Éric Zemmour has been spreading his disgusting ideology on popular television programs for too long. He will have to answer for his statements before the judge.” Scared by all this controversy, Zemmour was sacked by his main employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who then relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office.

It’s all very strange. Zemmour is not a “racist’, rather he’s an integrationist who thinks immigration has gone too far – but he’s come up against a political establishment that increasingly uses the law to enforce the popularity of its utopian vision. They’re determined to make Europe a carnival of cultures and anyone seen not enjoying themselves will be arrested.

And it will affect all of Europe, because in the area of state tyranny, when France sneezes, England soon catches un rhume.

Hat-tips: Galliawatch and Gates of Vienna.

When Krentz didn’t show up to meet his brother about an hour later as planned, Phil called the police and a search party was formed.  Late that night, Krentz was found slumped over his ATV, shot to death along with his dog. Law enforcement officials with tracker dogs followed the footprints from the crime scene on Krentz’s ranch 15 miles to the border where they crossed into Mexico.

The prominent rancher, who often brought water to illegal aliens and helped those who were injured, was apparently caught by surprise, as his ATV’s engine and lights were still on and he did not use either of the two guns he was carrying with him.  (Fox News, March 30, 2010).  Police believe that he could have been attacked by a drug cartel scout or a member of a band of thieves that has been terrorizing ranches in the area.  It is also possible that Krentz’s murder was a retaliatory killing because just one day before, his brother stopped a caravan of illegal aliens who were carrying 280 pounds of marijuana.  Id. Border patrol arrested all eight illegal aliens and impounded the drugs.

Whatever the motive behind the slaying of this innocent man, neighboring ranchers are both scared and frustrated with the lack of government action to secure the border. Friends and neighbors of the slain rancher denounced politicians for their empty promises to secure the border that failed to protect Krentz on his own land.  (The Arizona Republic, April 1, 2010).  The Krentz family issued a statement urging President Obama to deploy U.S. military personnel to the U.S.-Mexican border, but this is not the first time they have sought help from their elected officials.  The family repeatedly expressed concern to authorities over the $6.2 million damage to their property and livestock caused by “illegal foot traffic,” and Robert’s wife, Susan, wrote to Congress in 2007 that “We are in fear for our lives and safety and health of ourselves and that of our families and friends.”  (Fox News, March 30, 2010).

Lawmakers from Arizona and New Mexico are joining their constituents’ demands that the Obama administration deploy hundreds of National Guard and Border Patrol agents to the southern border. (Fox News, March 30, 2010).  In the wake of the murder, state and federal politicians are calling upon the government to beef up border security and protect American citizens.  Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who is currently challenging Senator John McCain’s bid for reelection, said that the killing debunks claims that the border is secure, “To put it diplomatically, that’s incorrect.  To put it realistically, that’s a lie.”  (The Arizona Republic, April 1, 2010).

Senator McCain also called upon the federal government to immediately deploy the National Guard to the border in a letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, who made a similar request to President George W. Bush in 2006 when she was the governor of Arizona.  McCain urged, “I hope that you will take a personal interest in ensuring that Arizonans can feel safe and protected on their own property and not live in fear of the increasing violence along the border.”  (CBS News, March 30, 2010).  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, whose request for National Guard troops last year was denied by the Obama administration, joined the demand for deployments, calling the killing a “horrible and unnecessary tragedy.”  (Fox News, March 30, 2010).  (Politico, April 2, 2010).   President Obama has not responded to the renewed requests for increased border security, but just last month he spoke to reporters about the issue of National Guard deployments.  (Id.)   Obama has made it clear that he does not want to “militarize” the border, but he called it “unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing our citizens.” .

The internal memos have stirred controversy among opposition groups because they suggest a deviation from the public commitments made by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE chief John T. Morton.  Over the past year, Napolitano has expressed a determination to abandon the worksite enforcement actions and neighborhood sweeps the Bush administration focused on, and instead vocally supported the deportation of criminal aliens.  (The Washington Post, March 27, 2010).  However, in a February 22, 2010 memo authored by Jim Chaparro, head of ICE detention and removal operations (DRO), the senior official noted that deportations for the current year were already down significantly, and that ICE agents would have to focus their efforts on more than criminal aliens in order to meet the agency’s goal of 400,000 removals this year.  Id. The memo has attracted attention not only for the rare statement of ICE enforcement goals in explicit terms, but because Chaparro – who was also a senior Homeland Security Official under President Bush – also provided a road map to help agents deport more illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, instead of defending the appropriate expansion of removal activities, ICE spokesman Brian P. Hale was quick to distance DHS leaders from it. “Portions of the memo were inconsistent with ICE, inconsistent with the administration’s point of view and inconsistent with the secretary,” said Hale.  Id. Morton also released a statement that the memo was issued without his authorization, adding, “We are strongly committed to carrying out our priorities to remove serious criminal offenders first and we definitively do not set quotas.”  (The Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2010).   Morton is under fire from amnesty activists who are calling for his removal because they view the memo as “a clear violation” of his previous statements.  According to the Center for Community Change, “ICE has gone rogue and needs to be reined in with dramatic action.”  Id.

The news that immigration officials could be committed to actually enforcing the law has been met with disbelief and intense anger from amnesty advocates, leading Morton to promise that the memo had been “withdrawn and corrected.”  Chaparro also released a new memo clarifying that his earlier statement  “signals no shift in the important steps we have taken to date to focus our priorities on the smart and effective enforcement of immigration laws, prioritizing dangerous criminal aliens…while also adhering to Congressional mandates to maintain an average daily [detention] population and meet annual performance measures.”  (The Washington Post, March 27, 2010).  Interestingly, Chaparro did not alter or rescind any of the strategies he had previously outlined to combat the sharp decline of deportations.