The War on Our Southern Border

By: Alan Caruba

Among the latest news out of Mexico was the discovery of four U.S. citizens found in a van, strangled, beaten and stabbed in the border city of Tijuana. The victims, ages 19 to 21, were two men and two women from San Diego and Chula Vista areas.

In 2008, 6,292 Mexicans were killed in the drug wars between the drug cartels. In the first eight weeks of 2009, there were already a thousand casualties, some of them beheaded. By way of comparison, in six years of war in Iraq, this exceeds U.S. losses by more than three thousand.

In mid-March, however, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, third in the line of succession to lead the nation, told a crowd of legal and illegal Hispanics that enforcement of federal or even local laws regarding immigration is “un-American.” She called the illegal aliens in the audience, “very, very patriotic.”

No, Madame Speaker, the patriotic, indeed the constitutionally responsible thing to do is to enforce the laws of the nation. You even took an oath of office to do so.

It is an open secret in Washington, D.C., that Obama and his fellow Democrat travelers in Congress want to push through an amnesty in order to increase the number of voters likely to support Democrats in coming elections. Congress has a short memory and no doubt has conveniently forgotten the firestorm of protest that erupted when the Bush administration attempted the same thing.

President Obama’s proposed budget cancels plans to extend the border fence along the U.S.-Mexican border beyond the 670 miles already completed or planned. That leaves 1,277 miles open. In addition, the budget would end payments to states and communities to cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants.

Sooner or later, some innocent American bystanders in downtown Tucson or any other American city are going to get caught in a hail of bullets as Mexican narco gangs exchange fire in a territorial dispute. Then Americans will demand action. You may recall that was the feeling right after 9/11 in 2001.

When I say “territorial dispute” I am referring to the network of American cities in which these gangs are currently operating. In April 2008, the Justice Department reported that Mexican drug cartels represent “the largest threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in this country and now have gang members in nearly 200 U.S. cities.”

Obama’s response to this was a promise to reduce gun sales that end up across the border and I believe him because we are already witnessing efforts to take away everyone’s guns. While calling for tougher border security, Obama so far is doing nothing beyond the management of a U.S.-Mexico agreement forged during the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is saying stupid things to blame America for the chaos of Mexico, claiming that American “is at least as responsible as Mexico for the violent drug wars…” No, we are not responsible for Mexico’s endemic corruption and its failure to crack down on the drug cartels many years ago.

Forgive me if I have little confidence in any real action being taken by Obama’s new director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. When she was Governor of Arizona, she called out the National Guard to back up the Border Patrol, but essentially had them man desks. It was a serious waste of man power by all accounts. Currently she is calling for more motion sensors and aerial surveillance to spot those entering the nation illegally. That’s just a bad joke.

If the U.S. wants to avoid an all-out border war with the narco cartels, it needs to put up one very high fence along the 1,947 miles we share.

I have even less confidence in the Mexican government to deal with the narco gangs. It isn’t like they’re not trying. Meeting with George Bush in 2007, the president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, asked for help to fight the gangs and to his credit, he has been making a serious effort, deploying thousands of police and military, but at a terrific cost to their lives. It is, in the very truest sense of the word, a war.

Mexico’s drug war is closing in on becoming Obama’s “Iraq”; a war not so much of choice as one that is integral to our national security.

This is not an exaggeration. In December, Four-Star general (ret.) Barry McCaffrey and former national drug czar said that Mexico is on the verge of becoming a narco-state. An Adjunct Professor of International Affairs at West Point, McCaffrey released a report that predicted Mexico will be in control of the narco gangs within a decade. “Chronic drug consumption in Mexico has doubled since 2002 as has cocaine use, while U.S. cocaine consumption has dropped by 70% in the past two decades. An estimated 5% of the Mexican population now consumes illegal drugs.”

Fully 90% of all U.S. cocaine use transits through Mexico and it is also a dominant source of methamphetamine production for the U.S. market.

All this is occurring while Speaker Pelosi is encouraging illegal immigration and denouncing enforcement of our laws to prevent it.

All this is occurring as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has released a report that border gangs were becoming increasingly ruthless, targeting rivals, along with federal, state and local police. Citing a dramatic rise in border violence over the past three years, it called it “an unprecedented surge.”

“Good fences make good neighbors” says the famous Robert Frost poem, Mending Wall, but a vastly increased border patrol and other steps are needed now to ensure the safety of Americans everywhere within the nation. It must be coupled with a renewed and vigorous effort to thwart the influx and to encourage as many of the estimated twelve million illegals living among us to return home.

Editor’s Note: One of the best websites for information about this problem is www.borderfirereport.net. I recommend you bookmark and visit it to gain the insight and information necessary to demand congressional and White House action.

(Also published at WesternFront America)

Respond to this: Comments Off

Great Moments in Democrat Racist History, The Death of An American Hero and Crowder on Red Eye – Your Weekend Links

It’s the weekend and my brother’s in town. Saturday I’m going fishing, Sunday I have church and the graduation of my niece from high school. You, however, have all these links to read:

Finally, Crowder on Red Eye:

Respond to this: Comments Off

Four U.S. Kids Found Dead in Tijuana

I have been to Tijuana, and frankly, I don’t see a reason to go there again.  But kids, being bulletproof and looking for a good time, are still going.  Some don’t make it back:

The victims, ages 19 to 23 years old, were found tied up on Saturday, but their deaths were not reported earlier because they were under investigation, said Fermin Gomez, an assistant state prosecutor in Baja California.

U.S. consular officials in Tijuana said the victims — two men and two women from the San Diego and Chula Vista areas — were U.S. citizens. The state attorney general’s office in Baja California said one of the women was Mexican.

Their deaths are the latest in a string of violence in Tijuana that authorities blame on a bloody turf war between drug cartels.

It seems to be a sound explanation, but I wonder if it isn’t being used as a catch-all for crime south of the border. These don’t sound like kids involved in the drug war down there. They were down there clubbing. Why would a drug cartel take the time to tie them up, strangle them and stab them four kids from the United States?

I’m not a member of the FBI’s Behavior Science Unit, but this doesn’t compute for me. Perhaps you can educate me in the comments section.

Either way, now is not the time to look south of San Diego and think, “That sounds pretty good. Let’s go to TJ.”

Respond to this: Comments Off

More Americans Choose Pro-life Than Pro-Choice

Gallup has released a new poll showing that for the first time, there are more Americans show consider themselve pro-life than pro-abortion:

The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.

I find this encouraging. Let’s continue to work towards a day where abortion isn’t even considered an option.

Respond to this: Comments Off

Obama: 1.5% Annually for 10 Years – American Hospital Assoc: Yeah, Not So Much

President Obama made a big announcement when he told America his administration and six major health care organizations have agreed to reduce health care spending by 1.5 percentage points annually over the next ten years.

This could amount to $2 trillion or more. Here’s the rub:

The president of the American Hospital Association said Thursday that a deal with the White House to cut the growth in health care spending has been “spun way away from the original intent.”

President Barack Obama described the agreement this week with six major health care organizations as a “watershed event,” hailing what the White House said was their promise to reduce spending by 1.5 percentage points annually for a decade, which he said could save as much as $2 trillion over that span.

But in a conference call Thursday, President Richard Umbdenstock told 230 member organizations that the agreement had been misrepresented. The groups, he said, had agreed to gradually ramp up to the 1.5 percentage-point target over 10 years – not to reduce spending by that much in each of the 10 years.

That explains the looks of confusion on the faces of the people behind Obama.

The Patriot Room figures the savings at around $373.5 billion. As they say, “A far cry from a $2 trillion “gamechanging” pledge.”

Respond to this: Comments Off

Haste Makes Waste: Feds Send Millions in Stimulus Checks to Dead People

The government is saying the error happened because they had to get things done in a hurry. Because of the perceived time pressure, the have sent millions of dollars in stimulus money to people like “Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago.

The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.

The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people — like Romonini — who were never even part of the Social Security system.

It really isn’t that surprising, I guess. These people were rushed, it wasn’t their money they were wasting, and it’s not like they are going to lose their jobs. If they do, they’ll get another government job in another department.

My question is how an individual is supposed to stimulate the economy with a $250 check. I get more taken out of my check in taxes each pay period. Institute the Fair Tax, let me keep all that money and then you will see a stimulated economy.

Respond to this: Comments Off

I Guess I'm Not A Right Wing Extremist Anymore

Secretary Janet Napolitano blamed an underling for releasing a report warning that veterans were vulnerable to the recruiting tactics of right wing extremists before jerking the report back into the department.

“The report is no longer out there,” she said. “An employee sent it out without authorization.”

The report was shared with state and local law enforcement officials nationwide via the department’s internal Web site on April 7, angering Republican lawmakers and military veterans who said it unfairly stereotyped veterans.

Ms. Napolitano did not say when the report was taken off the “intel Web site” and all Homeland Security Department Web sites, but she said it is in the process of being “replaced or redone in a much more useful and much more precise fashion.”

Rep. Christopher Carney, Pennsylvania Democrat, said that as a veteran he “took offense personally,” and his constituents were offended by the report as well.

“It really hit home hard to me and in our district,” Mr. Carney said. “It’s not a good start when I go to town hall meetings and I hear people calling for your resignation.”

Ms. Napolitano said the report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is not the only report she has seen that says veterans are targets for recruitment by racist and other hate groups.

“It was an assessment, not an accusation,” Ms. Napolitano said.

“It didn’t say that,” Mr. Carney interrupted.

As a veteran, I was not at all surprised that the most radical left wing administration of my lifetime has these feelings about me and other vets. Yeah, I’ve written about it before.

Respond to this: Comments Off

Dianne Feinstein Defends Pelosi…and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Pretty Much Everyone Else

Via Hot Air, Dianne Feinstein is doing her best to defend the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from attacks that she should have done something about the waterboarding.

After all, it’s torture right. 

But in defending San Fran Nan, she also defends, well, everyone else:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, backed Pelosi.

“I think it’s a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that,” she said.

“I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.”

No kidding. So, when a Democrat think waterboarding is necessary, it isn’t torture. It’s action necessary to prevent an imminent attack.

The Democrat Party’s ability to create and implement a double standard never ceases to amaze me. However, this time they may have bitten off more than they can chew.

The left really wants blood from the Bush administration and this whole torture angle is the way the think they will get it. So the question is: will they sacrifice Nancy to get to Bush and Co., or will they let it go to defend their ace Speaker? Or can they actually pull off the double standard?

Respond to this: Comments Off

LA Collects 1,700 Guns in Buyback Program, An Estimated 3.8 Million Still Free Not Mentioned By Mayor

Look at this picture from the Contra Costa Times:

The guy with the gun is Lt. Fred Booker.  The guy behind him is deputy police chief Charlie Beck.  The tommy gun Streetsweeper 12 gauge they are holding is one of almost 1,700 guns turned over to the LAPD.  In return for a gun, people were given a $100 voucher for groceries.

The goal of the gun buyback program is to make the streets safer.  The day netted 40 assault rifles (however they define those), 276 shotguns, 539 rifles and 841 handguns.  Someone even turned over a $10,000 Luger, but it’s doubtful they knew its worth.

The mayor held a news conference with the guns, to show that they collected guns and that he cared:

“When we do this again, we want to make sure we raise more money,” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said at a Parker Center news conference, where the weapons were displayed on tables, blankets and anywhere police could pile them.

“Look at this,” Villaraigosa said as he pointed at the stock of a rifle. “It has an NRA sticker on it.”

In another article, the mayor noted:

“These are weapons whose sole purpose is to maim and kill people,” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said at a Parker Center news conference. He added that more guns were taken off the streets in Los Angeles than there were shooting victims in the city all of last year.

The sole purpose? What about gun collectors? What about hunters?

I admit, the gun in my house is for maiming and possibly killing people…people who break into my house or otherwise threaten my family. I guess that makes guns bad, right?

But that’s a whole different article.

What is needed here is a different perspective, ironically from the same newspaper:

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who instituted Saturday’s buyback, said Monday that it took more guns off the streets of L.A. than there were shooting victims in the city last year. That’s a highly misleading statement, implying a connection between gun homicides and the specific weapons handed in to police over the weekend. In truth, studies of municipal gun buyback programs have never turned up a shred of evidence that they reduce firearm violence.

It’s impossible to know how many guns there are in Los Angeles, in part because many are unregistered and illegally owned. But it’s estimated that there are about 258 million privately owned firearms in the United States (or nearly one gun for every American citizen), and there are about 3.8 million people in the city of L.A. So it’s safe to say that there are millions of guns hereabout. The 1,700 turned in Saturday did not significantly reduce the number.

What’s more, the guns that tend to be surrendered are very seldom the ones used by criminals. They are usually old, broken weapons turned in by older people who would rather have a $100 gift certificate to buy groceries (the premium offered Saturday to those who brought in guns) than a rusted revolver. A 2004 report by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that “the theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed, and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.”

So why do they have buyback programs if they are so ineffective? Because they are good publicity.

Politicians love to pose with piles of guns to show how they are working to make the streets safer. They love the face time on the evening news and the front page stories, complete with photos of them and the guns.

Look at that picture again. Are we supposed to believe that the gun he’s posing with was actually used in a crime recently?

They know that they publicity is worth more than the cost of the program, especially when the money is donated. However, when it comes to lowering gun crime rates, they aren’t very effective.

Hat Tip:  Say Uncle

Respond to this: 2 Comments

Eating On The Government Dime – Phoenix Mayor and Council Swallow $152,000 in Free Food

Every once and a while, the place where I work will spring for some food. It’s always nice to have dinner provided for you and I appreciate not having to pack a lunch. However, if they were spending $152,000 a year on food for us, I would call that ridiculous.

The Mayor and City Council of Phoenix call it business as usual:

Over the last three years, members of the Phoenix City Council have spent more than $152,000 on food and catering.

Council members have spent thousands at Tom’s Tavern, the Downtown Deli, and Paradise Bakery.

“We all get a paycheck,” Phoenix resident Justin Evans said. “We all have to pay for our own food. Why can’t they?”

Great question, but the real kicker isn’t here yet.

Last February, when the city was already facing a $90 million deficit, the council dropped $2,100 on food and entertainment at the Bougainvillea Golf Course near Baseline and 59th Avenue for Councilman Michael Nowakowski’s inauguration party.

An additional $4,100 was spent on shirts, pens, and magnets as promotional items for Nowakowski.

The mayor and council also spent more than $7,000 on coffee even though there’s a Starbucks downstairs in the City Hall atrium, and more than $9,000 went to maintaining all the plants and floral arrangements for their offices.

Additionally, the ABC15 Investigators found the city council is actually giving away taxpayer money to charities of their choice.

This includes the National Rifle Association, which has received $2,800 from the City of Phoenix for fundraisers with dinners and auctions.

The ABC15 Investigators also found that Mayor Phil Gordon’s personal membership to the State Bar of Arizona is paid for by the taxpayers.

Most offices will set up a coffee area, with the sweetener and creamer on a table, maybe some stirring stick and an old coffee can with a slot in the top. This is so people getting a cup can drop a quarter or whatever in to contribute to the kitty. It works well in offices around the country.

In Phoenix, the people pay for the Mayor’s coffee.

And while I support the NRA, I don’t want my tax dollars taken from me and given to any charity.

This story is really about a bigger problem. The politicians today feel that the taxes collected are not the people’s money, but their money, to be spent however they please. This was the motivation behind the Tea Parties last month.

Apparently Phoenix City Hall didn’t get the memo.

Hat Tip: Dustin’s Gun Blog

Respond to this: Comments Off

Now We Are Talking War: Senate Considering Federal Tax on Soda

I can put up with a lot of things from the federal government. Social security taxes, knowing full well that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that will fail before I can see a dime of it. Stimulus money for airports that see no use, just because they have the right representative in Congress.

I can even tolerate the Senate majority leader saying that the tourists that visit the Capital building, you know, the people, are smelly.

But now they go too far. Now, they are getting into an area that causes me great distress. Now, they are talking about taxing soda. And that, dear readers, means war:

“While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems,” Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. “Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods.”

According to Jacobson, “Beverage companies market more than 14 billion gallons of calorie-laden soft drinks annually. That is equivalent to about 506 12-oz. servings per year, or 1.4 servings per day, for every man, woman, and child.”

He argued that each penny of tax on a 12 ounce drink would raise $1.5 billion annually and lower consumption roughly one percent, improving overall health. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

You know what this means? This means that, if passed, it will lead to more and more taxes, higher and higher costs, until I am buying my Mountain Dew out of the back of a trailer from the mob. Yeah, that’s right. The mob will be bootlegging Mountain Dew because the taxes will be outrageous.

And what about all the World of Warcraft players in America? The bloggers? The hackers? What are they supposed to do? Without Mountain Dew, they will have to switch to Mellow Yellow, which you know doesn’t have the energy boost they need to get by.

No, of all the things these bozos have come up with, this is clearly the most dangerous. This could tip the balance of power back to the Republican party. You really want to motivate the young voters? Fight for their right to tax free Jones Soda.

Seriously though, don’t mess with my Mountain Dew. You’ve already taken too many from my fridge as it is.

Respond to this: Comments Off

Pelosi to Be Investigated By Democrats Concerning Harsh Interrogation Methods

This story would be a lot more interesting if the word “Concerning” were replaced with “Using.” But you work with what you have.

Nancy Pelosi said one thing, then the CIA said a different thing. I guess that’s what you get when you try to through the sppoks under the bus and claim you didn’t know anything about what they were doing.

Now, the Republicans are calling for an investigation and the Democrats say, “Let’s do it“:

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called Republican challenges to Pelosi’s assertion a diversion from the real question of whether the Bush administration tortured terrorist suspects. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the controversy should be resolved.

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding — simulated drowning — and sleep deprivation.

While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn’t protest. Pelosi was briefed in 2002 while on the House Intelligence Committee.

Hoyer, asked at a news conference whether Democrats were inviting political problems for themselves by holding hearings, said, “I think the facts need to get out.

“I think the Republicans are simply trying to distract the American public with who knew what when. My response to that is, look, the issue is not what was said or what was known; the question and focus ought to be on what was done.”

I think the stink the Democrats have caused over the use of harsh interrogation methods, calling it torture and Bush a war criminal, makes the issue a matter of who knew what and when. If they knew that Bush was authorizing what they have called torture, and they didn’t say anything about it, then they guilty too.

San Fran Nan helped to make this bed. The CIA is gonna make her lie in it. The question is can we count on the Democrats to do a thorough investigation of one of their own?

Hat Tip: Flopping Aces

Respond to this: Comments Off