Friday, August 31, 2007

Does Chief Border Patrol Agent Work For Drug Cartel?

I'm starting to consider the possibility.

Whenever I talk about the border I always get someone who claims that there is a conspiracy. Not that someone is allowing our country to be conquered, but that high ranking Border Patrol and government officials are on the take. In other words ... the reason they don't stop illegals and the drugs coming across the border is that they are being paid off. Most likely by the drug cartels who not only smuggle drugs across the border, but people too.

To prove my point ... I will link four major stories dealing with the current Border Patrol sector chief of Laredo, Carlos X. Carrillo.

Carrillo made headlines a couple of weeks ago when he proclaimed that it was not the Border Patrol's job to stop illegal immigrants, or narcotics, from crossing the border. Naturally this was outrageous, yielded great criticism.

Carrillo's comments soon became laughable as he went on to proclaim that the Border Patrol was not equipped to stop illegals or drugs ... yet was somehow was equipped to stop terrorism.

I decided to go to the Border Patrol's website to see if, in fact, their mission did not include illegals or drugs. I knew the answer, but it was still worth looking into. After I confirmed the Border Patrols mission, I decided to go the the Laredo sector's webpage. What I found sent me into gut-busting laughter, and left me with tears running down my cheeks.

Only days after Laredo sector chief Carrillo said that immigration and drugs were not his problem ... there it was. Right there on the Laredo sector's page of the Border Patrol's website was a letter written by, and signed by, Laredo sector chief Carlos X. Carrillo.

It contradicted everything Carrillo had said just days before. In the letter posted on the site, Carrillo says:

Our primary function is to enforce the immigration laws and prevent illegal entry of aliens into the country.

I ended my previous with a question. "I wonder what changed his mind," I said.

Now, I think I have the answer, but more on that in a minute.

After Carrillo's ludicrous comments, Republican presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo, called for Carrillo to be fired.


U.S. Border Patrol sector chief Carlos X. Carrillo should be removed from his post after telling a town hall meeting in Texas the agency's job "is not to stop illegal immigrants," says Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo called on David Aguilar, the chief of the U.S, Office of Border Patrol, to remove Carrillo from his leadership position.

"I hope David Aguilar will repudiate Carrillo's statements and remove him from a leadership position in the agency," Tancredo said in a statement released by his office. "Anything less will leave doubts about the integrity of the agency's top management and its commitments to controlling illegal entry into our country."

To the surprise of many, Aguilar defended Carrillo's statements.

Aguilar, however, defended Carrillo and said the comments were taken out of context. He said the Border Patrol's mission "is to protect our country's borders from all threats. Our highest priority is keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering our country."

The problem with Aguilar's defense of Carrillo is that they weren't taken out of context at all, and Carrillo did not say that the Border Patrol's job is to protect our border from all threats. He said:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop narcotics � or contraband or narcotics � the Border Patrol's mission is not to stop criminals. The Border Patrol's mission is to stop terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country."

Kind of hard to take that out of context, isn't it?

So far, Tancredo's call for Carrillo's job hasn't come to fruition. However, a few days after Tancredo's statements ... Carrillo apologized.

Liberty Post:

A Border Patrol chief yesterday apologized for saying the agency's mission is stopping terrorists, not illegal aliens or drug smugglers, a stance that outraged congressional lawmakers.

"It's painfully obvious to me that I could have done a better job of articulating my talking points," said sector Chief Carlos X. Carrillo, who made the controversial comments last week at a town hall meeting in Laredo, Texas.

The article goes on to describe the outrage of Republican lawmakers at Carrillo's comments.

Carrillo also describes what he "really" said.

"It was a two-hour town hall meeting," Chief Carrillo said. "One of the issues we discussed was illegal immigration. I said the Border Patrol cannot address the causes of illegal immigration. We're not supposed to address it. Our focus is enforcement, our focus is enforcement at the border."

A far cry different than what was reported.

Shortly after Carrillo's apology, there was another big story about Laredo in the news.

The AP did an expose on the drug cartels in Laredo, and how violent they are.

Mexican drug lords locked in a bloody fight for control of a pipeline that runs from Mexico to Dallas and up through middle America have brazenly stationed hit squads and reconnaissance teams in Laredo.

Maybe, just maybe it's not so brazen if the sector chief of the Border Patrol doesn't feel it's in his job description to deal with drug cartels.

Over the past few years, the Mexican Gulf Cartel and its rival Sinaloa Cartel have carried out a terrifying bloodbath in Nuevo Laredo, where the traffickers have a saying: "Plata o plomo" — "Silver or lead." So far, the worst of the violence has been confined to Mexico.

"Our mission is to make sure it doesn't cross over," said Jesse Guillen, a Laredo prosecutor who obtained guilty pleas from Reta and another hitman for the Gulf Cartel earlier this year. "Is it under control? Let's see."

Unlike many other drug-related killings, the Laredo slayings often involve careful planning, explicit orders and surveillance of law enforcement officers, Guillen said. And arrests aren't easy: In most cases, the killers flee back across the border.

Gee, if only we had an agency to prevent them from going back and forth across the border. Too bad sector chief Carrillo has better things to do ... like hunt Osama bin Laden.

Gone also is the grudging respect once accorded U.S. law enforcement. Holdridge said he and his wife have occasionally been followed by suspected cartel members as they drive around town.

You can't respect people you've paid off, can you?

Hitmen were paid $500 a week, according to Laredo police. When a job was done, they could get a bonus of $10,000 and two kilos of cocaine, police said in court documents.

The cartels have studied U.S. law enforcement procedures and know how to stymie officers.

Yeah, with cold, hard cash.

Cartels sometimes send out "suicide loads" — smaller piles of marijuana or cash that traffickers know will get caught by local law enforcement. Such busts tie up officers with paperwork for hours, giving traffickers time to drive a bigger load through unnoticed, Holdridge said.

I left that last part in there to illustrate what may have happened in the Ramos, Compean case.

Is Carrillo on the take? I don't know, but his behavior is dubious at best. Tancredo's calls for him to be removed are correct, and should go without saying. We need sector chiefs that don't double-talk, and contradict themselves. We need tough, smart agents who will not allow Laredo to turn into killing fields. Regardless of if Carrillo is corrupt ... he has shown he can not get the job done in his sector.

Sen. Craig ... & Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

Now that you've heard the audio of Sen. Craig's interrogation ... do you believe he's innocent, or guilty? Take the poll at the top right of this page.

If you haven't heard the interrogation yet ... go here (about 8 minutes).

I've been talking about this the past couple of days on my show, and found that many people now believe Craig to be innocent after I played the interrogation for them. For me the most important part is what is said in the first 1 1/2 minutes.

From the beginning Craig proclaims his innocence, but expresses that he does not want to fight the cop in court, and he must make that flight. The cop makes it very clear that if he pleads guilty this will go away quietly, and he won't contact the media.

Whether Craig is innocent, I don't know. However, it was a poor decision to plead guilty because there is no way in hell he would have been found guilty in any court of law. There is no evidence at all against him ... other than his plea ... which really doesn't mean much (I'll explain in a bit).

One thing I've been saying since this story broke is that at best this is shotty police work, and extremely unprofessional. Law enforcement never conducts a sting without any form of audio or video confirmation that there was a crime. Yet no standard police tactics used in sting operations were used in this case. I find this highly suspect. The officer could have been fitted with a camera to record the "foot taps" which would have proven his case. Instead, it's down to the word of these two men with no concrete evidence.

There was also, literally, no law broken. That scares me. People have been saying we are moving towards a "Minority Report" society for some time, and cases like this prove them correct.

There was no illegal exposure, or solicitation. Even prostitution stings require video, and for the 'John' to provide money. Merely asking for sex is not enough to arrest. It is not against the law to ask someone if they'd like to have sex (if that's what happened) ... there is only a law against them having sex in a public place, or offering to pay for sex ... neither of which happened. So Sen. Craig may have potentially broken the law had he found a willing partner, but he also may have taken his partner back to a hotel room. We just don't know, and he broke no law. Yet he was forced to decide to fight this publicly or plea when he committed no crime.

For those of you who find it impossible that an innocent person would plea guilty ... I have a reality check for you. Innocent people plead guilty ALL THE TIME! Case in point ...

Truth In Justice:

A defendant's actual innocence is more important than a guilty plea, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled today in siding with a man who admitted to sexual assault only to later produce evidence that would exonerate him.

Defense attorneys hailed the ruling as critical to keeping the justice system open to defendants who are convicted but can later prove their innocence.

The court had already determined that a defendant can appeal when new evidence contradicts a guilty verdict during trial. But it hadn't decided what to do with someone who pleads guilty to a crime. The court ruled 5-4 on a case from Dallas County. The defendant's new claim of innocence, with the evidence to back it up, outweigh his previous guilty plea, the court said.

Punishing an innocent person violates due process, the court majority said in an opinion written by Judge Tom Price. "The purpose of criminal proceedings is to separate the guilty from the innocent," Price wrote. "The guilty plea process is not perfect." Wesley Ronald Tuley went to trial on aggravated sexual assault charges in 1997.

It is not only sad that this man was forced to plea guilty to a crime he didn't commit, but it is more sad that 4 judges were not willing to overturn his guilty plea after he proved his innocence.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In the criminal justice system, defendants in federal court can be convicted one of two ways -- by pleading guilty or after a trial.

Those who choose to admit their guilt are often "rewarded" with lesser sentences.

Those who choose to take advantage of their Constitutional right to trials are often "penalized" with harsher sentences.

Prosecutors argue that guilty pleas are essential, and without them the system would be crippled by thousands of cases backlogged for trial. Further, they think that defendants who take responsibility for their crimes deserve to benefit.

Defense attorneys and some academics, though, argue that the system is so skewed that most clients are forced to accept pleas, knowing that if they take their chances at trial and lose, they will face sentences that are at least 25 percent higher.

Some view it as a "trial penalty." Others look at it as a "plea reward."

"However you prefer to frame it, if you go to trial [and lose], closer to the full wrath of the law will be brought down upon you," said John H. Kramer, a former director of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The article then provides an example of a couple who were charged with a crime. One plead guilty, and was sentenced to six months house arrest. The other went to trial, and was given 33 months in prison ... big difference.

Would you plead guilty to avoid 33 months in prison when you know you will only face 6 months at home? You likely would, but just in case you are telling yourself that you wouldn't ... take into account that 1/6 juries get the verdict wrong in this country. Did that change your mind?

By pleading guilty, a defendant receives an automatic sentence reduction of at least two levels, and sometimes three. In some cases, that means a 35 percent reduction in prison time before anything else is even considered -- like cooperating with the government or other mitigating circumstances.

A 35% reduction in punishment is pretty enticing if you have a family, and good job.

Carmen Hernandez, first vice president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, calls guilty pleas "the bane of our existence."

"As a defense attorney, you're caught between a rock and a hard place," she said.

Defendants often weigh the consequences they face -- even if they are not guilty -- and choose to plead just to avoid the possibility of an increased prison term, she said.

"The incentive is so great that it's hard to stand on principle and say 'I'm not going to do it,' " Ms. Hernandez said.

She also thinks that by avoiding jury trials, there's less of an effort to "keep the system honest."

"If the government had to try every case, maybe they'd be more selective in the cases they prosecute," said Ms. Hernandez, who worked as a federal public defender for 16 years.

And when defendants plead to the charges against them, prosecutors are not forced to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt, she added.

Nationally, for fiscal year 2004, 95.5 percent of the 51,666 (federal, not state) convictions were reached through guilty pleas. That means that only 2,316 U.S. District Court cases across the country went to trial.

95.5% of all convictions are guilty pleas, and we know for a fact that several of them are innocent. Most will never be allowed to prove their innocence, however, because unlike the Texas case mentioned above ... most guilty pleas are permanent.

Mr. Kramer, who now teaches at Penn State University, believes the American court system has been acclimated to processing guilty pleas.

"It's a perfectly laughable system," he said. "The prosecutors love it. The message is any sane defendant, guilty or innocent, ought to do the prosecutor's bidding."

Congress keeps increasing possible criminal penalties and establishing mandatory minimum sentences, which in turn give prosecutors more leverage to convince defendants to plead guilty, Mr. Alschuler said.

"We keep jacking up penalties to induce guilty pleas," he said.

"We have built up an opportunity for prosecutors to pile on," added Mr. Kramer. "It is a significant armament in the prosecution."

Naturally, the prosecutors disagree, and like the system. The defense attorneys also go too far in saying that all cases should go to trial. We just don't have the resources for that. That ruling in Texas has the right idea. You should be free to plea guilty if you don't have the evidence to defend yourself in court, but you should be allowed to retract that plea once you do have the evidence so you can defend your innocence. That is the only fair way of doing things.

That is why I see no problem with Craig retracting his guilty plea to defend himself. He clearly states several times during the interrogation that he wants this to go away, and the cop tells him it will ... if you plead guilty. Well, it went away for 3 months, but is very public now. Therefore, Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and take his chances in court. Given the release of the interrogation ... Craig would win his innocence in such a case.

Michael Vick fans should also watch the Craig case closely. If Craig succeeds ... you may see Vick withdraw his guilty plea at some point in the future to fight his charges.


I am not saying Vick is innocent, or guilty. Frankly, I would not be surprised either way. I do have many questions about the case, and I'm not convinced that Vick is guilty. Other than the word of 3 people (some already back in jail on other charges) that now only face 25% of their original sentence because they are fingering Vick ... there isn't any concrete evidence. At least not made public. That may mean that Vick will take his chances in court at a later date, if Craig is successful, as long as he can build his own case.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Poll Results On If You'd Vote For A Muslim Candidate

The other day I did this topic on my show. By the end of the program only two votes made up the difference on whether people would vote for a Muslim candidate, or not. That night more people said they would have no problem voting for a Muslim. Mainly because Reid is not well liked here anymore, and Nevadans will do just about anything to get him out of office.

The poll on this site, however, had a completely different result. 78% of you said that you would never vote for a Muslim candidate. Only 8% said you would vote for a Muslim. 13% of you would vote for a Republican Muslim, but no one said they would vote for a Muslim Democrat.

Thanks again for everyone's participation.

Soldiers Honor Iraqi Who Sacrificed Himself To Save Them

Remember the Iraqi who was killed by a homicide bomber, and saved US troops and Iraqi civilians last week?

Today, the troops he saved with his courageous actions paid their respects.


Leaders of 3rd HBCT, the Iraqi National Police and Jisr Diyala leaders met with the father to acknowledge his sacrifice and thank him for his son’s actions.

Both Barth and Kane were present at the ceremony to offer support to their friend and to provide security.

The father was given a plaque and a ceremonial pair of spurs from Lt. Col. John Kolasheski, of Louden, Tenn., commander of 3-1 Cav. Regt.

“You cannot put a price on a life, but we would like to give you a few tokens of appreciation for your sacrifice,” Kolasheski said. “This is a tragic event we are recognizing, but it represents an outstanding change in this area.”

Barth admits it has been difficult talking with the family because of the pain they are experiencing. He has thanked the family for their sacrifice.

“They will always be friends,” Barth said. “This tragedy has strengthened that.”

Berner has relied on the experience of members of his platoon to help him with the incident.

“I’ve talked with Sgt. Kane about it,” he said. “He helped me put in perspective. Being younger, I don’t have the life experience to really understand it. He has been a big help. It's just one of things that I will never forget.”

Final South Korean Hostages Freed

At last the nightmare is over for the hostages, but a new nightmare is about to begin now that the Taliban has been emboldened.

Test - How Much Do You Know About The War In Iraq?

I made a 13 answer quiz online about the war.

You can take it here. Just click the 'do the test' button, and you are on your way. Let me know what you think, and spread it around. I'm doing a case study on it.

Note: This post is sticky ... scroll down for new posts.


So far 757 people have taken the quiz, and the results are getting better. After initial problems with people passing the test ... now 61% of you have scored 80% or better, and 69% of you have said the test was very good.

Thanks again for the participation, and good luck on the exam.

Update 2:

Over 1000 people have now taken the test in a little over a day. The class curve is dropping somewhat again after making a resurgence yesterday evening.

59% of you have answered 80% or more of the questions right, but 68% still say the test is very good.

Update 3:

Wow, the test is really taking off! 1245 people have taken the test as of this moment. 58% of you have received 80-100% of the questions right, and 68% of you said the test was very good. There is a small group of people who say the test is very bad, but these are hacks who won't ever bother to check out the facts I gave in the answer explanation.

Update 4:

Almost 1400 people have taken the test! I can't believe how popular it has been, and I haven't even posted it on some of the major bookmark sites yet. The stats are about the same as the last update.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Less Than Half Of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming

So much for the "consensus" eh?

Those of us who follow the issue already know that there is clearly no consensus, and most of the scientists that support man-made global warming aren't in a field that would qualify them to make such claims.

Daily Tech:

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Zogby: Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

File this under obvious.

54% of Americans in this poll say the war in Iraq is not lost. Of course, it splits down party lines. 66% of Dems, and 9% of Reps say it is lost (because they aren't paying attention).

It is impossible for our troops to lose this war because we already won it. Our war was with the Iraqi government who surrendered to us already. The mission now is simply to make sure that the Iraqis aren't conquered again by a dictator.

I had an argument with someone about this last night on my show.

If we left Germany or Japan after WWII, and the government we wanted them to have collapsed ... would that then mean we lost the war? Would their surrenders suddenly mean nothing?

John Edwards Asks: Is Cuba's Healthcare System Run By The Government?


H/T: Newsbusters

As reported by ABC ...

When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn't know enough to answer the question.

"I'm going to be honest with you - I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

Newsbusters astutely points out that it is difficult to believe than any adult, let alone a former senator and presidential candidate, would not know that Cuba runs their own healthcare.

U.S. Releases Iranian Diplomats Captured In Raid

News of the captures broke yesterday, and we were waiting for details on the capture. Now it seems the Iranians will be released.


Eight Iranians, including two diplomats, were released by U.S. forces Wednesday after being detained because unauthorized weapons were found in their cars, the U.S. military said. An adviser to the top U.S. general in Iraq called the detentions "regrettable."

There has already been other cases of Iranians bringing things into Iraq, that are not authorized, with the permission of the Iraqi government. Somehow, no one informs the US of such moves.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the Iranian delegation was in Baghdad to hold talks with Iraqi officials on building a power plant.

Hmmmm, what kind of power plant?

The only reason there were arrests was because the Iraqi security detail didn't have any permits for their weapons.

12 Freed, 7 To Go

Twelve of the nineteen S. Korean hostages being held in Afghanistan have been freed this morning. We aren't home free just yet, and don't forget that the terrorists have already executed some of the hostages.


Taliban militants on Wednesday released 12 of 19 South Korean captives they promised to free under a deal struck with the South Korean government to resolve a nearly six-week hostage crisis.

The deal, reached in direct talks Tuesday between South Korean diplomats and the Taliban, was criticized by one Afghan government minister amid concerns it could embolden the insurgents at a time of rising violence in the country.

If you are curious as to why there are concerns of emboldening the enemy ... just look at the deal S. Korea struck with the Taliban.

To secure the release of the church workers, South Korea reaffirmed a pledge it made before the hostage crisis began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. Seoul also said it would prevent South Korean Christian missionaries from working in the country, something it had already promised to do.

Needless to say, US and Afghan forces are pissed that S. Korea has now given the Taliban legitimacy, and they rightfully claim that this will make the conflict more difficult and deadly.

An Afghan government minister criticized Seoul for the deal, saying it could embolden the Taliban.

"One has to say that this release under these conditions will make our difficulties in Afghanistan even bigger," Commerce Minister Amin Farhang told Germany's Bayerischer Rundfunk radio. "We fear that this decision could become a precedent. The Taliban will continue trying to take hostages to attain their aims in Afghanistan."

Kidnapping has become a standard tactic of gaining leverage against the enemy, and this time it worked.

While it is sad that they were taken hostage, and some lost their lives, they knew what the risks were before they chose to go to Afghanistan. No one is eluding to that fact.

Was Beethoven Poisoned?

Apparently he was ... by his doctor.

Elian Gonzalez Two?

Everyone is comparing the case of a little Cuban girl to the Elian fiasco. There is little similar besides the involvement of Cuba. The case is more like other cases in the US where a parent abandons their children only to want them back later after the child has already been adopted by a loving family.

Basically, before the family left Cuba, the father would visit the children about twice a month while failing to notice any abuse by the mother. After she took the kids to the US there was no visitation, but the abuse continued. Eventually the abuse was noticed when the boy convinced his mom to call the police before she attempted suicide.

An American family has adopted the boy, and the girl in question has lived with them for 18 months. She calls them Mami and Papi, but there is a question on whether she should be returned to her biological father or remain with the family that has adopted her half brother. The family also wants to adopt her.

For me the answer is simple. He wasn't a huge part of her life before they left Cuba, or after. Let her stay with the family that loves her, and has cared for her the past 18 months. She will then be in an intact home with her brother.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Working On The Site As We Speak

I don't quite know why my news feeds took a crap the last two days, but they will be fixed by tomorrow. There are still some kinks I have to work out of the new site.


One of the news sites I get feeds from is down, and that was the problem. For now I have 3 less news sources in the sidebar, but I will find a replacement in the next day or two.

I have also added a new comment system with more features, and a submission link in every post.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Congratulations Randy Couture & Frank Mir


Randy Couture has been my favorite fighter since I was a kid, and he continues to prove that he is one of the greatest fighters of all time. He seems to get better as he gets older ... which is unheard of in this sport.

Randy defeated Gonzaga, and retained his title with a third round TKO.

I don't train at Randy's gym (Xtreme Couture, LV), but I look forward to meeting him one day.

The link above is Xtreme Couture's blog, and wait til you see who flew in to help Randy prepare for Gonzaga ... can you say Axe Murderer?

Also making a return to the UFC is former heavyweight champion Frank Mir.

Frank is the Jiu Jitsu coach at my gym, Striking Unlimited.

The website isn't finished yet, but it does have some pictures of the gym and our location. First class is free so you can check us out, and see if you like the place.

Frank continues his climb back to the pinnacle of MMA after recovering from his accident. You can check out Frank's blog here. Who knows, maybe one day Frank and Randy will meet in the octagon.

Congrats to both of you.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Ted Nugent Unhinged (NSFW)


When libs do this sort of thing there is usually a backlash from members of the audience. It will be interesting to see if Ted faces any adverse reaction. At least you know he's politically active when you buy his tickets.


Anchorwoman Cancelled After Just One Show


I must admit, my wife and I watched the show because there was nothing on. It was horrible in most painful kind of way. Sad thing is that she wasn't the worst part of the "news" crew. They had a damn weather dog for crying out loud! The so called "professional journalists" at the network were horrible on air talent as well. Which reflects why the station is struggling.

Anyway, I looked at my wife 10 minutes into the show and said it will be gone in three episodes. I was wrong, it took one.


Here's news that Fox's series "Anchorwoman" wouldn't want to deliver: It's been canceled after one low-rated airing.

The debut of the reality show about Lauren Jones' attempt to turn herself into a news anchor for a Texas TV station drew an estimated 2.7 million viewers Wednesday, according to preliminary figures from Nielsen Media Research.

That number is about a third of the viewership Fox attracted a week earlier with the finale of its popular "So You Think You Can Dance."

Jones was a Barker Beauty on "The Price Is Right," Miss New York and featured WWE Diva before the series put her into the newsroom of KYTX Channel 19 in Tyler, Texas.

Unaired episodes of "Anchorwoman" will be available on Fox's website through Fox on Demand.

As a side note ... So You Think You Can Dance is almost as bad as Anchorwoman was. Though my wife would disagree.

Castro On His Way Out?

Castro crackin his cranium.

Of course, Cuba is denying the rumors.

Rumors have been surfacing for a while now that Castro is on his last leg, and we all know he has been ill for some time. Hopefully, he'll die soon so I can get my genuine Cuban cigars, and take a nice vacation in the gorgeous Cuban countryside.

The Media Is At It Again ... Lying About The Latest Iraq Report

Dismal, stark, not good ... all have been used by the MSM to describe the latest report on Iraq.

The report is almost exactly the same as the last couple of Iraq reports. The Iraqi government is not making much progress ... of that we all agree. However, the citizens of Iraq continue to abandon their sectarian ways, and side with the coalition against terrorists. Violence of all kinds is decreasing in the country as it has done since last December. We are getting more participation from local tribal leaders to track down, and fight the terrorists. We continue to seize record amounts of caches. All of this ignored by the anti-war crowd, Democrats (except the ones who visit Iraq), and the MSM.

So, as I did with the Pentagon's report in June ... I will go over the National Intelligence Estimate with you today. You may download the whole report here.

The report issues an analytic caution before you start reading it to outline that this is only a short term analysis of the last six months, and is not a comprehensive report.

Analytic Caution: Driven largely by the accelerating pace of tribal engagement and the increasing tempo of Coalition operations, developments in Iraq are unfolding more rapidly and with greater complexity today than when we completed our January NIE. Regional variations in security and political circumstances are great and becoming increasingly more distinct––for example, intra-Shia violence in southern Iraq is very different from patterns of violence elsewhere. The intelligence assessments contained in this NIE largely focus on only a short period of the Iraqi conflict—the last six months—and in circumscribed areas—primarily the central provinces, which contain the center of gravity for Iraq’s security prospects and in which we have a greater Coalition presence and therefore more information. The unfolding pace and scope of security and political realities in Iraq, combined with our necessarily limited focus of analysis, contain risks: our uncertainties are greater, and our future projections subject to greater chances of error. These issues, combined with the challenges of acquiring accurate data on trends in violence and continued gaps in our information about levels of violence and political trends in areas of Iraq without a substantial Coalition presence and where Intelligence Community collectors have difficulty operating, heighten our caution. Nonetheless, we stand by these judgments as our best collective assessment of security and political conditions in Iraq today and as likely to unfold during the next six to12 months.

In the key judgments we learn that while violence in Iraq remains high, there is much improvement in reducing violence, and the economy is growing.

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI) capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas. However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled;

Not glowing, but there is progress. The statements about al Qaeda are cause for optimism.

We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust
counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

In other words ... we need to keep the pressure on the enemy, and we will see even more success.

Political and security trajectories in Iraq continue to be driven primarily by Shia insecurity about retaining political dominance, widespread Sunni unwillingness to accept a diminished political status, factional rivalries within the sectarian communities resulting in armed conflict, and the actions of extremists such as AQI and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia that try to fuel sectarian violence.

This is the paragraph that the MSM, and anti-war crowd have focussed on.

We must remember a very simple truth ... security brings a stable government. A stable government doesn't bring security.

As the Iraqi citizens continue to step up, tribal leaders continue to battle insurgents and terrorists, and the coalition continues to make progress ... Iraq will become safer, and more stable. This will allow the government to settle down, and make more progress.

We should all be prepared for this government to be dissolved in favor of a new one, and that would not be a failure at all. Anyone remember the Articles of Confederation? This is the Iraqis first attempt ever at governing themselves, and it should go without saying that there will be difficulty.

The report goes on to cite that Sunnis are turning against al Qaeda, but it is not universal. It also goes into details about the Shia groups fighting each other for power, and there is no leadership in the Sunni community.

Iraqi Security Forces involved in combined operations with Coalition forces have performed adequately, and some units have demonstrated increasing professional competence. However, we judge that the ISF have not improved enough to conduct major operations independent of the Coalition on a sustained basis in multiple locations and that the ISF remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.

This echoes the sentiments of the US military about their Iraqi counterparts. Our forces have been very impressed ... especially with the police. With a little time the Iraqis will continue to take the lead, but it will take time.

I encourage you to read the whole report, and properly inform yourself (it's only 10 pages). The whole report can summed up in three ways:

  • The Iraqi government lacks the ability to unify Iraq at this point in time.
  • There has been great progress in security for the Iraqi people, and this will continue to improve for the foreseeable future.
  • While Iraqi forces have performed well ... they are not quite ready to do the job alone.

Once again we have a report that is positive, but not glowing. Yet the positive is completely ignored. Which is ironic given that the positives are the benchmarks that critics of the war have been calling for all along.

Iraqi Sacrifices Himself To Save U.S. Troops, & Civilians From Homicide Bomber

This story is three days old, and still no acknowledgment of his heroism in our media.

MNF - Iraq:

An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town of al-Arafia Aug. 18.

The incident occurred while Soldiers from 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, were talking with members of the al-Arafia Concerned Citizens, a volunteer community group, at a member’s house.

“I was about 12 feet away when the bomber came around the corner,” said Staff Sgt. Sean Kane, of Los Altos, Calif., acting platoon sergeant of Troop B, 3-1 Cav. “I was about to engage when he jumped in front of us and intercepted the bomber as he ran toward us. As he pushed him away, the bomb went off.”

The citizen’s actions saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians.

Kane knew the man personally, and had worked with him several times before.

Kane felt the loss personally because he had met and interacted with his rescuer many times before the incident.

“He was high-spirited and really believed what the group (Concerned Citizens) was doing,” Kane said. “I have no doubt the bomber was trying to kill American Soldiers. It was very calculated the way the bomber tried to do it. If he hadn’t intercepted him, there is no telling how bad it could have been.”

Kane believes the citizen is a hero.

“He could have run behind us or away from us, but he made the decision to sacrifice himself to protect everyone. Having talked with his father, I was told that even if he would have known the outcome before hand, he wouldn’t have acted differently.”

The terrorist cell responsible was found that night, and Iraqi police launched a successful raid in which four were taken into custody.

Every report dealing with Iraq is saying that the Iraqi citizens are indeed stepping it up to help the coalition. There has been a steady increase in Iraqi assistance in helping the coalition find terrorists, and their weapons, for nearly two years now.


As the U.S. troop surge has taken effect in areas of Iraq, Iraqi citizens are shifting away from extremist groups and stepping forward to assist coalition and Iraqi security forces and secure their communities, a U.S. commander in Iraq said today.

The increase in troops allows the coalition to move into areas that previously had no coalition or Iraqi security force presence and get rid of extremist elements, Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of Multinational Division Center, told reporters at the Pentagon via videoconference. As soon as locals see that the security forces are committed to staying and securing a neighborhood, they readily step forward to help, Lynch said.

“Over the last four months, we’ve seen an interesting shift,” he said. “Iraqi citizens are coming to us and providing information. These citizens are speaking up about what they’ve seen; they’re talking about what they’ve heard and about any activity that jeopardizes the rebuilding of their country.”

Lynch also talked about the “concerned citizens” program, which involves about 10,000 Iraqis assisting security forces by manning checkpoints and providing intelligence information. The dedication of these citizens allows local governments to work on reconciliation, which will give the central government in Baghdad a strong foundation to work from for national reconciliation, he said.

With the help of Iraqi citizens, coalition forces are taking down cell after cell.

American Forces Press Service:

Coalition forces killed seven terrorists and detained 12 suspected terrorists today during operations in central and northern Iraq.

During an operation targeting an al Qaeda cell, coalition forces returned to an area east of Tarmiyah where they killed 13 terrorists and captured 12 suspects last week. Local Iraqis who had helped coalition forces target the cell last week continued to provide information about terrorist operations there.

The assault force killed two armed men who attacked with small-arms fire. As the force continued to secure the buildings, they repeatedly encountered armed men attempting to barricade themselves in individual rooms. In all five cases, coalition forces fought and killed the men. Coalition forces also detained four suspected terrorists and assessed that nine individuals identified in intelligence reports had been killed or captured.

"With the help of the Iraqi community, we basically crippled this cell," said Army Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman. "We'll continue working with local citizens to dismantle the rest of the networks that threaten the security of Iraq."

This trend by the Iraqi people is often ignored. Harry Reid ignored this information when he lied about the surge back in June.

Pundits also continue to ignore the Iraqi contribution as they call for the US to leave because the Iraqis aren't stepping up. Well, they are stepping up ... more and more every day, week, month, and year. Do not belittle their efforts.

Al Qaeda Kidnaps 15 Women & Children

Reuters/Helmiy al-Azawi

Al Qaeda in Iraq attacked several villages where religious leaders were forming an anti-al Qaeda coalition. Several people were killed, but the major concern now is why al Qaeda took the women and children.

Al Qaeda fighters kidnapped 15 Iraqi women and children after attacking two villages north of Baghdad on Thursday and killing a religious leader who had been trying to form an anti-al Qaeda tribal alliance, police said.

Police said 32 people had been killed in an hour-long battle between villagers and al Qaeda.

This was also a red on red incident which is becoming increasingly common now days.

Residents said the local fighters were loyal to the Sunni Arab "1920 Revolution Brigade," which has increasingly clashed with al Qaeda, and had repelled the attack.

The fighting underscored a growing split between Sunni Arab militants and al Qaeda, which U.S. forces have sought to exploit as they try to quell sectarian violence.

Al Qaeda's adherence to a hardline brand of Sunni Islam and its indiscriminate killing of civilians have isolated it from Iraq's Sunni Arab community. Tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala and Salahuddin provinces have all formed alliances to fight it.

Hopefully we are able to get the women and children back alive, but I'm pessimistic.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

White Guy Claims Racism ... Is Awarded $150,000 By Jury

Could it be? Could it actually be that white people are starting to gain equal rights when it comes to claims of racism?

Between the whole Nagin official thing, and now this, I am left to ponder.

Mark Pasternak, who is white, said he was dismissed from his state job helping troubled youths because he could not tolerate being called names like "cracker," "polack" and "stupid white boy."

A seven-member all-white jury found that Tommy Baines, who is black, discriminated against Pasternak and created a hostile work environment.

"I'm elated and overwhelmed," Pasternak told The Buffalo News Wednesday. "I feel like I've been to hell and back ... After all these years, the best feeling is, the jury heard his story and mine, and they believed me."

You can almost hear the shock in his comments that people actually believed him.

Turns out that this was investigated in 1998, and the boss was fined but not fired.

According to court records, the state investigated the racial allegations in 1998. Baines was fined $2,000 for his conduct, but he was allowed to continue working as a supervisor.

He was eventually fired, but it sure did take a much longer period of time than it would have taken his white counterpart.

Muslim American To Challenge Harry Reid For Senate


Well, this should be good.


Mansoor Ijaz says he is considering testing his wings against none other than Majority Leader Reid.

An American Muslim of Pakistani heritage, Ijaz is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Virginia. At 46, he's the founder and president of the Crescent Investment Group of New York, which sports former CIA Director James Woolsey, Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, and Gen. James L. Jones as members of its advisory board.

Ijaz's corporate biography notes that Crescent "is investing private equity to develop technologies that protect vital infrastructure and secure against an array of terrorist threats."

Among the companies where he's listed as chairman are WorldSpectrum, which is developing "high-altitude airships ... to provide telecommunications, surveillance and disaster management functions."

There's also Eco-Drive Technologies, which focuses on developing advanced hybrid automobiles, and Crescent Hydropolis Resorts, which touts itself as a developer of underwater hotels and resorts.

I told you he was intriguing.

He's written many op-ed pieces on terrorism and foreign relations in major newspapers and magazines. He's also appeared on CNN and Fox News, among others, on the subjects of terrorism and the Muslim world.

Ijaz made headlines when he made an effort to negotiate a counterterrorism agreement between the Sudan and the United States during the Clinton administration. He's been attacked by critics, including former members of the Clinton administration, for his insistence that he had persuaded the Sudan to turn over the location of Osama bin Laden, only to find the United States too distracted. Although right-leaning media outlets have made much of the Sudanese issue, according to the 9/11 Commission didn't find credible evidence to support the most dramatic claims.

Ijaz, who calls himself an independent, also is listed as a generous contributor to Democratic Party causes, including $525,000 on Al Gore's behalf, according to The Washington Post. Although he's never run for public office, Ijaz obviously understands what makes the campaign wheels turn.

John L. ends his piece flawlessly ...

Would Republicans embrace him? Would Democrats stop laughing long enough to take him seriously?

I suppose you'd like me to direct you to some of his work now? Fine then, have at it.

On Iran having nuclear weapons.

Iran and nuclear terrorism.

On Muhammad cartoons (scroll down).

Dubai Ports.

So, would you support a Muslim running against a politician you want removed?

Rex Grossman's Critics Are Still Idiots


Well, it's all happening again. Rex Grossman's critics have already started in on the starting quarterback of the Chicago Bears.

Many of you remember my column last year "Rex Grossman's Critics Are Idiots." I'm here to tell you that they are all STILL idiots!

In my first column (written at 4am on Ambien) I showed you that in spite of the criticism Grossman had a stellar first year as a starter compared to numerous hall of fame quarterbacks. Not to mention he helped his team get to the Super Bowl where he played well until he had to start coming from behind thanks to the poor play of the usually dominant Chicago defense.

The attacks this year are focussed on Grossman's last outing against the Colts and, as usual, completely ignore his previous game. In game one against the Texans, Grossman was great. He completed 80% of his passes, had no turnovers, and left the game with an 87.5 qb rating. Remember, Grossman marched his team up the field with ease, but the Bears failed to score because of special teams play.

In the game against the Colts, things didn't go as well overall for Grossman. So what! It's the preseason!

This time around, Grossman threw one INT while fumbling the ball 3 times (two at the snap ... the third could not have been avoided). He coughed the ball up to the Colts twice in the game. Of course, this means that Grossman should lose his job immediately according to some "experts."


It was a performance that did nothing to ease doubts about whether he can lead the Bears to another NFC championship.

Obviously, there is an overriding question as the season approaches. How long will coach Lovie Smith stick with Grossman?

He stayed with the quarterback when he struggled last season, but it's unlikely Smith will show as much patience this time. Not with the Bears' expectations soaring.

Grossman figures to start the remaining two preseason games and the opener against San Diego, but if he continues to falter, the calls for backup Brian Griese will likely reach a deafening level.

I like the assumption that Grossman will "continue" to make mistakes. This was written after only one poor performance, and it completely ignores the improvements Grossman made. We'll get to that later.

Vic Carucci - NFL.Com:

I think the Chicago Bears should be worried about Rex Grossman.

I think they should be worried that he is trying too hard to end his bumbling ways. I don't think they should be worried to the point of going with a different starting quarterback, namely Brian Griese, for the regular season. But I also don't think Grossman's multiple turnovers against the Indianapolis Colts on Aug. 20 should be dismissed as a function of preseason rust. He looked nervous. He looked jumpy. He looked uncomfortable.

For those of you familiar with Vic ... this is a stark contrast to his writings about Romo and Young. Both of them are perpetual fumblers, and error makers. Vic will point out the struggles they've had right before dismissing them, and talking about the confidence the team has in them, and the confidence they have in themselves. When Vic writes about Grossman, however, it's stark at best.

Scott Engel - ESPN:

Grossman will be the same erratic, up-and-down performer he was in 2007. He simply can't be trusted as a fantasy player.

Nice prediction, but Grossman won me a lot of fantasy games last year.

There is plenty more attacking out there, and much of it more personal, but you get the idea.

I told you that Grossman did improve on some things in the game against the Colts. By the end of the game his completion percentage was higher (81.8), he threw for more yards, average yards per throw went up, and he showed Bears fans that he was willing to run for a touchdown. That's been something he's been afraid to do since he tore his ACL.

No one who's writing about Grossman is even paying attention to the fact that he's completed 81% of his passes, that his footwork looks like the Rex of old, or that he is protecting the football better than last year (after the snap). These are all improvements being made by a young quarterback entering into his second season as a starter.

I'm not saying his performance was great, or even good. There is, however, signs of progress being ignored. Let's not forget that Grossman has been far superior to the other quarterbacks in camp this year. Why don't we talk about how bad Tom Brady has been this preseason? Maybe he's too distracted with his soon to be born child to play this year.

What amazes most is how little effort goes into sports writing as far as facts are concerned. It's all one dimensional and emotional responses without context. Not to mention the hypocrisy of sports writers. To them, the only good quarterback is a perfect quarterback, or at least one that can run fast.

Lord knows sports writers love quarterbacks that can't pass, but can run. Fumbles and inconsistencies be damned, but the moment Grossman commits 1/3 of the errors those "running qb's" do ... he's demonized because he isn't exciting.

Since Grossman is being criticized for fumbles ... let's examine some other qb's that fumble just as much as Grossman, and more.

In 2006, Grossman fumbled 8 times. If we are going to criticize him for fumbles we might as well criticize everyone else.

  • Tom Brady - 12
  • Drew Brees - 8
  • Jay Cutler - 8
  • Brett Favre - 8
  • Damon Huard - 9
  • Jon Kitna - 11
  • Matt Leinart - 8
  • J.P. Losman - 13
  • Eli Manning - 9
  • Carson Palmer - 15
  • Philip Rivers - 8
  • Tony Romo - 9 (10 Starts)
  • Alex Smith - 10
  • Michael Vick - 9
  • Vince Young - 12

Many of these quarterbacks are considered top quarterbacks in the league. Young even made it to the Pro Bowl, and the cover of Madden, and he stunk last year. He performed worse than Grossman in every category, and won less games yet he is treated like some kind of hero.

No doubt some of those names surprised you ... like Brady and Palmer. Are any of the sports writers going to talk about those gremlins? Is anyone going to point out that Young has yet to prove he can actually throw a football? Nope.

My point with all of that was to prove that there are several qb's in the league, that are top qb's, who are more likely to fumble than Grossman. Yet no one is concerned about their history in failing to protect the ball. There is no indication in Grossman's history to suggest that he is a risk to consistently fumble the ball. Nor is there anything in his history to suggest that last year's errors were anything but an anomaly.

That's what you get with the Maddenisation of football. Everyone who plays Madden Football now thinks that they can coach a team, and that they can turn a bad player into an icon by adding to their attribute points. Problem is, that is fantasy ... this is reality.

It takes time for quarterbacks to develop, and for coaches to start winning. Football fans used to understand that, but not anymore. We've grown too impatient, and ignorant of how this game is played. As a result, great players are cast out because they didn't "develop" fast enough for us. Only to resurface several years later to show us all the great players they actually were, but with only a couple of years left in their careers.

Grossman has vowed that fumbling the snap will not be a problem, and has accepted full blame. That is the Grossman I've been watching since he suited up at Florida, and I haven't seen him since he tore his ACL. When I see Grossman jumping around like a little kid on Christmas morning again every time he makes big play ... I'll know he shut out all of his critics, and the real Rex Grossman will give us one hell of a show.

Welcome To Needs Of The Many 3.0

Well, I got a hair up my butt last night and decided to redo the site. I still have some tweaking to do over the next couple of days, but so far I think it looks pretty solid.

You still have the same great blogging you've always had, and you still have nearly two dozen news feeds, that are constantly being updated, at your disposal on the right sidebar.

When I started adding news feeds to the site a while back you'd be lucky to surf the net and find another blog out there with news feeds. Now it seems they are all jumping on board, and adding feeds to their sites. Imitation is flattery but they still don't have the vast amounts of sources that Needs of the Many has for all of you.

Hell, I've even added daily quotes from Ronald Reagan below the feeds.

Whether you are a hardcore blogger, or just a news junkie ... you can get your fix right here with the vast amount of news sources available to you. Don't wait for some other blog to write a post about something. Just make us your first stop of the day, and you'll see all of the important stories hot off the presses.

Feel free to send any news tips to me, and I am still looking for bloggers to help with the site.



Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Update: Chief Border Patrol Agent Says Illegals Not Border Patrols Problem

Remember the Chief Border Patrol agent of the Laredo Sector saying:

  • "Border Patrol agents don't have the responsibility of apprehending illegal immigrants."
  • "The Border Patrol is not equipped to stop illegal immigrants," Carrillo said, noting that illegal narcotics are also not on the agents priority list.
  • "The Border Patrol mission is not to do any of those things," he emphasized.

He instead said that the BP's job was to stop terrorists, and that they were ready for that mission. Which is odd because if you aren't equipped to stop illegals, and drug cartels, you aren't equipped to stop terrorists.

You can read more about his comments last week here.

Well, I decided to go to the Border Patrol's website, and check out the Laredo Sector's webpage. Guess what I found?

I was doing some checking on the BP website to see if this agent has any links to some of the other suspicious activities that have been happening on the border the past several months.

We have agents in prison for doing their jobs, and blueprints of border stations turning up in public garbage cans, and a few other things that have been suspicious.

To have a chief agent say that the BP isn't responsible for illegals crossing the border seems to point in the conspiracy direction as to why Ramos and Compean were arrested.

So I was poking around the Laredo Sector's webpage when I came across a letter written by the same agent that said last week illegals are not the responsibility of the border patrol.

Here it is:

Pretty damned funny and interesting all at once ... isn't it?

In this letter Chief Patrol Agent Carlos X. Carrillo contradicts everything he said last week at the townhall forum. In the letter, he states:

Our primary function is to enforce the immigration laws and prevent illegal entry of aliens into the country.

Hmmm ... I wonder what changed his mind?

Poll: Should A Police Officer, Who Is Married To An Illegal Alien, Lose His Job?

He's a cop. She's an illegal alien.

Take the poll at the bottom of this post.

That's the choice we in Vegas are asking Sheriff Gilespie to make. Last Sunday we learned that one of our police officers was married to an illegal alien. While our local paper themselves is down the middle on the issue ... there are several reporters that are pro-illegal, and they write plenty of articles on the subject.

Many of those reporters, like Lynnette Curtis, are always looking for the sympathy angle in the immigration debate. You know what I'm talking about ... the whole love angle, and don't split up families, etc.

That appears to be the angle Ms. Curtis took with this article. A police officer puts his name, and his picture, in the local newspaper to expose that he himself is breaking the law that he is sworn to uphold.


He's a cop.

She's an illegal immigrant.

They're in love.

It's not the plot of a made-for-TV movie. It's real life for Cesar Urena, a local police officer, and his wife, Yuvia, who is living in the United States illegally.

The situation has brought to their young marriage a serious undercurrent of fear and uncertainty.

"I'm scared they're going to come here one day and just take me away," Yuvia, 28, said on Thursday while holding the couple's 1-year-old son, Sebastian.

I'd like to point out that they are fully aware that they are both breaking the law. Otherwise they would not be so afraid of ICE coming to take her away.

Cesar Urena, a 27-year-old U.S. citizen and former Marine who served a tour of duty in Iraq, says he understands why some might find the couple's relationship especially interesting considering his law enforcement work.

"It's tough for me, because I'm in the middle," he said. "I see both sides."

But Cesar wasn't worried about Yuvia's legal status when they met in 2001. Yuvia, a Mexican national, was working at a souvenir kiosk in a local casino at the time. Cesar was visiting Las Vegas from California with some Marine buddies.

The two hit if off and began a long-distance relationship. They fell in love, and Cesar eventually moved to Las Vegas to be with Yuvia full-time.

They married about three years ago, and have a second baby on the way.

Ok, so he lived in California, and she lived hear in Vegas. He visited and hit it off with her, but the relationship didn't develop into the typical one night stand. Instead it became a long distance relationship, and eventually he moved to Vegas to be with her.

He would then become an officer with Metro while having this relationship with an illegal alien. They then got married, had one kid, and have another on the way.

The whole "he was a soldier in Iraq" bit was a cute attempt to arouse sympathy for him breaking the law.

Before we continue I'd like to point something out about Metro's (LVPD) standards for acceptance on the force.

We all know you can't be a cop if you are a felon. Metro, however, takes it one step further. If you commit a misdemeanor crime in another state, and are never convicted of a felony, but that minor crime would have been a felony in Nevada ... you can't join the force. Even though you have no felony conviction on your record ... if it would have been a felony here ... you can't become a cop.

So how did a force with such strict standards miss something like this with the extensive background, and interview, checks they do?

The couple recently decided it was time to get Yuvia's legal status in order. They contacted a local immigration attorney to explore their options.

What they found out was that those options are extremely limited, and could involve them being separated for up to a decade.

Current U.S. immigration law requires that a person make a lawful entry into the United States in order to adjust to legal permanent resident status.

If a person entered the country illegally, that individual would have to leave the country and then come back.

Well, it's nice of them to finally decide to do the right thing.

Current US immigration law states that if you have been in the US illegally for less than 1 year, you face a potential 3 years before you can return. If you've been illegally in the country for over 1 year, you face a potential 10 years before you can return legally. The interesting aspect of this is that if you never enter the US illegally, but are waiting to enter our country the legal, proper way ... you face a 12-15 wait is most cases. Now tell me that illegals aren't cutting in line.

This is where it starts getting really amusing.

But if Yuvia leaves the country, she can be barred from returning for up to 10 years because she lived in the United States illegally, even though she's married to a U.S. citizen.

It's a dilemma many families of mixed immigration status across the United States face: Remain here illegally, or potentially be separated from loved ones for up to a decade in order to get legal status.

For now, the couple has chosen the former. Yuvia has no plans to return to Mexico.

"I might not be able to come back," she said. "I'm not going to be separated from my family for 10 years."

This is the great lie about the immigration debate from the sympathy seekers. THE US CAN NOT SEPARATE FAMILIES FROM ONE ANOTHER BY DEPORTING AN ILLEGAL ALIEN! It can't be done, and is impossible ... period, end of story! The only people that can break up a family and be separated from loved ones are the families themselves.

There is no law, statute, or any other entity that requires the US citizens to stay in the US while the illegal is sent home. If an illegal is deported you can pack up, and move out of the US to keep your family together until you can legally resolve the case.

If a family chooses to split themselves up ... that is their choice, and their choice alone. It is not the fault of the government, and there is no one to blame but themselves. They knew the risks in marrying and having children with an illegal, and they chose to accept that risk. They must be willing to accept the responsibility, and consequences of their decision.

So this family doesn't want to be split up, but they don't have any plans to return to Mexico ... why?

The couple could move together to Mexico until Yuvia gets legal permission to come back to the United States, but it's not an option Cesar is considering.

"I have to stay here," he said. "My job is here. I would be lost in Mexico."

AWWWWWWWWWW! He would be lost ... poor baby. His job may not be here much longer either. That should make his decision a little easier.

He should have thought about all of this before he started breaking the law. Folks, this IS A COP TALKING! He is duty bound to uphold the law yet he breaks it everyday.

This police officer knew the risks of entering into a marriage with an illegal alien, and now he is unwilling to make the situation right because it's too difficult. It's always difficult to do the right thing. If he won't do the right thing now, and uphold the oath he swore to uphold ... how can we trust him as a law enforcement officer?

It doesn't matter what your view on immigration is in this case. Bottom line is that it IS illegal to harbor an illegal alien (which is a fugitive on the run), and many Americans have paid a price for this action in criminal court. You can not have a police officer who perpetually breaks the law to remain on the force.

Sheriff Gilespie has been asked about the situation by AM 840 KXNT. He said he'd look into the matter.

Should A Police Officer Married To An Illegal Alien Lose His Job?
Yes, he is breaking the law.
No, the law is wrong.
He should not lose his job, but should face suspension. free polls

Monday, August 20, 2007

So, It Turns Out The Border Patrol Isn't Supposed To Secure The Border

What would you say if I told you the Border Patrol wasn't supposed to prevent illegals from crossing into the United States?

What if I were to tell you that a Border Patrol agent confirmed that it was not the BP's job to do so?

You'd say I was nuts, right? Well, you'd be dead wrong.

LMT Online:

Border Patrol agents dont have the responsibility of apprehending illegal immigrants, Carlos X. Carrillo, chief patrol agent for the Laredo sector, said at a town hall meeting Wednesday."The Border Patrol is not equipped to stop illegal immigrants," Carrillo said, noting that illegal narcotics are also not on the agents priority list.

"The Border Patrol mission is not to do any of those things," he emphasized.

The Border Patrols mission is to keep the country safe from terrorist and terrorist weapons, he said. Carrillo added that when and if terrorists come into the country, the agents will be ready.

After the support the BP showed Ramos and Compean ... I bet you didn't expect that.

Funny thing is that the BP's mission statement disagrees with this guy.

H/t: Hotair ...

Beauchamp Only Enlisted So He Would Have Something To Write About

That's right ... the soldier who penned columns making up stories of cruelty by our troops, hates the military, and only enlisted so he would have something to write about.

He's a fraud ... two-fold.


Just as the world was beginning to wonder if The New Republic had been tricked by a fabricator for the third time in the past decade, the magazine’s staff went to a party.

It was a going-away party for a longtime New Republic senior editor Ryan Lizza, but the staff seemed more interested in discussing the magazine’s immediate future. It was July 20 and the avalanche of questions about a first-person “diarist” piece under the pseudonym “Scott Thomas” –a direct threat to the magazine’s credibility—was starting to tumble down.

Later that night, Robert McGee, a then-assistant to The New Republic’s publisher, went looking for the host. He is curious what Foer thinks about the building scandal. He wants the inside dope.

He finds Foer on the front porch and asks as casually as he can: “So, what’s up with this?”

As McGee recalls the conversation, Foer immediately volunteered the standard answer: conservatives have an ideological grudge to settle because they perceive the magazine to be anti-war, anti-military and so on.

“He sounded almost rehearsed,” McGee said.

What bothered McGee about the conversation was that Foer saw the questions from the bloggers as a completely ideological attack. “Foer wasn’t acknowledging that at least some of the attacks on the [Beauchamp’s] ‘Shock Troops’ piece came from active-duty military members whose skepticism was factually grounded, and not just from stateside political pundits.”

Ok, so we are at a party for the New Republic, and an employee is questioning the articles written by the soldier because of the new media and members of the military exposing them as lies.

I've skipped around a bit for this post ... make sure you read the whole thing. I assure you that you won't be disappointed.

I tracked down Beauchamp’s former fiancĂ©e in Schweinfurt, a town near a U.S. Army base in Western Germany. Her name is Priscilla. She didn’t give her last name. She describes herself as “half German, half American.”

Reluctantly and indirectly over a string of emails, Priscilla reveals a recurring pattern: Beauchamp was repeatedly willing to deceive those close to him to reach his goals.

By age 23, he had been engaged three times to three different women whom he did not marry.

Or consider his relationship with the Army. Priscilla writes: “He hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

Oddly he was secretive about his intentions to serve his country. “He didn’t even tell his mom he joined in the army. One day before basic training he left a note on the table for her…”

It is telling that he did not talk to her face-to-face, but simply made his admission and vanished.

He is manipulative. “He is very charming and he can convince people very good and he tries to make his side very clear.”

He is ambitious. “He always wanted to become a writer and he has a huge imagination,” Pricilla writes, without irony.

In another email, she notes: “He always wanted to write for The New Republic and so he thought the ‘Iraqi Diary’ is a good start and he could keep writing for them after that.”

Beauchamp wrote his first “Baghdad Diarist” for The New Republic, in January 2007, while he was still engaged to Priscilla.

Priscilla believes that one of the reasons that Beauchamp was interested in Reeve (and ultimately married her) was her position at The New Republic.

Indeed, it appears that Beauchamp’s relationship with Reeve shifted into high gear around the time he was first published in the magazine. “He knew Elspeth from college, but they never were a couple. Then she started emailing him in February or so.” That was a few weeks after his first piece appeared in The New Republic. “I really think she supports him with his articles.”

A marriage of convenience perhaps?

There is tons more. It is a real solid account of the whole Beauchamp saga in time line fashion. Well worth the read.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Anti-War Democrat Visits Iraq ... Now Says We Should Stay


Yet another enlightened soul who once opposed the mission in Iraq has somewhat changed their mind after finally visiting the country.

It's amazing what happens when you actually listen to what the military has been saying all along. Just ask U.S. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA). After visiting Iraq, and speaking with US and Iraqi troops he is finally convinced that we need to stay a little longer.

The Olympian:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

It almost makes me want to create an "enlightened" tag with all the converts lately.



Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com