FEMA Will "Relocate" Katrina Victims Instead Of Kicking Them Out On The Street Like They Deserve

I'm getting sick and tired of coddling these "victims." Katrina was a tragedy, and no one is denying that. However, it was a tragedy that happened in August of 2005 ... two and a half years ago! Not only should every one of these people be back in the work force, and at a bare minimum renting apartments of their own, but there is countless cases of fraud being committed by these "victims." It is not them but us, the taxpayer, who are the real victims here.

The reason there is formaldehyde in these trailers is because they are not meant to be lived in for extended periods of time. Everyone involved knows this and has chosen to ignore it in an effort to sacrifice themselves, and their children's health so they don't have to work. Then they can sue the government for more money. This is a classic case of sacrificing longevity for wealth and comfort.

FEMA is not off the hook here either. They are so worried about the public's negative perception of them that they are refusing to do what is right. Which would be to revoke all benefits Katrina victims are currently receiving, and forcing them to return to society by kicking them out of the trailers. This is a two-fold benefit. Not only will they be forced to become productive members of society again, but their health will improve because they are out of those temporary stay trailers. I've written about the trailer issue before.

Here's the latest assault on your emotions by the MSM.

Authorities say they will step up efforts to move hurricane victims out of more than 35,000 trailers now that tests indicate possibly high levels of formaldehyde contamination.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator David Paulison made the announcement Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control has said fumes from 519 tested trailer and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi were on average about five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.

In some trailers, the levels were more than 50 times the customary exposure levels, raising fears that residents could contract respiratory problems.

FEMA -- which supplied the trailers -- should move people out quickly, with priority given to families with children, elderly people or anyone with asthma or other chronic conditions, said Mike McGeehin, director of a CDC division that focuses on environmental hazards.

"We do not want people exposed to this for very much longer," McGeehin said.

I agree that they should be moved. I just think they should be moved out onto the street. Two and a half years is more than enough time to pull your life together, and the proof is in the majority who actually have. The few that remain behind are nothing but leeches upon society who think they deserve welfare for the rest of their lives because Katrina got their feet wet. Perhaps the toxins in the trailers were sent by mother nature to make sure the weak are weeded out.

Hugo Chavez Accuses Exxon Of Terrorism

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is too funny! Hugo "The Human Cannonball" Chavez doesn't think fair play is well ... fair.

Venezuela accused Exxon Mobil of legal "terrorism" on Friday after the giant oil company won court orders freezing $12 billion of the major crude supplier's assets in a dispute at the heart of a worldwide fight for control of natural resources.

Venezuela's oil minister Rafael Ramirez vowed to overturn the rulings, reassuring investors they had little impact on the supplies, operations or cash flow of the state oil company, PDVSA, which has close to $100 billion in assets.

He said Exxon hoped to destabilize the government of anti-American President Hugo Chavez by using the legal battle over the nationalization of an Exxon project to create panic about the OPEC nation's finances.

Yeah, Exxon Mobil is the terrorists. Venezuela is a-o-k with seizing Exxon's assets, but heaven forbid you seize theirs.

It wasn't too long ago that Hugo took control of the last private oil fields in Venezuela. I remember Hugo relishing in his accomplishment. Not once did he ever call himself a terrorist. Hell, he wouldn't even admit he is a communist.

Good for Exxon Mobile for fighting back. Turnabout is fair play.

The Government Wants Seniors To Come Out Of Retirement, & Work Off Their Tax Debt.

This is one of the most twisted stories circulating right now. The disgust will be compounded by the attitude of the article's author towards seniors losing their well deserved retirement.

AP:

The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for $7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.

"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.

He envisions retired doctors mentoring schoolchildren, retired accountants helping with the town's finances, retired lawyers offering their services for a discount. But there are plenty of less-skilled jobs that need doing, he said.

Some of the "less-skilled" jobs just happen to be manual labor in some of the other states with programs like this.

You'll notice the tone of the article is one of compassion for seniors who are overburdened by their taxes. That tone is prevalent throughout the whole article, and is an attempt to seem compassionate for the poor seniors. Did anyone else catch the fact that they are only looking to pay the seniors $7 an hour. Isn't that less than minimum wage?

Naturally, several seniors were featured who thought the idea was a good way to pay down their debt. Hell, even the National Council on Aging said it was a good idea. How heartless, and moronic are all of these blithering idiots?

The entire article was how the seniors can't afford to pay the property taxes on the pittance they receive from social security, and therefore must be FORCED out of retirement to pay off the government. NOT ONE TIME was it even considered that the taxes was too damned high to begin with. Nor was it mentioned that it was the very same government charging excessive taxes to the seniors that also decimated those seniors' social security funds which put them in this bind to begin with.

Here's a suggestion to go: reduce the taxes on the seniors, and put a cap on the taxes so that the seniors can afford them with the funds they currently receive from social security. This is tantamount to slave labor. How dare they back seniors into a corner that leaves them with no choice but to come out of retirement and work for less than minimum wage. Seniors have worked their whole lives to be able to retire in peace. Not to forced into indentured servitude.

Iraq Asks The US To Stay In Iraq Indefinitely

Uh oh ... spaghetti oh!

Just days after al Qaeda's last stronghold in Iraq fell to the coalition ... Iraq has offered a deal to the US to stay in Iraq for the long haul.

Fox News:

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.

In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008.

Yep, Iraq wants the UN out and the US in.

The US will also get some economic benefits from the deal as well.

The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

It is important to note that this is not a treaty, and further negotiations will continue throughout 2008.

Biden Says What We All Know: "Democrats Have No Faith In The American People"

Hell, we've been saying that for a long time. Decades actually if you count every year Rush has been on the air. This really isn't news that Democrats feel this way, but it is news to hear one of them finally say it.

Biden said:

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Seriously, think about it. The entire Democrat platform is based on not believing you can take care of yourself ... that they need to help you in some way.

Even their stance on the military right now is the same thing. The poor, uneducated, helpless military needs us to help them understand what is really happening around them. They are just kids who had no alternative but to enlist, and the idea that they support this war just shows that they are truly naive ... we Democrats must help them.

Richard Belzer best summed it up when he said:

That's bull---t: ask them! They're not, they don't read twenty newspapers a day. They're under the threat of death every minute. They're not the best people to ask about the war because they're gonna die any second. You know, the soldiers are not scholars, they're not war experts.

Now Belzer is a third rate actor on a popular third rate show, and shouldn't be taken seriously ... I know. However, he isn't the first or last Democrat to say such things. Keep in mind he was responding to Congresswoman Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen statements about her visit to Iraq in which she stated that the military personnel she spoke with told here:

"We're proud of our mission, we know what we're doing over here. We don't want you guys in Washington to lose it over there."

That's when Belzer blew up.

Then Ros-Lehtinen cited the knowledge of her Marine officer stepson in Iraq. To which Belzer responded by saying:

“Doesn't mean he's a brilliant scholar about the war because he's there.”

See? They can't take care of themselves.

Biden is generally a distasteful man, but he is right on here. The conservative movement has dominated the liberal movement because we have faith in the American people, and the left doesn't. We believe you only need opportunity to succeed. You don't need your hand held, nor do you need handouts to get by. When Republicans start ignoring this premise, and believing that they know better than the people ... the people don't show up to vote, and Congress is taken over by the Democrats.

Should the American people always be trusted? No. Should they never be trusted? No. The middle ground is where we will find success. You can't always do what the people say, but you should always listen to what they have to say because they will surprise you.

Mexican Trucks To Be Monitored By Satelite

This will at least be of some comfort for you NAU folks out there.

Commercial trucks traveling to or from Mexico will be outfitted with a satellite tracking device to assuage fears that participants in a cross-border pilot program may not follow safety rules.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA, will spend $367,000 on 100 devices for trucks from the United States and Mexico to monitor them as they pick up and deliver loads, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The decision to require the installation of satellite-tracking technology was made after members of Congress questioned participants' compliance with U.S. safety and trade laws, said Melissa Mazzella DeLaney, an FMCSA spokeswoman.

Viva Le Resistance!

ACLU Violates Civil Rights Of Death Row Inmate

That would be his desire for the execution to go forward.

You should know about the debate on executions going on right now, and whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" punishment. If you aren't aware ... it's time to read up.

Start with the José Ernesto Medellín case, and then read the Heliberto Chi case.

Essentially what we have is 51 foreigners , that have been convicted and sentenced to death in the US, may not have their sentences carried out because of the 1963 Vienna Convention. President Bush is also throwing his weight around in the matter, and Texas seems to be standing alone in fighting for their right to execute convicted criminals.

The Vienna Convention states that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. Many of the foreigners (illegals) are arguing that they were not granted access to their country's consular officials. Keep in mind that many have confessed to their crimes of rape and murder.

As a result of these cases we have the ACLU, and other groups opposed to the death penalty, challenging the Constitutionality of lethal injections. Many executions across the country have been halted until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of lethal injections.

Obviously we have several problems with the current situation. State's rights are being violated, this is not a Constitutional issue, and we have international law infringing upon American sovereignty.

The Vienna Convention has no power over internal US affairs, and foreign nationals are NOT permitted under US law access to their consular officials. The US Supreme Court ruled on this very matter last year.

Stating that American law outweighs an international treaty, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that foreign criminals held in state prisons did not have a right to reopen their cases if their rights under the Vienna Convention had been violated.

The 6-3 ruling spares state prison officials a major headache. If the high court had ruled the other way, thousands of state inmates who were not U.S. citizens could have sought to have their convictions reversed.

The international treaty, drafted in 1963, seeks to protect foreigners, including Americans traveling or living abroad. It requires that officials notify the home-country consulate when a foreigner is arrested or held for "pending trial."

Despite its clear terms, police and prosecutors in the United States have failed to notify foreign criminal suspects that they have a right to the help of their nation's consulate.

Two years ago, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, took up an appeal from the governments of Mexico and Germany. The court, based in The Hague, ruled that the treaty gave individuals a right to reopen their cases if they did not get the proper notification.

But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was not bound to follow that ruling.

As you can see ... the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, and they ruled that US law trumps an international treaty ... as it should.

Why this case is being reheard is beyond me, but Phyllis Schlafly thinks it has something to do with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Now for the ACLU (NV chapter) violating the rights of a death row inmate.

William Castillo was sentenced to death in 1996 for bludgeoning to death an 84 year old retired teacher as she slept. He then robbed her house, left, returned, and burned it down. He would later confess to the murder, and was sentenced to die this month by lethal injection. We waived his right to appeals, and accepted his fate. Castillo requested that the ACLU and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty not stop his execution, but his request was ignored for pure ideology.

Nancy Hart of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty and Richard Siegel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada said the Pardons Board has the authority to halt Castillo's lethal injection pending a U.S. Supreme Court review of such injections.

Nevada uses the injection method being reviewed by the court, Hart and Siegel wrote, adding that executing Castillo might put the state "in the untenable position of having to explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution before the Supreme Court was able to rule."

"The state of Nevada should not be executing any of its prisoners, 'voluntary' or not, while the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the method violates the Constitution," they wrote.

As you can see, they didn't give a damn about what Castillo wanted. It's even more laughable that the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty asked people to "write to Gov. Jim Gibbons on behalf of William Castillo!" Even though he opposes their stance on capital punishment.

Their assertion that NV uses the same method under review by the US Supreme Court is false. Nevada uses double the formulation strength being challenged in the Supreme Court.

State Corrections Director Howard Skolnik said that Castillo will get double doses of the three drugs normally used in executions. He said that the change ensures that Castillo should "go out instantly" and not experience "any kind of discomfort."

Skolnik also said the double dose makes the Nevada method different than the Kentucky method of lethal injections, which is the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court review.

That means that if the US Supreme Court rules that the Kentucky method of lethal injections is unconstitutional ... it would not apply to Nevada anyway. The Supreme Court has not issued a halt to all executions in the US anyway, and therefore Nevada would not have to "explain why it felt compelled to rush an execution."

Their arguments are insensitive and false, but they worked.

Convicted killer William Castillo was 90 minutes away from death by lethal injection Monday night when the Nevada Supreme Court stepped in and issued a stay to allow more time to consider legal issues raised by the ACLU of Nevada.

Castillo had his final meal, and was sedated already when the order came down. Also, two of the victim's family members had come to town to witness the execution. I doubt the ACLU will reimburse them for the time and cost of their trip.

Something else had already taken place as well. Castillo's mom had said her final goodbye to her son ... only to be called later that he was not executed. You'd think Castillo and his mom would be relieved, right? Well, you'd be wrong.

News 3's Jesse Corona spoke exclusively to Castillo's family and found they are not happy about the execution being halted.

His family says he had already refused any more legal action on his behalf and that he was ready and willing to die.

"Not that I want my son to die, but I had to accept my son's decision," said Castillo's mother.

Mrs. Castillo says her son told her that he would refuse any more appeals filed on his behalf to stop his execution two months ago. She says it was the most difficult thing she's ever had to do but her son told her he wanted to take responsibility for his actions and die like a man, so she agreed to respect his wishes.

"I had to accept this, and these people come along and yank that from us?" she said.

Now I don't have sympathy for Castillo, but I do for his mother. It is impossible to imagine what she is going through. Not only does she discover that her son is a monster, but she had to come to terms with his death. Now she has to get a lawyer and fight for her son's right to be executed.

"When I hung up that phone, my son died. According to the state he was going to die 8:30 but my son died at 7 when I said goodbye," she said.

Castillo had already ate his last meal and taken the pre-execution sedative and was ready to die.

"His first words were, mom this ain't right. Get a lawyer, get someone out there to help us that was not right they had no business being here."

On top of all that ... she says that the ACLU is far more cruel than the methods they are arguing against.

Mrs. Castillo says what the ACLU did to her family was itself cruel and unusual.

She's right, and I hope she sues the hell out of the ACLU.

Mrs. Castillo, like me, is convinced the ACLU's move was a publicity stunt.

Mrs. Castillo also said that she thinks the last minute stay of execution by the ACLU was really a publicity move for the organization, and not about the issues they say it was about. She says if the ACLU's motivations were pure, they would have requested a hearing last week.

Again, she is right. Requesting a hearing the week before would have saved a lot of grief for the Castillo family, and the victim's family. Instead of requesting that hearing, however, the ACLU was polluting every news agency with their rhetoric on the situation.

The ACLU told News 3 Thursday that they have a lot of sympathy for everyone affected by what happened, but they say the issue was not about any one particular individual on death row, but instead was about the constitution.

Oh really?

So Castillo's desire to die after being convicted, and sentenced to death, was about the Constitution? Even though the Constitution gives states the right to enforce capital punishment, and even though the method of execution being used for Castillo is not the method being constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court? Give me a break!

This is further illustration of the ACLU's hypocrisy. Why, you ask. Because the ACLU has long fought for the right to die, and they've used constitutional arguments to support their efforts.

"Each of us should have the right to die in a humane and dignified manner. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director.

That was in 1997.

• In 2001 the ACLU supported the right of Robert Wendland's wife to take him off of life support.
• 2005 showed another case when the ACLU supported the right to die for Harold Folley in New Mexico.

You get the point ... I don't need to go on.

So why is it that the ACLU supports the right to die for some, but not those who were sentenced to death? The answer ... their political agenda. The ACLU has an agenda to get rid of the death penalty, and in their list of priorities that agenda is more important than the right to die or state's rights.

Thus, the American Civil Liberties Union violated the civil liberties of one William Castillo even though they swear they exist only to uphold such civil liberties.

So You Want To Use Dope, But Not Get Arrested ... Go To San Fransisco!

That's right everybody. San Fransisco has finally decided to move forward with a very controversial plan that will allow intravenous drug users to shoot up without fear of arrest.

Why would they do such a thing you ask. Well, to prevent overdoses of course.

SF Gate:

On Thursday, an all-day symposium - co-hosted by the city Department of Public Health - will examine the idea of creating safe injection centers where users could bring their drugs, shoot up and leave, without fear of arrest.

The idea is to decrease overdoses, keep dirty needles off the street, and cut the risk of spreading HIV and hepatitis C. Those are all good things. It is the idea of providing addicts with their own injection clinic that riles people up.

Naturally, people are riled up over something like this (which has been in the works for years now). The article even quotes one reader as saying:

"What's next? Giving them the drugs, too?"

The answer to that is yes. Now some of you might think I'm going a little too far by saying that, but I want you to use some logic here.

If we are willing to allow dopers to shoot up in an effort to prevent overdoses, remove needles from the street, stop hepatitis and HIV ... surely we will be willing to provide said dope to prevent all of the other crimes involved in buying the dope on the street. Hell, it may even become a proposed strategy for the drug war (yes I know some people have already endorsed this tactic).

Seriously, think about it. The negative impact, and outright danger, to the individual as well as society is far worse if the drugs are purchased on the street instead of being supplied.

11 Year Olds To Get The Pill, At School, Without Parent's Permission

This is almost as bad as requiring kids to attend an assembly, and forcing them to sign a contract that they won't tell their parents about it.

Portland Press Herald:

Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School's health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.

Although students must have written parental permission to be treated at Portland's school-based health centers, state law allows them to seek confidential health care and to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive.

I'm sure many of you are as confused about this "health center" at schools as I am. We don't have that here in Nevada, or anywhere else I've attended school. It's not quite the school nurse, but more like a quick care medical facility.

The city's Division of Public Health, which made the birth- control proposal, operates seven health centers in Portland Public Schools in an effort to increase access to physical, dental and mental health care.

They are located at Portland High School, Deering High School, Casco Bay High School, King Middle School, West School special education program, and two elementary schools -- Reiche Community School and East End Community School.

The first centers opened in the high schools more than a decade ago, Belanger said.

There are 27 school-based health centers in Maine, 20 of which are funded and overseen by the state, including those in Portland, Birkhimer said.

There are more than 1,700 school-connected health centers in the United States.

So while many schools around the country don't even allow aspirin, this one writes prescriptions in between your annual physical, teeth cleaning, and mental health evaluation. I am interested to see the data on the prescriptions recommended for ADD in these "health centers" as compared to schools without them.

ABC News Helped Osama Escape Capture

No, it is not a joke or a lie. Once again, a news outlet here in the US has exposed a classified operation to the enemy that has prevented us from capturing or killing key enemy figures ... including Osama bin Laden.

From now on when someone raises the question of why we haven't been able to get bin Laden after all of these years ... you respond by saying that the NY Times and ABC News are the ones responsible.

NY Sun:

Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy's system.

The intelligence blunder started with what appeared at the time as an American intelligence victory, namely that the federal government had intercepted, a full four days before it was to be aired, a video of Osama bin Laden's first appearance in three years in a video address marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 7, the Web site of ABC News posted excerpts from the speech.

But the disclosure from ABC and later other news organizations tipped off Qaeda's internal security division that the organization's Internet communications system, known among American intelligence analysts as Obelisk, was compromised. This network of Web sites serves not only as the distribution system for the videos produced by Al Qaeda's production company, As-Sahab, but also as the equivalent of a corporate intranet, dealing with such mundane matters as expense reporting and clerical memos to mid- and lower-level Qaeda operatives throughout the world.

The article then explains how AQ hacks legitimate websites, without the knowledge of site's owners, in order to communicate with each other.

One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system. America's Obelisk watchers even saw the order to shut down the system delivered from Qaeda's internal security to a team of technical workers in Malaysia. That was the last internal message America's intelligence community saw. "We saw the whole thing shut down because of this leak," the official said. "We lost an important keyhole into the enemy."

Government agencies are now denying that they were responsible for the leak, but it is impossible to speak on behalf of all of their employees.

Bottom line is that the evidence shows the leak came from a government employee after they were told it was classified ... we don't know who yet. After they leaked the video and transcript to ABC News ... ABC should have withheld the information until after it was aired.

These news organizations must be required to make a choice between the welfare of this nation and their "scoop." So far, the nation comes second. The US government had better start reimplementing some of the internal security measures we had in place during the Cold War, or senseless leaks will continue so long as their is money and/or a political objective to be reached.

Make sure you go to the Sun's website for the full story.

The Senate Is On Fire ... Literally

Several suspicious fires have been set in Senate offices. No doubt, Rush Limbaugh will be blamed by Harry Reid.

AP:

U.S. Capitol Police reported four fires in Senate office buildings Wednesday. All were extinguished by midafternoon, but an investigation continued.

"They are suspicious in nature," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

She said two fires in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and one in the Hart building next door were reported in women's bathrooms and were extinguished between 10:45 a.m. EDT and 12:30 p.m. A fourth, also in a Dirksen restroom, was reported later and extinguished by mid- afternoon, Schneider said.

There was at least one other similar fire last week in a Senate office building bathroom that was determined to have been caused by a cigarette, according to a knowledgeable Senate official who is not authorized to speak to reporters and demanded anonymity.

Capitol Police sent out a mass e-mail noting "a series of small fires that have occurred in the Senate Office Buildings in recent days," and asking for tips. The e-mail said that more building patrols have been added to investigate.

I suppose it could be a little wrath of God to let the Senators know that their lies are not going unnoticed.

Illegals Cost L.A. $1 Billion A Year

I know ... it's shocking.

Nationally, illegal aliens are more of a burden on social welfare programs than poor Americans. In fact, illegals use more food stamps than any other group of people in the US, and our government is promoting this travesty. If we could just prevent them from sucking the life-blood out of our welfare system ... perhaps we wouldn't need to constantly hear about how we "need" to spend more on social programs.

KHTS:

LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

“Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,”said Antonovich. “In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year -- this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education.”

Seriously, we can't work out a trade for all the money we hand over to illegals, and get some oil out of Mexico?

25 Democrats Refuse To Condemn 'Betray Us' Ad In Senate Vote

Hillary has been ducking, dodging and flat out refusing to respond to questions about the MoveOn.org ad taken out against Gen. Petraeus.

Today she had her chance to speak up with the rest of the Senate and condemn the ad ... something that most Democrats have refrained from doing.

Amanda Carpenter:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would not criticize MoveOn.org on the campaign trail for an offensive advertisement the group produced to attack Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, but she sided with the anti-war lobby in a vote on Thursday.

Motivated by the full-page advertisement MoveOn.org published in the New York Times that accused Petraeus of betrayal, the Senate passed a resolution condemning “attacks of honor and integrity” on the general and other members of the Armed Forces.

The advertisement, purchased at a discounted rate, mocked Petraeus’ name as “Betray Us,” suggested he was “cooking the books” for the White House and characterized the general as a “military man constantly at war with the facts” who “will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s “sense of the Senate” resolution passed 72-25.

At least now we know which Democrats are so knee deep in MoveOn money they are willing to accuse a four star general of breaking the law, and violating his oath.

1. Akaka (D-HI)
2. Bingaman (D-NM)
3. Boxer (D-CA)
4. Brown (D-OH)
5. Byrd (D-WV)
6. Clinton (D-NY)
7. Dodd (D-CT)
8. Durbin (D-IL)
9. Feingold (D-WI)
10. Harkin (D-IA)
11. Inouye (D-HI)
12. Kennedy (D-MA)
13. Kerry (D-MA)
14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
15. Levin (D-MI)
16. Menendez (D-NJ)
17. Murray (D-WA)
18. Reed (D-RI)
19. Reid (D-NV)
20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
21. Sanders (I-VT)
22. Schumer (D-NY)
23. Stabenow (D-MI)
24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
25. Wyden (D-OR)

You can see the full role call here.

The following didn't vote.

1. Biden (D-DE)
2. Cantwell (D-WA)
3. Obama (D-IL)

You'll notice that John Kerry voted against the measure to condemn the ad. This is odd given that he was one of only three Democrats to criticize the MoveOn ad shortly after it came out. Kerry is on record as saying the following:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, criticized MoveOn.org Monday for taking an ad out in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus. The general is testifying before Congress today about the situation in Iraq. (Related: Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus)

“I don’t like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general,” Kerry told CNN, adding “who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country.”

Gee, I wonder what changed his mind?

The GOP also asked the Democrat leadership to condemn the ad in an internal memo, but didn't get many takers.

Today, Bush finally spoke out against the ad, and Democrats that support it, publicly for the first time. We have had reports that he was furious in private meetings.

In a press conference Thursday morning, President Bush told reporters he thought the advertisement was “disgusting.”

He also spoke candidly about Democrats who were reluctant to criticize MoveOn.org. “That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military."

"That was a sorry deal,” Bush said.

To top this whole thing off, Democrats have been running to hide under their desks to avoid having to go on record in support of the MoveOn ad. Dick "The Turbin" Durbin tried to block the vote from even happening.

Cornyn first offered his resolution immediately after the offending advertisement was printed on September 10—the day Petraeus was scheduled to make his first appearance to testify about progress in Iraq. When it was offered, Democratic Majority Whip, Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) used a parliamentary move--issued a point of order based on “germaneness”--against the measure to prevent the Senate from voting on it.

Make sure you don't question their patriotism everyone.

Remember When Hillary Said Her Socialized Health Plan Wasn't Socialized? Well, It Is.

Take the poll at the top right of this page ...


UPDATE:

Will you be punished if you refuse to enroll in Hillary's new socialist health plan?


Many of you will remember when Hillary was asked by black journalists about the negative effects of her socialized health plan on the black community ... she responded by saying:

"I have never advocated socialized medicine. That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Yesterday, Hillary rolled out her new "American Health Choices Plan." Well, it turns out that her 'non-socialized' health plan is very much ... socialized.

To refresh everyone on what socialized and socialized medicine means, I have included the following definitions:

Socialized Medicine:

Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government.

Socialize:

1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.

There, now we are all up to speed on what we are actually talking about here.

On Hillary's own website, you can read the summary of the plan in her own words.

Before we get started I'd like to point out that the idea you can increase the number of people insured, and increase the benefits while reducing the cost is absurd at best. Especially when you are talking about a minimum of 47 million new people.

This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality. Specifically, the American Health Choices Plan will:

The language makes it sound good, but again you can't increase the number of the insured, and provide more benefits for less cost. This is grade school math people.

The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive:
Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

A Guarantee of Quality Coverage:
The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

Notice that they will have a 'public plan' to choose from. That's socialized medicine.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

Again ... not possible.

Reducing Costs:
By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

Strengthening Security:
The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination:
By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

This is the part that people will roll with their emotions on. Certainly, no one wants to be denied insurance, and I'd support that provision by itself. However, to not allow an insurance company to set their premium based on the health of the insured is blatant socialism. Many small companies will go under because of this provision. I don't believe people should not be able to get insurance, but I also believe that a company has the right to charge an appropriate premium based on the financial risk of the insured.

Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.

This is damn risky! This allows the consumer influence over how a company operates. A company in a free market economy has the right to operate as it sees fit. Sometimes it works ... sometimes not. That's what the market is for. You do not let the customer tell the company how to do business.

Insurance and Drug Companies:
insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

Individuals:
will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

Providers:
will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

Employers:
will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

Government:
will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

It doesn't get more socialize than to REQUIRE that all people get health insurance. What if I don't want health insurance? Maybe I have a medical savings account, or maybe I have enough money to pay cash for any medical issue that arises. Oh wait ... I get it now. I am going to be required to pay into the system so that my money will help cover the cost of those that are unhealthy who now get a discount on their premiums. I'M BEING TAXED!

Go to Hillary's site to read the last provisions of the plan.

At the very least, most Americans will now pay more money for their health care than they were before so we can provide lower cost insurance to people who have health problems. The plan is categorically unfair to those Americans that don't want health insurance for whatever reason.

To top it all off ... a very prudent question was asked about the plan that 'requires' all people to enroll. Will it cover illegals, or just American citizens?

Now Hillary has been working on this plan for over a decade now. You'd think she would have thought about this all important issue. Especially since illegals are such a massive burden on our medical industry. In fact, this could be the most important aspect of the plan's success or failure. So what was her response?

Senior [Clinton] policy adviser Laurie Rubiner–-while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a “huge issue” in this country–-said, “That’s one we’re going to have to think through a little bit.”

“We have not dealt with every single detail with this plan,” Rubiner continued.

They haven't even bothered to address the issue yet?

There is a couple of things to look at here. One of those being that illegals cost the medical industry about $35 billion a year. Which raises health care costs and premiums.

1. If illegals are not required to enroll ... will they still receive the same medical care as everyone else?
2. If so, won't premiums and costs continue to increase as the financial burden grows ... as it does now?
3. If they are required to enroll ... will we then deport them as they come forward?
4. If not, how can we confirm their income, and will their employers be punished?

If illegals are not required to enroll, but still receive the same benefits as Americans do you will see a backlash of which the likes have never been seen before.

I'm also wondering if abortion will be covered, but I think we all know the answer to that question.

Plasma TV's To Be Banned

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Petraeus Speaks

As I told you back in August ... Petraeus believes he can downsize our force in Iraq.

He also reiterated that the surge has worked, and violence in Iraq is down. Some of you may remember some of my previous posts where Petraeus tells you the violence is down, and about Reid lying to everyone on the contents of the "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" report. That's when Reid said the surge had failed.

Before Gen. Petraeus was allowed to speak ... he had to listen to a bunch of political rhetoric. Something I'm sure pained him greatly. Don't forget, Petraeus told Congress to shut their mouths back in April because the enemy was listening to them.

You can read some of the Dems' comments here.

You can read the AP article here.

To further illustrate Gen. Petraeus' point that violence is down I have a graph for you of the terrorist attacks in Iraq since 2000.


As you can see, violence is way down in Iraq this year by nearly 2/3. There is still a couple of months left in the year, and the terrorists were very active at the end of last year. However, this year has seen significant improvement in Iraq.

Last year, in Iraq, there were just over 330 terrorist attacks per month. This year, that number has declined to 127 per month.

Furthermore, global terrorism is also way down from last year.


It is important to note that even though terrorist attacks last year were so high ... the entire world, outside if Israel and Iraq, saw a decrease in terrorist activity.

Global terror last year yielded 554 attacks per month. This year, so far, those attacks have declined to 181 per month ... big difference.

You can compile any terrorist data you'd like using the analytic tools at TKB.ORG.

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.

WND:

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.

Hillary Lies To Black Journalists

We all know what Hillary Care is ... it's socialized health care. There can be no denying it ... unless, of course, you're Hillary.

Last week, here in Vegas, we had the National Association of Black Journalists in town, and Hillary spoke at the convention. She was asked a very solid question by a journalist about the negative impacts her socialized health care plan would have on the black community.

Here's her response ...

LVRJ:

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning for president, faced a rare skeptical question at a gathering of the National Association of Black Journalists in Las Vegas last week. Why does the Democrat insist on pushing socialized medicine, "particularly when it will hurt African-American communities more than anybody else?" she was asked.

"I have never advocated socialized medicine," the former first lady replied. "That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Uh ... yeah ... that whole "vast right wing conspiracy" thing again.

Before we continue, allow me to define socialized medicine for you.

Socialized Medicine:

Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government.

Socialize:

1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.

Ok, does everyone have it? If health care is placed under government control, and is funded by taxes ... it is socialized health care. It is not a conspiratorial attack on Hillary.

Unfortunately, some of us still have copies of the 1,300-page proposed "Health Security Act" crafted by Mrs. Clinton's secret committee in 1993. Under it, a patient who "stepped out of line" and offered to pay cash for a doctor's services would have been subject to criminal penalties.

But such heavy reading is hardly required. What is the rationale of the nanny-staters for all their new seat belt laws, helmet laws, child restraint laws? That "everyone" will have to pay our medical costs if we're injured, of course.

That's socialized medicine. Or does Sen. Clinton regularly vote against ongoing allocations for Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP?

Why is Hillary trying so hard to hide from her own plan? It is what it is, and you can't spin it become something else.

Hillary, you just got pwned!

To read what the exchange entailed, and Hillary's lies on the socialized health care of other nations go HERE.

Law Enforcement Allowed Access To US Spy Satellites

Google is coming! Google is coming!

No doubt the paranoids will loose their lunch over this move, and will cite it as proof the US is becoming a police state.

The US government has vastly expanded the number of local and federal authorities allowed access to US spy satellites.

Before anyone gets bent out of shape here ... let's remember that you have no expectation of privacy when you go out in public.

WSJ:

The U.S.'s top intelligence official has greatly expanded the range of federal and local authorities who can get access to information from the nation's vast network of spy satellites in the U.S.

The decision, made three months ago by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, places for the first time some of the U.S.'s most powerful intelligence-gathering tools at the disposal of domestic security officials. The move was authorized in a May 25 memo sent to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking his department to facilitate access to the spy network on behalf of civilian agencies and law enforcement.

Up until only a few agencies had access to the satellites, and only for scientific research.

The satellites will also be utilized for that "virtual fence" on our southern border.

Rove Steps Down

I know, I know, everyone is doing this story. Nor do I need to put in the effort to quote what some of the prominent liberal blogs are saying about the situation. Just read the story HERE if you haven't already.