Sunday, October 31, 2010

Not Quite Getting It

Andrew McCarthy is a smart guy, and, as I usually say, much smarter than the alleged Smart Guy, Erwin Chemerinsky. But McCarthy has missed the solution to the problem he so eloquently describes in his most recent post on NRO, but more sadly, he touches on the solution, but cannot bring himself to it.

It will not stay an afterthought forever. On Friday, two packages containing explosives were intercepted on cargo planes en route to the United States. President Obama announced that the targets were Chicago synagogues, and the source was al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — Osama bin Laden’s affiliate in Yemen. The alarming discovery capped a week in which the FBI disrupted a plot to attack Washington in a manner reminiscent of the atrocities in Bombay two years ago. Those were carried out by a Pakistani jihadist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba. In the Washington case, the prime suspect, Farooque Ahmed, is also a Pakistani native, and he himself is much more interesting than his plot.
That’s because the plot appears to have been steered by informants after the government learned that Ahmed and another man (elliptically described as “an associate” in an agent’s affidavit) were trying to join a terrorist organization. More worrisome is that Ahmed, like Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber and another Pakistani native, is a young, naturalized American. Like Shahzad, he is in his early 30s, became increasingly radicalized while living in the United States, and acquired citizenship — making it easier for him to plot against us while living among us.

Even if our security precautions were better conceived, even if our agencies consistently performed at their maximum effectiveness (and ask yourself if you do that, or if anyone does that), the odds against continuing to prevent every one of these attacks, or even to dodge them, are too long. The suspect pool is too extensive, it is too easy for those who mean us harm to get here and stay here, the motivating Islamist ideology is too widely disseminated, and the necessary materiel is too readily available. It is little wonder that intelligence services report a noticeable uptick in the chatter that signals an imminent attack.

Eventually, our safeguards will fail. If they do, it will be the other chatter — about Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, the rest of the 2012 intrigue, and even the economy — that recedes from our attention. The uncongenial fact that we remain the target of very determined enemies will push its way to the fore. The new Congress, whether it is under Republican control or merely stronger Republican influence, will need to give our security a good deal more attention than it has received during the campaign...

Agents must furthermore perform amid squabbles over whether terrorism should be treated as part of a war being waged against the United States or as a crime. I have strong views on that subject, and thoughtful people have contrary views they hold just as strongly. But let’s not kid ourselves. Investigations always suffer when beset by philosophical arguments about how they should be done.
This is a matter on which being right, while important, is secondary. The security mission goes on, regardless of the noise around it. As long as the debate is unresolved — and it’s been going on for a decade with no end in sight — we have to ensure that it doesn’t interfere with the mission. Those of us who think war criminals do not belong in civilian courts must nevertheless rally around the civilian prosecutions when they occur. Of course, we should strive to be persuasive in arguing about policy. The goal, however, is to stop the terrorists, not to win the argument over how they should be stopped. Even if we think there is a better way to do this, we want our agents and prosecutors to succeed.

McCarthy thinks the problem is the method of trying the terrorists, as if a military tribunal or an Article III court will end the problem.

Similarly, those who are passionate about civilian due process must not look at every case as an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of the civilian system. Again, the goal is to stop the terrorists, not win the argument. There is plenty of time after a war criminal has been apprehended to debate the forum in which his case should be tried — civilian or military court. But it is abundantly clear that imposing civilian due-process rules too early (Miranda, appointment of counsel, indictment, etc.) can fatally undermine intelligence collection at the most critical stage. Contrary to what some proponents of the law-enforcement approach seem to think, it would not betray their core convictions about the value of civilian trials to green-light aggressive intelligence collection and concede that some due-process protections designed for ordinary criminals are not a good fit for war criminals. It would be pragmatic, which is what they like to tell us they are.
As if matters weren’t politicized enough, agents are also being forced to persevere through stifling political correctness. From the command level, their marching orders make it taboo even to mention terrorism’s catalyst: a mainstream, fundamentalist strain of Islam that we gently call “Islamist” ideology. That makes factoring the ideology into their intelligence assessments impossible. But try outfoxing someone when you’ve been instructed not to consider his motivation, or are told to pretend that it is something other than what it is. It can’t be done. You don’t know whom to look at, where to look, or what to look for.

But, sadly, McCarthy sees both the problem and the solution, but fails to follow through:

That’s because the plot appears to have been steered by informants after the government learned that Ahmed and another man (elliptically described as “an associate” in an agent’s affidavit) were trying to join a terrorist organization. More worrisome is that Ahmed, like Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber and another Pakistani native, is a young, naturalized American. Like Shahzad, he is in his early 30s, became increasingly radicalized while living in the United States, and acquired citizenship — making it easier for him to plot against us while living among us.

Even if our security precautions were better conceived, even if our agencies consistently performed at their maximum effectiveness (and ask yourself if you do that, or if anyone does that), the odds against continuing to prevent every one of these attacks, or even to dodge them, are too long.

And the real problem he alludes to:

The suspect pool is too extensive, it is too easy for those who mean us harm to get here and stay here, the motivating Islamist ideology is too widely disseminated, and the necessary materiel is too readily available. It is little wonder that intelligence services report a noticeable uptick in the chatter that signals an imminent attack.

There we have it, both the problem and, obviously, the solution: Reduce the suspect pool and make it less easy for the suspect pool to enter and remain. Perhaps McCarthy is daring to approach the line but not cross it. I think so, much like Mark Steyn, he seems to know the score, but Ramesh Poneru and Reihan Salam might excommunicate McCarthy, as NPR did for Juan Williams, for his speaking somewhat truth to power. We shall see.

Race Card

A useless Korean lawyer, Jane Kim, who has done nothing as President of the San Francisco Board of Education, has decided to run for higher office as a Supervisor for the City and County of San Francisco. Besides the inane idea that a lawyer knows anything about education or any other aspect of public policy, the real issue is the fact that she is an open racist who is running an openly racist campaign based on Asian supremacy.

At these question-and-answer sessions, the whip-smart, Stanford- and UC
Berkeley
Law–educated Kim thrives. She could nail the salient points while
juggling and balancing on a unicycle: I was a community organizer. I'm now an attorney and president of the school board. I'm all about job creation, families and schools, and safe streets.

Nothing American about her and she is running an openly racist campaign.

Kim has good reason to be tense: The decidedly Asian-heavy crowd attending the forum put on by AsianWeek is her base.

There's plenty to like about Jane Kim, a shopping list of positives to which her supporters and detractors both readily admit. She is young, smart, attractive, and well-spoken. She is a natural on the campaign trail, able to connect with high school dropouts, Tenderloin SRO dwellers, and million-dollar-condo owners. She's a formidable fundraiser. She has earned her political stripes, rebounding from a defeat in the 2004 race for the board of education to be the top vote-getter in the 2006 contest. During her term, she sided with progressive allies in a failed bid to disband JROTC, but she has also proved pragmatic, voting to reform the district's byzantine student assignment system.

And Kim has a not-so-secret weapon that could propel her past better-established competitors, the same factor that could decide next year's mayoral election: She is Asian.

And nothing more. That is the total of her accomplishments, ability and achievements: birth as an Asian. Otherwise, Jane Whatever would be nothing. She has been successful in San Francisco only because of her race and the racism of the Asians of San Francisco.

Now the San Francisco public schools have benefited naught from her rule. Black and Hispanic test scores are at the bottom and Asian students spend their time at after-school cram classes. The one or two successful schools in San Francisco have Asian or White students, who's scores in tests are excellent, but have nothing to do with Kim. As an attorney she has contributed nothing to furthering education in San Francisco. Aside from riding a racial spoils system, she has no accomplishments in life. But given immigration, that is what she is riding to higher office, similarly to another politician. Imagine if she was white and ran on that platform.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Homegrown Terrorist: Not!

The FBI and Department of Justice, as well as the media, are abuzz about another case of homegrown terrorism; the case of Farooque Ahmed. First glance would tell you that there is nothing homegrown about someone named Farooque Ahmed. First it is not an Arab name or an Islamic name, it is a Pakistani name of Urdu derivation. So to the discerning reader one would most likely conclude that this is not a native born American. It is certainly possible as he could have had parents who were not acculturate and he was the victim of their lack of concern for Americanization.
Homegrown is the emphasis from both the press and the FBI:
The Ahmed case, which President Obama was briefed on before the arrest, is the latest in a string of alleged bomb plots by so-called homegrown terrorists.
And:
It’s chilling that a man from Ashburn is accused of casing rail stations with the goal of killing as many Metro riders as possible through simultaneous bomb attacks,” said U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride. “Today’s arrest highlights the terrorism threat that exists in Northern Virginia and our ability to find those seeking to harm U.S. citizens and neutralize them before they can act. We are grateful for the outstanding work of the FBI in detecting and disrupting this plot.”
Both emphasize his alleged Americanness, but Ahmed is neither from Ashburn in any way other than residing there. He seemed to live in his own little Muslim world:
He worshipped at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center, a mosque with several branches in northern Virginia, coming to prayers occasionally by himself, said Robert Marro, a member of the board of trustees. The ADAMS Center, as it's known, issued a statement Wednesday expressing outrage at Ahmed's alleged plot. It also urged people to alert authorities if they know about Ahmed's activities or see any suspicious
behavior.
"He comes in just for prayer services and then leaves right after," Marro said.
A loner Muslim, no threat there. Obviously not wanting anyone to know his real self.
Several members of Hip Muslim Moms said they doubted Mirza Ahmed knew of his alleged plans.

"They were planning to go to Hajj" in Mecca, said one woman, who described herself as close to Mirza Ahmed but did not want her name used. "She was very excited about it."

The woman said she had met Farooque Ahmed several times when visiting her friend's house but did not know him well. She added that Mirza Ahmed, who is of Pakistani descent, was very Westernized. "She hardly spoke Urdu," she said.
Oh, yeah, she is Sergeant Schultz, hear nothing, know nothing. But were going on the Haj.
But, back to the essence of the narrative, the most likely reason for an "American" to be named Farooque Ahmed is that he is not a "homegrown" American. One would be correct. He is an immigrant who was naturalized.
WASHINGTON — A naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan was arrested Wednesday after he allegedly spent six months casing crowded Metro subway stations around the Pentagon in what prosecutors said was a plan "to kill as many military personnel
as possible" by placing bombs on the trains and detonating them during rush hour.
It is clear that he is not homegrown. He is like any number of previous terrorists, an immigrant; like the Times Square bomber he is from Pakistan; like Najibullah Zazi he is from the terror homeland of the Pashtuns. Like Major Nidal Hasan, he is a Muslim. There is nothing American about him other than he apparently spoke enough English to be naturalized without any fraud. In name, in religion, in hatred for America, there is nothing homegrown about him, unless you count the hatred of America like Alger Hiss, Barak Hussein Obama, or Bill Ayers as evidence of his being "homegrown."
Furthermore, though the left is claiming that his wife is acculturate, just look at how she socializes: Hip Muslim Moms. Obviously Sahar Mirza-Ahmed did not want to sully herself by associating with the unclean kafir; She had to participate in activities where the hijab was acceptable. But the hijab is not homegrown. It, like Urdu names, or Islamicism, are imported and unwelcome. And brought to us by immigration.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Unequal Treatment

George Washington University has decided to discriminate against male students, faculty and staff. No, not in the usual way, but in a religiously motivated way. It has decided to have a special swim hour for women only based on the religion of the students, Islam. (h/t Weasel Zippers)
When Zainah Khan packed for GW last year, she left her swimsuit behind.

The Saudi Arabian native knew she wouldn't be able to swim in the Lerner Health and Wellness Center because it is open to both male and female students.
Note that Khan is not a Arab name, much less a Saudi name. It is an Indian name. She is obviously not Saudi, but an immigrant from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. Note also that Saudi women are required to wear the abaya and niquab in public, not just a headscarf that she wears in her photo. So her "modesty" is not the reason for women only swim hours, but the imposition of Islamic law on Americans. She is also seen in public without a male relative, another violation of her modesty and Saudi law.

If she donned a bathing suit in HelWell, the sophomore would risk being seen without her hijab - a headscarf worn by some Muslim women in public - and in immodest clothing, which goes against the basic tenants of her religion.

But this fall, Khan and other female followers of the Islam religion have the opportunity to dive in.

Last week, the Muslim Students' Association and the University opened up "Sisters' Splash," a female-only hour at the pool.

Every week, GW plans to close the HelWell pool to men and will cover the glass door with a dark tarp, giving female Muslim students the chance to swim at their leisure. The University also hired a female lifeguard to be on duty for each week's event.

Aliya Karim, the social chair of the MSA's women's group, said the organization made the effort to coordinate the swimming hour so fellow Muslims would feel comfortable in the pool.

"Personally, I would only want to go when just girls are there," Karim, who is also a Hatchet photographer, said.

Rahiba Noor, a junior who serves as the community service chair of the MSA, said that prior to attending GW, swimming laps at a private pool was an important part of her health regimen. At school, however, Noor said she's resigned herself to staying away from the water and using a treadmill.

"Religious values always define us," Noor said. "Although I wouldn't really mind, it would be satisfying to me religiously to swim only with girls."

For some Muslims, being in public without a hijab puts them at odds with fundamental aspects of Islam.

Khan said to swim in a pool where men could see her, she would have to cover her entire body, including wearing something over her head.

"You could swim around men, but it would be hard, it would be a hassle," Khan said.
Valdez Williams, the operations manager of the gym, said the University helped the MSA coordinate the weekly swim hour because GW wanted to make the girls feel comfortable. "At GW, we try to take care of all of our students," Williams said. "As long as it's requested and works within our policies and procedures, we will generally accommodate them."

Williams said the University would try to schedule one hour each week for the female students to have private access.

"The girls should be able to swim here," Williams said. "We will not penalize them because of their religious beliefs."
Very cute, but besides the obvious violation of journalistic ethics where they write a story about their own employee, there is another problem. The special swim hour is illegal. It is a violation of various civil rights statutes enforced by the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Schools who receive federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of sex or religion on access to or use of their facilities.
To wit:
The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights.We serve student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems. An important responsibility is resolving complaints of discrimination. Agency-initiated cases, typically called compliance reviews, permit OCR to target resources on compliance problems that appear particularly acute. OCR also provides technical assistance to help institutions achieve voluntary compliance with the civil rights laws that OCR enforces. An important part of OCR's technical assistance are partnerships designed to develop creative approaches to preventing and addressing discrimination.

The Office for Civil Rights enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin is prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; sex discrimination is prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and age discrimination is prohibited by the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. These civil rights laws enforced by OCR extend to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums that receive U.S. Department of Education funds. Areas covered may include, but are not limited
to: admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, housing, and employment. OCR also has responsibilities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (prohibiting disability discrimination by public entities, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance). In addition, as of January 8, 2002, OCR enforces the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Section 9525 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). Under the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, no public elementary school or State or local education agency that provides an opportunity for one or more outside youth or community groups to meet on school premises or in school facilities before or after school hours shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society.
And from the infamous CRD:

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color,
religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation.
Now just imagine if GWU had a policy of men's only swim hours for Christian men who did not want to be subject to the temptation of scantily dressed women. Of course no university or other place of public accommodation would even consider such a policy, but for women and Muslims, that is justified. The only question is whether Barak Hussein Obama will see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Many Abuses Of Asylum

Two immigration fraudsters are in the news, using asylum to game the system to avoid deportation. Irma Medrano and Josephine Edu are immigrants, one illegal, the other legal, respectively, who are in the process of deportation. Medrano has been in the U.S. illegally since 1995 and Edu since 1989.
First Medrano:
A Mountain View woman who fled a violent husband and entered the United States illegally in 1995 faces imminent deportation to El Salvador, where her husband has been looking for her, her lawyer said Monday.

Irma Medrano, 44, is being held by immigration authorities at a jail in Yuba City (Sutter County) and could be deported as soon as today, said attorney Aubra Fletcher. She said the government has refused to delay Medrano's case to let her apply for political asylum and has disputed her claim that her life would be in danger in El Salvador.

Medrano's relatives in San Salvador have reported that her husband has come to look for her after he learned that she was on the verge of being deported, Fletcher said. She said police protection has improved little since the early 1990s, when Medrano's husband tried to strangle her with a belt and a police officer allegedly told her, "We can't do anything because it's your husband."

But lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security said conditions for women have improved in El Salvador. The number of female legislators and Supreme Court justices has increased, the government said, and police nationwide have undergone training in preventing rape and child abuse.
"The government and police of El Salvador are far more willing and far better able to address (Medrano's) concerns regarding her husband," government lawyers told the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is considering her case.

Medrano's case "has undergone exhaustive review by judges at all levels of our legal system," said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
However, what the propogandists at the SF Chronicle want you to concentrate on, the allegations of abuse, are in fact, fraudulent.
Medrano said she left her homeland after years of abuse and settled in the Bay Area, where her sister, who had left El Salvador under similar circumstances, is now a U.S. citizen. Medrano left her two children with relatives in El Salvador and now has two more children, both U.S. citizens, with another man who was later deported.

She gained temporary legal status in 2001 when the United States granted refuge to Salvadorans because of an earthquake in their country. But her status was revoked because of two misdemeanor traffic convictions, for a hit-and-run causing property damage and driving without a license, and authorities moved to deport her in 2006.

Immigration courts rejected her claim for legal residence, saying she had not shown that her children would suffer extraordinary hardship if she were deported.
The important issues here are that she knew about the asylum system for abuse victims when she entered, but did not use it and, importantly, she tried once for legal permanent residence, but failed. Therefore she had to make something up to get another chance. Of course the thing she made up was that her allegedly abusive husband that she never divorced, was looking for her. Other than her less than credible claim that she was abused at all, there is no evidence that her husband has any intent on doing anything and no evidence that the police will not protect her.
Interestingly enough though the police in this country have no legal obligation to protect anyone, so why are people receiving asylum for issues that occur routinely in the U.S. Of course because of fraud in the asylum system created first by judges then by Congress with the insane idea that victims of general crime are "persecuted." Well, wife beating occurs in the U.S. Why are we giving welfare and green cards to foreigners for something that also happens here. It is not as if she is fighting against a dictatorial government in the name of democracy. She is only allegedly concerned about crime. Not to mention that she had two children out of wedlock here with another illegal alien and committed numerous crimes here. So even while she had legal status, she was flouting the law, aiding and abetting an illegal alien, the father of her other two children while he was here illegally.
Then we have Edu, claiming unlikely stories of abuse for demonstrating against the Nigerian government back in the early 80s. Nigeria certainly has changed alot, from a dictatorship to a barely functioning quasi-democratic kleptocracy. Her story:
Immigration officials who ordered the deportation of a Southern California woman to Nigeria told her she could avoid torture in her homeland - where police had repeatedly raped and beaten her decades earlier - if she refrained from dissident political activity.

That prompted an indignant ruling Tuesday from a federal appeals court in San Francisco, which said the law protects both free speech and the right to be free from brutality.

Josephine Edu "cannot be forced to choose between her conscience and torture," the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 decision shielding her from deportation.
Of course, far into the story, we get the real story. She is a criminal. A dangerous and violent one at that.

Edu, 47, who lives in the Los Angeles area, entered the United States in 1989 and became a legal resident in 1993 after marrying a U.S. citizen. But she was ordered deported after being convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in 2002 for slashing her work supervisor with a piece of glass, the court said.
Her appeal relied on an international treaty that prohibits a person from being deported to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured.

Edu, trained as a nurse and midwife in the Niger Delta, joined a politically active group of doctors and nurses as a young woman. When the group staged demonstrations calling for jobs and government services, Edu said, police responded violently.
It appears that Nigerians like Edu are violence prone:

She testified that officers beat her at a peaceful rally in 1983, then took her to a barracks and raped her during another protest a few days later.

Military officers sexually assaulted her at three subsequent demonstrations, Edu said, the last one in December 1987, when a high-ranking officer beat her unconscious, raped her after she awoke and told subordinates to dump her at a hospital.
Of course, Nigeria has changed alot since the 80s, but the Hearing Officers at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) had an agenda and that is refuge for violent immigrants.

U.S. immigration courts said they believed Edu's testimony that conditions in Nigeria had not improved and that she was likely to be tortured if she returned.
However, the Board of Immigration Appeals was not as credulous as the activist Hearing Officer:
But in a 2006 ruling, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted the federal government's request for deportation and said Edu "could avoid torture by refraining from activities that would put her in danger."
However, our Mexican masters who run the kritarchy disagreed:
That contradicts the purpose of the treaty against torture, the federal appeals court said Tuesday.

"We reject the (immigration board's) decision that in order to avoid torture she must simply give up an activity that most countries (including Nigeria) ... guarantee to their citizens," Judge Ferdinand Fernandez said in the court's ruling.
But the story of her alleged abuse, even if true, would hardly be relevant since Nigeria has changed so much since 1987, but the story lacks credibility given its convience to protect a dangerous criminal from deportation.
While Edu was not actually applying for asylum, but claiming protection under the Convention Against Torture, something akin to an asylum claim, it still shows how fraudulent claims and a lack of dealing with reality run our immigration system. And is openly abused by convicted criminals. Our asylum laws were certainly not written to protect criminals in the U.S., but to protect those who fought on the side of democracy against communism and dictatorships. Not criminals or even crime victims. Or to give those being deported another run at a green card.

Arrest Maria Gianni


Maria Gianni is an illegal alien. She is participating in our election process in an effort to get amnesty. She is working illegally in the U.S. She should be arrested. She hasn't been arrested. She has no shame or fear. Her photo appears in the Fox News story about her.
Contact Leigh H. Winchell, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at:


1000 Second Avenue
Suite 2300
Seattle, WA 98104
Main (206) 442-2200
Fax (206) 442-2201


or ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations Seattle Field Office Director at:


12500 Tukwila International Blvd
4th Floor
Seattle, WA 98168
Phone: (206) 835-0650
Who knows, there might be a patriot there. Or the new Republican Congress can impeach either of them if they forget their Oaths Of Office and fail to arrest her.

Falling Down On The Job

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tells us that their first priority is terrorism. However, that is not true. ICE is nothing more than the successor to the late Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service. Consequently their responsibility is to enforce the immigration and customs laws of the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has the responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States related to national security, terrorism and espionage, even if those violations involve foreign nationals. But ICE cannot even be persuaded to do its own job. The FBI appears to be doing both:
To wit we see again that the FBI investigated Diana Tejada and Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini for violations of federal immigration laws because Tarhini was identified as a terrorist. They were not investigated by ICE.
An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned.

Diana Tejada, Reid’s Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for “some of her expenses” in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.

Tarhini, now 37, was held in jail and at an immigration detention center in connection with his 2009 indictment on felony charges, documents show. He pleaded guilty to entering a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration laws — a Class D felony — in November 2009, and he was deported in March 2010.
More telling was that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office failed to prosecute Tejada. And note that the investigation and prosecution were initiated under Jorge Bush. And it was a Bush not an Obama Regime decision to not prosecute Tejada. It clearly shows that both the Obama Regime and the Bush Adminstration had a double standard when it came to crimes committed by Hispanics, especially if those Hispanics had political connections.
Here is the non-explanation from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Oklahoma:
Tejada, now 28, was never charged for her role in the crime.

“We did not charge the woman, and of course we don’t discuss the reasons we don’t charge people,” said Bob Troester, spokesman for the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, which began as an FBI investigation out of the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force.
“There’s multiple factors that go into charging decisions. She wasn’t charged and we can’t go beyond that.”
We get a hint of why when we find out that as recently as September 2010 Tejada was still employed by Harry Reid.
As recently as five weeks ago, on Sept. 21, 2010, Tejada appeared as a guest on a Spanish-language radio program in her official capacity as a spokeswoman for Harry Reid.

Monday evening, Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said Tejada was no longer employed by Reid’s office. When asked when Tejada left Reid’s services, the spokesman had no comment.
Manley provided this statement to FoxNews.com:

“Our office was not previously aware of these allegations and, following an internal investigation, the staffer at issue is no longer with our office. The conduct alleged, which took place several years before the staffer worked for Senator Reid, was clearly wrong. But the bottom line remains that this story was a desperation measure by partisan Republicans, who have stooped to slinging mud about junior staffers to score points in the waning days of her campaign.”

In court documents, Tejada, who was also the Press Secretary of Hispanic Media for the Senate Majority Conference Committee, is referred to as “an uncharged coconspirator in the crime of perjury, filing false immigration documents, the crime of sham marriage.”

According to interviews and court records obtained by FoxNews.com, Tejada knowingly filed false documents with the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services; lied in in-person interviews with ICE and FBI agents; and submitted fraudulent visa application affidavits and marriage license documents — all in attempt to use her status as an American citizen to get Tarhini permanent residency.

As a result of her actions, according to court documents, Tarhini was able to obtain a work permit.

“I don’t honestly know the reason why they chose to prosecute Bassam and not her,” said Jeffrey Byers, Tarhini’s criminal attorney.

“I don’t think they could’ve prosecuted the case without one of the two of them saying something, but I suspect they chose to work with the American citizen other than Bassam.”

A Justice Department source familiar with the investigation said:"As exhibited in the court documents, the case prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Oklahoma City was a straightforward case involving two individuals who entered into a fraudulent marriage during college in order for one to evade immigration laws and obtain lawful residence."
Of course ICE and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) fell down on their responsibility to investigate the marriage that was obviously fraudulent.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would not comment on why it took five years to investigate the couple's marriage.
It appears that ICE and USCIS were uninterested in the prosecuting obvious marriage fraud, even though the couple did not live together and even though USCIS knew enough not to approve the immigrant petition based on the marriage; but still they did not make the effort to deny the application.
As part of the process, documents show, she and Tarhini attended an August 31, 2004, meeting at Citizenship and Immigration Services in Oklahoma City, where they misrepresented their marriage to immigration officials.

The next year, Tarhini stayed in Oklahoma while Tejada moved to Washington D.C., where she began working as a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, court and public records show.

In 2008, five years after he filed his visa application, Tarhini filed a suit against ICE officials to force a decision regarding the application — a strategy commonly employed when visa decisions appear to be taking an inordinate amount of time.
And obviously because of Tejada was a well known Mexican activist.

The next year, Tarhini stayed in Oklahoma while Tejada moved to Washington D.C., where she began working as a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, court and public records show.
And an employee of Harry Reid:
In October 2008, Tejada began working for Reid.
One can see that from 2003 to 2010, covering both the Jorge Bush Administration and the Obama Regime, there was little interest in immigration fraud or prosecuting those who assist in immigration fraud. Had Tarhini not been a terrorist, he probably would have skated, as ICE and USCIS were certainly not interested in him until ICE was forced to act by the FBI:
In 2008, sources with knowledge of the case told FoxNews.com, the FBI — working with the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force — sent what’s called a collateral request to ICE, asking them to track down Tejada to interview her about Tarhini.
So there we have it, hate America and white people, and be granted immunity from criminal prosecution.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Doubling Down On Stupid or The Magic Gun Theory

Confederate Yankee has doubled down on the Erik Scott shooting. Unfortunately they are doubling down on stupid, relying on a theory of police and even firefighter/paramedic misconduct involving a magic disappearing gun, similar in intellectual achievement to the magic bullet theory of the Kennedy assassination and a Seinfeld episode.
In summary, the Magic Gun Theory is this:
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers received a call of an armed man at the Costco acting in an strange manner.
LVMPD officers arrived and were then surprised when the suspect, Erik Scott, emerged.
Scott was pointed out by Costco security.
LVMPD officers confronted Scott.
Scott has a cell phone in his hand.
LVMPD officer William Mosher sees the cell phone, mistakes it for a gun and shots Scott with all this taking place in two seconds.
LVMPD officers panic when they discover that Scott has no gun on him.
Then it really gets weird.
Confederate Yankee thinks that Scott was carrying only one gun, a Kimber .45 pistol. The other gun involved was a Ruger .380 pistol, but that was not carried by Scott but at his home. After the shooting, Scott's body is transported by Las Vegas Fire and Rescue ambulance with two firefighter/paramedics and a police officer. While in the ambulance, a firefighter/paramedic finds the Kimber in a holster either on Scott's belt or in his right pocket.
The police officer, and two firefighters then are persuaded/encouraged/convinced to lie and claim that the gun they found was the Ruger.
But with no Ruger in their possession, the LVMPD need to convince the Las Vegas Office of the Public Administrator to illegally search Scott's home to find the Ruger and then introduce it into evidence. The Kimber meanwhile is surreptitiously returned to the crime scene and photographed.
So, here we have a gigantic conspiracy to frame an innocent man involving not only the LVMPD, but Fire and Rescue and the Office of the Public Administrator as well. This includes all the police officers and detectives at the scene, their supervisors, the attendant firefighter/paramedics and their supervisors, and the Public Administrator and his numerous underlings. All because William Mosher mistook a cell phone for a gun.
Just one problem, numerous witnesses testified that they saw Scott draw the Kimber (in its holster) from his waist and point it at Mosher. So, here we have it, not only was the whole of the LVMPD, Fire and Rescue, and Public Administrator involved, but also dozens of witnesses.
Half a dozen shoppers testified that they saw Scott either pull his gun or reach for his waistband before the officers opened fire. Most said they heard only one officer giving commands. There has been some speculation that the three officers gave Scott conflicting commands that lead to confusion.

Annette Eatherton, who was shopping with her husband, said she saw Scott reach for his waist and then heard an officer say, "'Don't do that. Don't do that,' and he did it, and they shot him." After the first shot, Eatherton said she saw a gun enclosed in a "gun rug" fall to the ground in front of Scott.

Her husband, Wentworth Eatherton, himself a former concealed weapons permit holder, gave a similar account and said he thinks Scott was probably trying to disarm, rather than draw his pistol and shoot. Still, he said, Scott should have followed the officer's commands.

"I really think he was just exasperated with the whole thing and wanted to hand them the gun which is where, I think, the mistake was made," Wentworth Eatherton
said.

Shopper Barbara Fee testified that she and her 10-year-old granddaughter were sitting outside the exit door when they saw police confront Scott just feet away.

An officer yelled at Scott to get on the ground, but he reached for his hip, pulled a black object from his waist and aimed it at the officer, she said.

"I thought he was going to shoot the officer," she said. "Fortunately the officer was quicker."
Christopher Villareale testified that he watched the entire confrontation unfold after being one of the last shoppers to leave the store. He said he heard an officer order Scott to get on the ground and saw Scott lift his shirt and pull a handgun from his waistband.

"I honestly thought that civilians were going to get shot," Villareale said. The officer probably saw Scott as a threat to himself and the dozens of people milling around the front doors, he said.

"He's probably thinking this guy is going to harm me or these customers, and I thought he did the right thing in shooting him," he said.

Villareale, who has a concealed weapons permit, said he had an incident with police about a year ago. He said he called police, and when officers arrived he put his gun down, laid face down on the ground and let himself be handcuffed.

After police investigated, they set him free and gave him his gun, he said. If Scott had followed the officer's orders at Costco, that day would have ended much differently, he said.

"I just can't imagine grabbing a gun when you have a police officer pointing a gun and saying get on the ground. Why would you not comply?" Villareale said. "I think he made a very tragic error in grabbing it."
Incidentally, those witnesses included Samantha Sterner, his girlfriend.
She said that as they walked toward the store's exit, she told Scott he was probably the reason for the evacuation, and that he seemed surprised.

They reached the exit door and Sterner said she saw an employee point Scott out to a uniformed police officer outside.

"He (Officer William Mosher) immediately draws his weapon and tells him to get on the ground," she said, adding that Scott put his hands up with the intention of disarming.

Sterner said she screamed at the officers that Scott was in the military and had a concealed weapons permit. She told them not to shoot, she said.

Scott raised his shirt to reveal the gun and had grabbed it to put it on the ground when the officer fired his pistol, she said.

Sterner said the officer "was too aggressive," and she believed he would have fired even if Scott had complied with all directions.

"I just think that this officer was out of line," she told police.

Scott was shot seven times by officers Mosher, Joshua Stark and Thomas Mendiola. When a detective asked Sterner whether Scott took any medications, she said he was on a blood pressure drug and had also taken a pain pill the day before because of a car accident.

Scott's postmortem blood test showed high levels of the painkiller morphine and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax.
Of course, Sterner is obviously a liar, but one would tend to believe her when she admits that Scott had a gun in his hand when he was shot, not a cell phone as her lies were about Scott's extensive drug use.
But the question is why are Confederate Yankee and Bob Owens at Pajamas Media riding this hobby horse to oblivion? Even Vin Suprynowicz has done the limited modified walkback. Why are others doubling down on stupid? Oh, and still no sign of any West Pointer led targeting of the LVMPD.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Japan Fighting Back

The Japanese have an overall low opinion of foreigners, especially those Japanese outside of the major metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka. Many Japanese retail businesses routinely post their establishments for Japanese only and while the Japanese don't hate foreigners, they do love their own culture and nation. They do however judge foreigners on their behavior, and the most ill behaved foreigners are treated the most badly by Japanese.

Japan does have problems with foreigners, mostly Africans, Iranians and Arabs and the crime that permeates those groups who victimize with mostly property crimes. While the Chinese and other Asians fit in better, the Chinese are also know for their fraud rings and espionage, both corporate and traditional forms.

Furthermore, the Japanese know what is going on in the world, and radical Islamic terrorism and the continuing Muslim crime wave in Japan has got the Japanese gander up. And they are starting to fight back. (h/t Weasel Zippers)

FUKUI (Kyodo) A car in front of a mosque in the city of Fukui was found on fire early Wednesday and sign saying "Foreign people GET OUT" written in a mix of Japanese characters and English letters was found posted at the two-story building, police said Thursday.

The possible arson case follows an incident at an Indian restaurant 1.5 km away last month, when a flag was burned and a similar sign posted, they said.

The burning station wagon, owned by a Malaysian student, was discovered at around 1:15 a.m. in the parking lot of the mosque, according to police. There were no injuries.


This is all the more informative in that the Japanese tend to internalize their tendency to violence, as shown by their high suicide rate. Rather than kill someone else, they kill themselves. A sad situation, but it does make it a safer society. But it appears that the Muslims are pushing the Japanese to the breaking point.

Even more interesting is that there is a mosque in Fukui, the capital of Fukui Prefecture, an isolated Western prefecture marked by a narrow coastal plain hemmed in by the mountains that on the other side mark the Kanto Plain and resting on the Sea Of Japan, where there should be few foreigners and no real reason for foreigner to visit, unless you are interested in traditional Japanese architecture and Shinto Temples. Only Japanophiles would be interested at all in visiting. It certainly is informative of the wide penetration of Japan by radical Islam and the failure of Muslims to integrate into Japanese society and cultural norms.

Since there is no government agency like the Civil Rights Division of our federal Department of Justice to make examples of misbehaving Japanese citizens, the Muslims would be wise to take this as a warning of the divine wind about to rain down on them.



Friday, October 22, 2010

Another Aspect Of The Obama Amnesty

But it first must be said that it is not just an Obama Amnesty, it is also a Jorge Bush, Billyjeff Bentpecker, and GHW Bush amnesty, an amnesty based on political pressure on the then Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and now on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to approve benefits for aliens who do not qualify for those benefits. It has been an ongoing policy for years that the legacy INS and USCIS have an unwritten policy of favoring approval of benefits for aliens, establishing work rules and procedures that benefit approval of benefits over denial of benefits and succumbing to outside pressure to approve benefits for illegal aliens. The whole of USCIS is organized to serve aliens rather than protect the United States and enforce the laws of the United States as they are written.

Senator Chuck Grassley is hip to their impeachable conduct and has thrown down the gauntlet and exposed what the legacy INS and USCIS have been perpetrating for years.

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today asked the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Inspector General who oversees the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to address evidence from statements made by immigration officers that senior U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services leaders are putting pressure on employees to approve more visa applications, even if the applications might be fraudulent or the applicant is ineligible. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security.

Grassley first brought attention to this issue in a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas in September. Since then, additional agency insiders have provided new information suggesting that the director is responsible for fostering an environment in the California Service Center that encourages the approval of as many applications as possible, regardless of eligibility or potential fraud. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees, a “visibly agitated” Mayorkas asked employees, “Why would you be focusing on [fraud] instead of approvals?” and, on a separate occasion, at a conference in Landsdowne, Virginia, said that there are some “managers with black spots on their hearts” in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services because they would not approve more visa applications.

“The American people need to know that the rule of law isn’t being undermined by political leaders,” Grassley said. “The safety of America’s citizens is the Department of Homeland Security’s primary duty, and I expect Secretary Napolitano and Inspector General Skinner to address this situation quickly and thoroughly.”

Grassley first raised concerns over U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services visa policy after whistleblower accusations that supervisors directed staff at the California Service Center to “find a way” to approve visa applications and expressed a desire to “instruct generosity” when processing immigration benefits. Since then, additional agency staff has come forward with allegations of retaliation and pressure asserted by leadership.


Senator Grassley is concentrating on the California Service Center (CSC), where, interestingly enough, there was a recent Saturday Night Massacre where several Senior Executive Service and GS-15 managers were removed from their positions and either reassigned elsewhere, sent to DC on detail assignment as punishment, or given make work. Experience with the CSC is that they are of the mind to "bang everything in." The bang being the sound a Service Center adjudicator's stamp makes when it hits the application lying on their desk:

Dear Director Mayorkas:

I write to you today regarding allegations of serious, systemic problems within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Inspector General at the
Department of Homeland Security is currently reviewing actions of officials within your agency in pressuring officials at the California Service Center to approve visa applications despite ineligibility or indicia of fraud. Senior USCIS officials allegedly ordered California Service Center staff to “find a way to get to „yes‟” in processing visa applications, which, if true, signals a potentially serious problem that approval rates are deemed more important than rooting out fraud and abuse.

The Inspector General is also investigating claims of whistleblower retaliation against California Service Center officials who reported this misconduct. The retaliation allegedly took the form of involuntary transfers of the California Service Center officials who complained and official inquiries into allegations about their personal conduct away from the office and interactions with subordinates.

In essence, high-level officials in the USCIS are accused of creating an environment hostile to those who insist on following the law. For example, an email obtained by my office indicates that a high level USCIS official wrote of the California Service Center, “No question we need some serious head changes here… it‟s like Whack A Petitioner here… whatever we do to instruct generosity the CSC [California Service Center] finds a way to tie them up in another little loop.” (Attached) After this email, USCIS involuntarily transferred the two or three service center officials and opened “investigations” into their conduct.

It appears that even the crazed liberalism of the Jorge Bush USCIS is not enough for the Obama Regime, as the CSC has the most notorious reputation for not dealing with fraud and approving benefits in an assembly-line process. But that appears to not be enough for the Obama Amnesty. They are instructing even more generosity. A generosity undoubtedly related to the Obama Amnesty being executed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Houston and throughout the nation.

And the response to Senator Grassley from Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, was the typical DC two-step; first ignore the most important allegation, approval of benefits for ineligible aliens and emphasize how much terrorist related paper shuffling that USCIS does, then deny everything and promise cooperation. In fact, "generosity" is the word to the field from Director Mayorkas which he fails to address in his dishonest and deliberately misleading response. Interestingly enough Mayorkas admits in the letter that SES and GS-15 were reassigned and is basically an admission that he was trying to impose his will on illegally approving benefits for ineligible aliens; meaning that the amnesty must go forward.

Fortunately Senator Grassley was not fooled. He in turn sent correspondence to Janet Reno Napolitano where he essentially calls Mayorkas out as a liar, which he is:

In order to further investigate these allegations, my staff has interviewed seven USCIS employees and obtained hundreds of pages of supporting documents. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that Director Mayorkas is fostering an environment that pressures employees to approve as many applications as possible and condones retaliation against those who dissent.
According to the USCIS employees:

 During a recent visit to the CSC, Director Mayorkas became “visibly agitated” when advised that the employees were interested in learning more about fraud detection efforts. Mayorkas asked, “Why would you be focusing on that instead of approvals.” One witness stated that “his message was offensive to a lot of officers who are trained to detect fraud.”

 Mayorkas admonished officers to “look at petitions from the perspective of the customer.”

 USCIS leadership expressed a goal of “zero complaints” from “customers,” implying that approvals were the means to such an end.

 DHS conducted a human capital survey where USCIS scored low because employees felt pressured by upper management to approve applications.

 Following a presentation by Director Mayorkas at a management conference in February, Deputy Chief Counsel Doug Craig said that Mayorkas had directed him to “get to yes.” At the same event, Chief Counsel Roxana Bacon said that Mayorkas says that all the time and that he had said it recently at a town hall meeting.

 At a conference in Landsdowne, Virginia, Director Mayorkas said that there are some “managers with black spots on their hearts” who can't see their way to grant benefits. He said, “I am dealing with some of these managers.”

 His comments came just after two senior CSC officials who resisted the “get to yes” culture were involuntarily transferred to other assignments.

 One high-level official told CSC employees that these managers “were not transferred for approving too many applications.”

 Other USCIS personnel who were seen as too close to these CSC officials were also transferred or detailed to other assignments, in some cases on less than one day’s notice.

 New CSC leadership was “shocked” upon learning that denials were given extra weight in employee performance evaluations because a denial takes longer to process. The senior official said that policy would “have to change.”

 New CSC leadership has “cultivated a culture of fear and disrespect.”

 An employee advised that the CSC recently abandoned an important anti-fraud procedure. Previously, adjudicators would check applications against a list of petitioners with a history of fraud and abuse. The adjudicators would then forward any matching applications to fraud specialists within the division. Now, however, the applications receive no special handling and there are no longer fraud specialists focusing only on such high-risk applications.

Here we have it, direct from employees at USCIS, there is a policy of approving benefits for ineligible aliens in violation of the law. Someone should inform Darrell Issa that is an impeachable offense. It is also important that Senator Grassley has asked for an Office of Inspector General investigation, but given the well know hostility of the Obama Regime to Inspectors General, Richard Skinner should be afraid for his job. Senator Grassley should be aware though that the head of the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General's Assistant Inspector General for Investigations is a former Secret Service agent who spent most of his career in Chicago. So don't expect much.

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Next Amnesty

While the Obama Regime amnesty continues with illegal aliens like Nicky Diaz free to live in the United States, the radical leftist immigration bar is planning their next amnesty.
The number of deportation cases being dismissed by Houston immigration judges, has risen more than 700 percent since July. According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, 217 cases were dismissed in August, with another 174 dismissals occurring in September. In July, there were only 27 deportation cases dropped by U.S. immigration courts in Houston.

About 45 percent of cases are now simply being dismissed. The Houston Chronicle has reported that U.S. government prosecutors are now actually approaching immigration attorneys to file joint motions for dismissal of their cases. Houston immigration attorney Steve Villarreal confirmed this growing but secretive policy, saying: “They're just doing it quietly.”Prior to July, the Houston immigration courts averaged 38 case dismissals.
They are happy with their first amnesty and are well underway with the their second. The Reds have decided again that expanding the rights of aliens to free legal counsel is part of the way to go, but that expanding the power of Hearing Officers to freely dismiss cases against illegal aliens is the next step. Hearing Officers of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) are executive branch employees and are required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. They take an oath to do so. But the Reds in the immigration bar want to give said employees the authority to not enforce the laws of the United States in the cases of aliens in removal proceedings. They want Hearing Officers to have the authority to engage in an ongoing amensty:
When the competency of a respondent is in doubt, the IJ must have the discretion to terminate the proceedings. This termination can be done with or without the consent of both parties, although if the competency of the individual is a disputed matter, the IJ must call for a competency hearing. The discretion to implement these safeguards is necessary to ensure that immigration court decisions are not arbitrary or unfair. Without such safeguards in immigration court, a non-citizen may face the severe curtailment of liberties that are part of deportation without allowing the opportunity to present evidence in an impartial hearing.
As was predicted following publication of their plans on the immigration bar website, the immigration bar is telegraphing the next Obama Regime move, and it will most likely be expanding the powers of the EOIR and their Hearing Officers to continue the Regime's amnesty.

Tancredo Closing The Gap

Tom Tancredo is closing the gap in the Colorado governors race. The failed Republican Dan Maes, darling of Hugh Hewitt and Carol Platt Liebau, has totally collapsed and is not siphoning off votes from Tancredo, not the other way around as Hewitt and Liebau initially attacked Tancredo for.
Is independent Tom Tancredo now becoming the de facto Republican candidate for governor of Colorado? He’s now moved to within four points of Democrat John Hickenlooper to turn the race into a toss-up.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Colorado finds Hickenlooper with 42% support, while Tancredo, the candidate of the American Constitution Party, earns 38% of the vote. Support for Republican Dan Maes continues to fall and now stands at 12%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Less than two weeks ago, Tancredo earned 35% of the vote to Hickenlooper’s 43% and Maes’ 16%. That shifted the race from Solid Democrat to Leans Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Gubernatorial Scorecard. Now the race moves to a
Toss-Up.
Liebau and Hewitt continue to attack Tancredo despite the turn around. The question is why? While he always denies he supports amnesty, Hewitt is a big amnesty supporter, he just wants to keep out the jihadis and criminals. Of course, in any amnesty scheme that is impossible. Mostly because in the last amnesty the legacy INS did not keep out terrorists or criminals. And they only had to deal with 3 million applicants. It will be 12 million this time. But since Hewitt is an attorney, he thinks he knows everything. But he does not know that terrorists and gangbangers will welcome the upcoming amnesty because they know that through a variety of means they will get in, by hook or by crook.

Thirty Pieces Of Silver

Well, it has been announced what Jones was, or what his price was; a 2011 Hyundai Accent worth $14,200.00.
SOUTH BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- Car dealer Brad Benson made the pitch to Florida pastor Terry Jones in one of his quirky radio ads: If you don't burn a Quran, I'll give you a new car.He was surprised, though, when a representative for Jones called to collect the 2011 Hyundai Accent, retailing for $14,200.

"They said unless I was doing false advertising, they would like to arrange to pick up the car," Benson recalled. At first he thought it was a hoax, so Benson asked Jones to send in a copy of his driver's license. He did. Jones, of Gainesville, Fla., told The Associated Press that the free car wasn't the reason he called off the burning -- and that he didn't even hear about the offer until a few weeks after Sept. 11, when he had threatened to set the Muslim holy book on fire.

He said he plans to donate the car to an organization that helps abused Muslim women. The pastor will have to pick up the car at Brad Benson Mitsubishi Hyundai in South Brunswick -- known locally for Benson's radio ads focusing more on current events than cars -- so he can fill out paperwork. No date has been set for the handover. Jones had threatened to burn the Quran over plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near where terrorists brought down the World Trade Center nine years ago.

Muslims revere the book as the word of God and view its destruction as sacrilege.
His plans drew opposition across the world. President Barack Obama appealed to him on television, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates called him personally. Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, said carrying out the plan would have endangered American troops.

Benson, a former New York Giants center, said he originally offered Jones use of a car for a year if he refused to burn a Quran ever. "I just didn't think that was a good
thing for our country right now," Benson said. He's now giving Jones the car outright because he doesn't want to be connected to whatever the Florida pastor does with it.
"I don't want to be involved in the politics of that," Benson said.

Before he made his decision, Benson asked listeners to weigh in on whether he should honor his promise. More than 2,600 people responded by phone and e-mail, and the vast majority, Benson said, urged him to keep his word.

One caller suggested painting sayings from various religious books -- the Quran, the Talmud, the King James Bible -- on the car.
"What you didn't say was what the car was going to look like when you gave it to him," the caller said.

Another caller told Benson to "be a man" and keep his promise. And some encouraged Benson to pick his own charity to get a car. In 2003, Benson offered another newsmaker -- Saddam Hussein -- a new car if he fled Iraq. That commercial wasn't as successful, and Benson pulled the ad after two days, replacing it with one apologizing for any offense that was taken. The Quran commercial was part of a regular "idiot award" segment Benson has singled out others for, including Lindsey Lohan, Mel Gibson and Roger Clemens.

"We don't have your typical car commercial," Benson said. But they are memorable -- and effective. Three years ago, he was selling 60 cars a month, he said. Today, that number is between 500 and 600 -- making him one of the state's most successful dealers.

Silver today is $24.41 per ounce. Assume a one ounce coin and 30 pieces of silver are worth $732.30. I guess Jones got more out of this deal than another bargainer, but Jones only betrayed his country. But that assumes that he was a true believer at first. I don't think so.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Useless DHS Failing Still To Deport Illegal Voters

The useless U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) when it is not enforcing the law apparently allows useless Hearing Officers at the Executive Office for Immigration Review to sabotage even the appearance of enforcement by DHS.

The back story is that USCIS routinely allows aliens who illegally vote to skate through citizenship applications, such as occurred in Putnam County, TN. ICE and the Department of Justice similarly refuse to either deport or criminally prosecute similar illegal voters.

But even worse, those few cases that USCIS and ICE seek deportation of these illegal voters, the EOIR orders the aliens relieved from deportation.

But Ms. Cassin and other immigrant advocates said the agency was being too strict. The advocates pointed out that, in some cases, immigration judges had relied upon the same evidence to rule against deportation that immigration officials had used to deny citizenship.

In eight New York cases that Ms. Cassin recalled, none of the immigrants were deported, and all were able to maintain their permanent residency. In one, she said, the client’s application for naturalization was reopened and eventually approved.

However, what the NYT does not tell you is that USCIS and ICE are not appealing the decision by these minor functionaries at the EOIR. In fact, there is no need to show lack of moral character in deporting those who falsely claim to be U.S. citizens or vote illegally.

Under Citizenship and Immigration Services guidelines, a noncitizen’s vote does not always scuttle a bid for citizenship. The agency’s officers are required to evaluate the circumstances of the violation, as well as the “moral character” of the applicant, and decide whether the law has been intentionally violated.

As I showed before, USCIS is violating the Constitution by adding the need for the agency to take into account any "good moral character." And neither is there a specific intent requirement in the United States Code dealing with false claims to U.S. citizenship or illegal voting during criminal prosecution. The alien's good moral character or lack there of, is irrelevant. In any event illegal voting and making false claims to U.S. citizenship show a lack of good moral character. Nor is there any exception for illegal voting and claims to U.S. citizenship, except for child adoptees who have lived their whole life in the U.S.


(ii) 9/ FALSELY CLAIMING CITIZENSHIP-



(I) IN GENERAL- Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including section 274A ) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.


(II) EXCEPTION- In the case of an alien making a representation described in subclause (I), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be inadmissible under any provision of this subsection based on such representation.


But, DHS and its constituent agencies refuse to enforce the law and appeal the adverse and wrong decisions by the Hearing Officers of the EOIR to the Board of Immigration Appeals. They are extending the Obama Regime amnesty and the Jorge Bush amnesty before it, one illegal voter at a time.