The FCC is a supererogatory federal agency that is a constant threat to our rights including as a dangerous political weapon of the left, an impediment to a free market place and innovations, and a waste of taxpayer money. It wantonly issues regulations such as the recently approved net neutrality law even though it doesn’t truly have the legal authority, a problem made worse by the fact that the commissioners are political appointees and not elected officials. In fact, the “president” has used this agency as a way to bypass Congress and attempt to implement ideologically radical policies.
We can protect our rights, save billions of dollars, reduce the size of the government and its debt by terminating this agency run amok.
Kill Off The FCC
Investor’s Business Daily 12/23/2010
Regulatory State: Two days after the FCC voted to take over the Internet, it stands in the way of an agreement between private companies. This is an agency that should be targeted for elimination.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality, a regulatory framework that has been sold as a means of keeping the Web fair and open. In truth, the rules give government the authority to tell Internet service providers how to organize the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.
That's enough meddling in private affairs for one week for any federal agency. But the FCC wasn't finished.
Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed net neutrality despite a court ruling and bipartisan opposition in Congress, set conditions Thursday on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal. He wants Comcast to distribute content in a way that he approves of and lets competitors access Comcast's platform.
It's almost amusing that these conditions are being applied in the name of the "public interest."
Genachowski's proposal isn't binding. He still has to present his ideas to the other four commissioners and a vote must be taken. But neither one man nor one group should have the power to marshal private companies' business operations.
Private media companies are not government-owned utilities.
Regulators such as Genachowski say they are merely trying to keep competition healthy and protect consumers.
But their efforts inhibit competition and obstruct innovation.
Cell phones, for instance, were delayed by the FCC for a decade. The cost of this hang-up to the economy, according to the National Economic Research Associates, was $85 billion.
Like generals fighting the last war, regulators make rules based on the way businesses operated yesterday. As they try to keep up with market dynamics, they inflict uncertainty into business decisions and put a boot on the neck of progress. When not held back by regulators, though, companies freely create new technologies and business models that increase competition.
What role, then, is there for regulators, especially those at the FCC, which oversees one of the most dynamic industries in the world? With the intense competition in telecommunications that has benefited consumers and led to wide commercial successes, there's no need for a government referee in this sector.
There's nothing the FCC does that can't be eliminated, streamlined or handed over to another agency or department that has a legitimate function. (Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests broadcast licenses "could be handled by the Commerce Department, or by a greatly reduced FCC with binding limitations on jurisdiction." The point is, the FCC as now constituted doesn't have to do it.)
The FCC has been around for a while — it was established by the Communications Act of 1934. So it won't be abolished overnight. But its elimination is a worthy goal.
Republicans, who at one time had a shutdown agenda, will control the House beginning in January. They should make the call and get the process started.
Attorney General Eric Holder has brought the regard, presitge and position that he holds to a new, immeasurably low level. This is an amazing feat given that the honor had been previously held by the abysmally incompetent Janet Reno. In fact, his job performance, or lack thereof, makes her accomplishments and management appear respectable.
Holder shows a total lack of understanding and appreciation of his position, responsibilities and the U.S. Constitution which he is charged with adhering to. In fact, he openly and egregiously flouts the basic principles of this document which he clearly despises and finds it to be an obstacle to his Progressive and racist agenda.
On innumerably occasions, he has displayed a lack of regard for equal rights and treatments. Some, minorities and especially blacks in particular, he feels should be accorded greater rights, privileges and entitlements especially at the expense of others, notably whites. The racist bias that has suffused the Dept. of Justice under his watch and which has been countenanced by him, are well known (see The New Black Panther Party issue as but one example).
He also panders to special interest groups and those that are openly hostile to our country and intolerant of our culture. His actions seem to be intentionally aimed at undermining and weakening America – an agenda that is consistent with a far left Progressive. In his view, rights are not truly equal – the Constitution be damned.
We staunchly and relentlessly continue to call for either his resignation or firing which would be in the best interests of this country and its citizens.
Holder's Dept. Of (Social) Justice
Investor’s Business Daily 12/15/2010
Politics: This Justice Department's social activism knows no bounds. First it meddled in a border state's right to protect itself.
Now it's trying to rewrite school policy to pander to Muslim law.
On Monday, Justice sued an Illinois school district for rejecting a Muslim teacher's request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca. The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion "required" her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.
But it's not stopping there. It seeks an order mandating school officials adopt policies accommodating all Muslim customs, no matter how unreasonable.
Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged "a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community" that includes "robust enforcement" of "religious freedoms."
"We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans" in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it "a top priority."
Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as "partners in our work to promote tolerance."
He told Muslims gathered there that all 94 U.S. attorney's offices were partnering with the department's Civil Rights Division to act as "force multipliers" in helping to protect the Muslim community. He informed them that he'd brought a third of the nation's U.S. attorneys to Washington for an unprecedented meeting to work on being more "sensitive" toward Muslims.
"Last year," moreover, "I established an Arab-American and Muslim Engagement Advisory Group to help identify more effective ways for the Justice Department to foster greater communication and collaboration — as well as a new level of respect and understanding — between law enforcement and Muslim and Arab-American communities," Holder said.
This attorney general's many speeches reveal an agenda more radical than even his mentor Janet Reno's. It's plain that he's an activist, not an impartial enforcer of the nation's laws.
His audiences are a who's who of progressive causes — all sharing a common goal of obtaining "social justice" and "economic justice," as opposed to just plain equal justice under the law. They include activists not just for Muslim and Arab rights, but also black civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, Indian tribal rights, housing rights, and on and on. It's a multicultural panderfest.
Here's just a sampling of his speaking engagements over the past two years:
• National Indian Nations Conference.
• African Union Summit.
• Metropolitan Black Bar Association Annual Dinner.
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program.
• American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 30th Annual National Convention.
• Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) 50th Annual Conference.
• Legal Services Corp.
• Federal Bar Association's Advancement of Social Justice.
• National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
• Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Conference.
• National Black Prosecutors Association.
• NAACP.
• Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice & Congressional Black Caucus Symposium on Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy.
Divide-and-pander groupism is the new normal at Justice. At Justice's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month Program last June, Holder announced — in addition to enforcement of special new rights for gays — a new "Diversity Management Plan" that includes the creation of a new department position: Deputy Associate Attorney General for Diversity.
Holder's obsession with race was laid bare in his 2009 Black History Month speech in which he called Americans "cowards" for not doing more to speak out against racism. The disconnect of bad-mouthing America as racist in the wake of its electing a black president (and his own appointment as the first black attorney general) was lost on him.
Still, he slammed "socially segregated" whites who live in "electronically padlocked suburbs" and schools that are "too willing to segregate the study of black history."
"We must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before," he lectured, giving it equal weight with "so-called 'real' American history."
Such demagoguery explains why, over the past 22 months, Justice has "reinvigorated" its civil rights enforcement activities. When it comes to combating hate crimes, however, it's still a one-way street.
"Our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry — no matter the object or nature of your hate — we will bring you to justice," Holder claims. Unless, of course you're club-wielding New Black Panthers and the object of your hate is white voters.
Despite the historic drubbing that the Democrats suffered in the midterm elections, the Left either doesn’t “get it” or refuses to submit to the will of the voters whose attitudes are the antithetical to its own. Clearly, Obama mentally won’t acknowledge this fact and may even be mentally incapable of doing so. He and his radical far left cronies are bent on changing America to fit their ideologies and not the desires of the American public.
We must continue to remain vigilant, proactive and united to fight this insidious push to transform America away from the democracy, freedoms, rights and economic system that have made this nation so great.
Obama and his radical ilk must be thwarted, defeated and removed from positions of power and influence every chance possible.
Our future depends on this.
Elected Office Doesn't Come With A Crown
Investor’s Business Daily 11/17/2010
Change: How out of touch with America is the political left? It's convinced it has the authority to reign. But this country was founded on the idea that the governing was to be done by representatives, not rulers.
Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes tells the Daily Beast that President Obama "has a different belief system than most Americans." Nothing new there, but true nonetheless. Traditions of limited government, individual liberty and free markets are foreign to this president. This is a man who said he wanted to transform America and went about doing so as soon as he took office.
The stinging rebuke he suffered two weeks ago at the midterm elections doesn't mean Obama will slow down. He's being encouraged to stay on his big-government agenda by allies including John Podesta, the Clinton chief of staff who ran Obama's transition team.
Podesta, who now heads a "progressive" think tank that carries heavy weight with the White House, told the media this week that the former community organizer still has an opportunity to "push the country to a better place."
Podesta tried to qualify his remarks, saying Obama must work under the "constraint" of law and the "restraint" of wisdom.
But neither law nor wisdom holds back those who believe they're above the former and in sole possession of the latter.
Socialist democrats indeed want to push the U.S. to a place they believe is better, even if most Americans don't want to go along because they know it's not in their best interests.
Examples of the elitists' push abound. There's the health care overhaul, the takeover of General Motors and a failed stimulus, all of which are now law, and proposals to change Americans' lifestyle through the forced reduction of carbon emissions.
Richard Wolffe, author of "Revival: Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House," saw up close how the left thinks when he had access to the president and his senior staff. Obama, says Wolffe, "goes around telling people that he would rather do big stuff and be a one-term president than small stuff and be a second-term."
Wolffe likened Obama to George W. Bush in that both would say they are in office "to do big stuff" and aren't concerned with the price. But it's a mistake to think that tax cuts, which promote economic liberty, are in any way related to taking over the health care system or an automaker. Yes, Bush had some big-government ideas. But his goal was not to shove America off its moorings.
Obama, of course, isn't the only one who thinks America leaves something to be desired. George Soros, the billionaire progressive, believes China "has a better functioning government than the U.S." New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman also has a China fetish, contending "a reasonably enlightened group of people" are running that country better than U.S. lawmakers are managing our federal system.
Both seem fed up with the American style of government, with its meddlesome checks, balances, constitutional limits and gridlock, and would prefer to live under a kind and wise monarchy that can simply force its agenda on an unwilling citizenry too backward to look after itself. In Friedman's world, it's even OK for an enlightened autocracy to take "things away from people" if it needs to.
Liberals' shaky connection with the rest of the country was strained even further Wednesday when Nancy Pelosi was elected House minority leader. As speaker, she pursued far-left policies that led to the Democrats' midterm rout and loss of House control.
In keeping her on, Democrats have demonstrated how much they are wedded to a radical agenda that voters have repudiated.
Americans don't need a push from those who imagine themselves to be their superiors. What they want is more room to live their lives without state interference.
It's inspiring to see them begin to take back what the left has been snatching away for years.
The consummate arrogance, condescension, elitism, incompetence and intolerance that the Democrats have shown while they have autocratically ruled Americans is nothing short of egregious and inexcusable. They must be voted out of office on November 2nd en masse.
Americans should not and will not tolerate their actions, behavior and freedom and rights depriving legislation.
In this enlightening article, Young who has served in high government positions for 17 years, attributes the bitter partisanship that we see today to liberal social policies that have evolved over many decades. He details the transformation of the government as primarily responsible for the nation’s defense to one that has become a well of social and redistributive policies.
We agree with has assessment of this transformation and the contribution to today’s fiscally catastrophic state. He notes that:
“Political confrontation has been, and will increasingly be, brought on by inherently unsustainable liberal social spending policies. Too much was promised, and now too much is owed.”
This has been further exacerbated by a politically motivated class warfare abetted by the far-left news media which positions itself as the paladin of the “downtrodden” poor most of whom have little work ethic and whose lives focus on pleasurable pursuits rather than productive activities. This has led to the “entitlement” and “rights” philosophy versus the strong work ethic and productivity one. He notes that:
“…we have gone from having a relatively light social-program burden spread over a broad tax base, to a heavy social-program burden focused on a narrowing tax base.”
We believe, however, that these social policies are not the sole contributor to the rancor and partisanship that we see today. It is also influenced by liberal indoctrination of our children starting at a young age in schools and suffused in the media including on TV and the movies.
Regardless, all this must change or our nation will be irreparably damaged and our lives adversely impacted severely long-term.
Social Policies Led To Today's Divisiveness
J.T. Young 09/07/2010
Even as frustrations over partisanship in Washington grow, the partisanship itself only increases. How did this happen and when?
Most search for answers in the personalities of the present — such as Ronald Reagan's ushering in a conservative resurgence in 1980.
But the real answer lies in the policies of the past — specifically, social entitlement policies, which for decades have been increasing federal fiscal pressures.
Those pressures are coming ever more to the fore in the overall economy and electorate, as witnessed by the nation's mounting concerns over deficits and debt.
The origins of today's partisanship can be traced back to 1972, well earlier than most would assume. That was the year in which federal payments to individuals first outstripped U.S. spending on national defense and international aid — a watershed for America's government priorities.
Before 1972, the federal government's primary function had been the nation's defense at home and abroad. The New Deal's creation of Social Security, and the later additions of Medicare and Medicaid during the 1960s Great Society, began the mission change. But the change was obscured by a succession of military conflicts that kept defense spending high — and social spending under the radar.
The policy change was also obscured by the social programs themselves. Originally, they had the appearance of forward-funded insurance programs. Both Social Security and Medicare were funded from payroll taxes, not income taxes. This distinction immediately served to wall off these programs. With dedicated funding, they became not only sacrosanct but self-propelled.
By 1979, Social Security and Medicare by themselves had overtaken all defense and international spending. While defense spending would increase in the buildup that brought down the Soviet Union, defense and international spending by 1989 had been overtaken for good.
So what does this have to do with today's partisanship? Everything. As in geology, politics are merely a surface reflection of tectonic movements beneath. And in society, the underlying movements are economic.
Washington has begun to increasingly strain under the economic pressure of its social spending policies. Advantageous demographics — with many workers supporting few retirees — within society and decreasing defense spending in fiscal policy (as America moved from hot wars to Cold War, to post-USSR) long helped hide the social policies' burgeoning cost.
But the drop in the worker-to-retiree ratio, as baby boomers age into retirement, and the end of the post-Cold War "peace dividend," with the new rise of the global terrorist threat, have increased the pressure they once eased. At the same time, the income tax has become ever more centered on the top earners.
Last year, the federal government consumed almost a quarter of the nation's GDP. Defense and international spending accounted for just a quarter of that, while federal payments to individuals amounted to well more than double what had once been government's primary purpose. In short, we have gone from having a relatively light social-program burden spread over a broad tax base, to a heavy social-program burden focused on a narrowing tax base.
The distributive nature of government's demands has changed too. In the past, government taxed for a broadly consumed good: national security. Today and increasingly, its demands are on behalf of a more narrowly consumed good: redistributive social policy — granting benefits well beyond recipients' "contributions" (Social Security, Medicare and particularly Medicaid and other need-based programs).
Such redistributive policy is, by definition, a zero-sum exercise that is inherently divisive. The electorate is now feeling the effect of the spending, deficit and debt growth that has resulted — and the associated costs of higher taxes and interest rates.
Critics of Washington's partisanship are right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, divisiveness has increased, but it's the policies and their resulting effects that are divisive, not the politicians per se. The participants are more cause than effect.
Political confrontation has been, and will increasingly be, brought on by inherently unsustainable liberal social spending policies.
Too much was promised, and now too much is owed.
• Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
The threats to the rights of individual Americans by Obama and his appointed czars continue to mount daily. The far left radical socialist/communist ideologies of the “president?” and his cronies seek a massive and controlling autocratic central government that severely curtails the rights, freedoms and choice of the subjugated American citizens. Of course, that is in addition to those similarly effective outcomes of legislation imposed by the Democrat controlled, filibuster proof Congress.
We are being attacked on many fronts and need to appropriately respond with a vengeance including spreading this information with others who are not informed and, of course, voting the Democrats out in November.
Unaccountable Czars Continue To Proliferate
By Phyllis Schlafly 07/27/2010
Barack Obama has appointed another czar from Chicago: the new Food Czar Sam Kass. Officially, he is labeled senior policy adviser for healthy food initiatives, but he's joining the list of more than 35 czars given broad and unaccountable power over our lives, habits and spending.
Everybody laughed when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan if it would be constitutional for Congress to order Americans "to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day." Kagan declined to give a straightforward answer, maybe because she knew that exactly that type of dictatorial mandate was coming soon — in both ObamaCare and a ukase issued by the new Food Czar.
Far scarier is Obama's appointment of his new Health Czar, Donald Berwick, to be the top administrator over Medicare and Medicaid. This is the most shocking of all Obama's appointments because of the life-and-death powers he will exercise, the huge sums of taxpayers' money he will direct, and the dishonest way Obama evaded the Senate's constitutional right to interrogate and reject him.
Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to redistribute the wealth. We didn't realize what else Obama planned to redistribute.
Czar Berwick is on record as saying, "Excellent health care is by definition redistributional." He used this favorite Obama term in the context of praising Britain's socialized medicine system as "a global treasure" and "I love it."
Coincidentally with the announcement of Berwick's appointment, Britain's major newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, uncovered widespread cuts in British health care that were adopted in secret and buried in obscure appendices and lengthy policy documents. These include restrictions on common operations, such as hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery, the closure of many nursing homes for the elderly and a reduction in hospital beds and staff.
Berwick admits that redistributing health care means rationing health care, which is why he has been called a one-man Death Panel. Last year he admitted in an interview, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
Note the imperial "we." That's the way czars talk.
Like a typical arrogant totalitarian socialist, Berwick assumes that smart bureaucrats should make life-and-death decisions and spend the money belonging to those they disdain as dumb, ordinary citizens. Berwick said, "I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do."
Berwick even promises that he will train young doctors and nurses to understand "the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy." To eliminate individual health care choices, Berwick's bureaucracy will have a budget that is larger than the Defense Department and is 4% of our GDP.
Berwick's paper trail of "baggage" is why Obama gave him a recess appointment. He wanted to avoid the Senate's advice-and-consent power altogether and keep Berwick's damaging statements out of the news.
The term czar has come to mean a presidential crony appointee who was never vetted by the Senate and who exercises sweeping regulatory authority without congressional oversight. But let's not lose sight of the vastly increased regulations issued by established agencies.
ObamaCare's 2,000-plus pages created about 160 new agencies and boards with regulatory power. The Department of Health and Human Services just published 864 pages of regulations to govern electronic medical records.
President Obama just signed the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Its implementation will require at least 243 new regulations by 11 federal agencies, several of which do not yet exist.
Obama's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, brags that under his leadership, the Department of Energy (DOE) has "accelerated the pace" of regulation and "placed new resources and emphasis behind the enforcement" of new regulations which "increase the stringency" of "minimum conservation standards" for all sorts of home appliances. Look out! The energy police are invading our homes.
In April, DOE issued a new rule that gas fireplace logs can't use more than 9,000 BTUs per hour, which is about one-tenth of what current gas logs require. This rule will wipe out the gas fireplace industry, and the gas log in my home would become illegal.
In May, DOE effectively banned showerheads with multiple nozzles by ruling that all nozzles combined will be permitted to deliver no more than an anemic 2.5 gallons per minute. This rule will destroy upscale showers and handheld sprays used by the disabled and elderly, like the one I use.
Obama wasn't kidding when he promised to "fundamentally transform the United States." He has figured out how to bypass Congress and rule us by czars and a tsunami of regulations.
In our post yesterday (Arizona Poised To Pass Aggressive Legislation To Deal With The Problems of Illegal Immigration Since Federal Government Hasn’t), the issues surrounding the impetus for creating an immigration enforcement bill were detailed. There has been overwhelming support for this legislation from the residents of Arizona - contrary to what many in the news media are reporting or claiming. Given all this, yesterday afternoon, Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill but also definitively stating that racial profiling will not be tolerated.
Bravo for Arizona!!
It is about time that some government seriously address this illegal immigration problem that is plaguing America, costing tens of billions of dollars yearly and markedly escalating the crime rate. Congress and the President (including past Presidents) have abrogated their responsibilities to protect us and secure our borders. One of the main reasons is political in nature – fear of angering one group of voters or another.
Meanwhile, Mr. Inept Obama has stated his opposition to the bill which he wants to annul and claims that it may violate civil rights. Many liberal and radical Hispanic groups are screaming racism, stating that their rights are violated, etc. and are protesting, even busing in people (unemployed or union members?) from California.
There are civil rights violations indeed regarding illegal immigration and it involves those of American born citizens (of American parents) living in Arizona. Why should they be forced to pay for the education, healthcare, welfare, incarceration and other costs attributed to these non-Americans? This is essentially involuntary servitude. Furthermore, quality of life is adversely affected on many levels because of this unaddressed problem.
These illegal aliens come here and cost Arizona billions of dollars. Opponents of the bill claim that these illegals pay taxes and contribute to Social Security. Yes, some may but the costs of the services that they use far exceeds (billions) what they contribute. Consequently, our schools are overcrowded and the education of native Arizonans is severely impacted. Hospitals are forced to close or markedly curtail services because of unreimbursed care. More than 50% of inmates in many jails are illegals. And more…
Until there is a comprehensive national plan that is sensible and effective, measures like this have to be implemented to protect American citizens.
Finally, it is disingenuous, corrupt and deconstructive to call these individuals “undocumented aliens”. They may or may not have documents or at least legitimate ones. That is not the point. They broke the law and entered the United States illegally, hence: “illegal immigrants”.
Arizona Governor Signs Controversial Immigration Enforcement Bill
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a controversial bill that seeks to crack down on illegal immigration.
The sweeping measure will make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It will also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.
It takes effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.
Before signing the bill, Brewer called the measure "another step forward in protecting the state of Arizona."
She said the bill "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix -- the crisis caused by illegal immigration."
Earlier, President Obama called the bill "misguided" and said it could violate people's civil rights. He said he's instructed the Justice Department to see if it is legal.
The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."
Civil rights activists have said the bill would lead to racial profiling and deter Hispanics from reporting crimes.
Brewer said she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.
Hundreds of protesters gathered at the State Capitol complex Friday calling on Brewer to veto the legislation.
Demonstrators have been camped outside the Capitol since the measure passed out of the Legislature on Monday. Their numbers have grown steadily throughout the week, with buses bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.
About a dozen supporters of the measure also gathered.
Meanwhile, around the same time of the signing of the immigration reform bill in southern Arizona:
67 Illegal Immigrants Found Crammed in U-Haul Truck
The Border Patrol did not immediately know where the immigrants were from, where they were headed or what the conditions in the truck were
ELFRIDA, Ariz. -- Sixty-seven illegal immigrants were found crammed inside a U-Haul truck near Elfrida, Ariz. about 20 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border after deputies spotted it driving erratically.
Cochise County sheriff's spokeswoman Carol Capas said Friday that deputies pulled the U-Haul over Thursday evening, and the driver and front passenger ran out of the vehicle into the desert.
The two, believed to be smugglers, got away.
Meanwhile, deputies found 67 illegal immigrants in the back of the 26-foot truck.
Capas says the truck appeared to have been loaded in the last seven hours and that it was "cramped."
She could not speak to the conditions inside the truck and says the immigrants were turned over to the Border Patrol.
Border Patrol spokesman Mario Escalante did not immediately know where the immigrants were from, where they were headed or what the conditions in the truck were, although he says none had to be taken to the hospital.
Americans are under relentless assault by more liberal and far left members of the Federal government as well as the news media. Their purpose? To trivialize opposing points of view and actions in order to facilitate implementation of their radical agenda. That is a major reason for their denigrating the Tea Party Movement as being racist, composed of fringe elements, and not representing average Americans. The same can be said for their attacks on corporations (insurance companies, banks, pharmaceuticals), healthcare providers (including physicians and hospitals) and those in the vanguard exposing the realities of what really is transpiring (Fox News, conservative commentators, Sarah Palin). Diaphanous allegations and ad hominem attacks are their modus operandi.
We must counter their verbal attacks, false allegations and fabrications - persistently and loudly. If we don't and keep acquiescing to the Federal government's increasing restriction of our rights, freedoms and choices as well as their unrestrained confiscation of our hard earned money through taxes and fees, we will have little left. We will end up in a situation not dissimilar to that of communist Russia in the 1970's and early 80's with a privileged, powerful, and corrupt government ruling and repressing the rest of the people, the proletariat, and where there is controlled but not free speech and the government determines most aspects of our daily lives.
Speak loudly and often in defense of your rights so that we can continue to SPEAK FREE!
Speak Free
Media contributed by Tami Peterson Lewiski www.digitaldecorating.com
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments