The delays in deciding upon and constructing a Post 9/11 Memorial are inexcusable. Even more outrageous is the spinelessness of countless politicians and bureaucrats in not legally making it a National Historic Landmark and allowing a trojan horse leviathan of a mosque to be built nearby.

Americans are overwhelmingly and vehemently against this mosque being constructed which purportedly is being financed by supporters of terrorism and will represent the subjugation and defeat of the West by Islam.

And why isn't "president?" Obama weighing in on this issue in support of America, for the symbolic preservation of liberties and freedoms and for remembrance and honor of the 3000 victims who tragically were murdered by Islamic terrorists?

Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”.  This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)

Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.

Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.

And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).

Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.

No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!

Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States
July 7, 2010

Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.

And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.

At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.

Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.

But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.

Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.

The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.

Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.

In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.

Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.

"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.

"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.

In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.

On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.

In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.

Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.

But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.

"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."

Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.

State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.

The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.

The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.

The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.

As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.

Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.

But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.

Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.

But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.

The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.

A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.

In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.

Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.

The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.

The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.

Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Immigration-Enforcement-Lawsuit/2010/07/07/id/364048

This is a critical juncture in time that calls for an experienced, sensible, effective and resolute leader of this country. Yes, it would be great to have a Reagan, a Lincoln or even a Churchill. Unfortunately, this country has as its President a man who compares unfavorably even to Jimmy Carter (which previously would have been thought to have been an impossibility) and one who exudes a sentiment of hatred/dislike for America.

He is an unpatriotic Neville Chamberlain with far less to offer. And we know what happened subsequently in WW II.

As a consequence, the United States, Israel and much of the rest of the world will be facing serious existential threats, terrorist attacks and/or wars and catastrophic loss of life.

From Here To Extermination
Investors Business Daily  06/11/2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures after a news conference in Shanghai, China, at which he dismissed a new U.N. resolution against his... View Enlarged Image

Iran: The new sanctions, already watery before being watered down some more, have been enacted. What do we do now?
Apparently just wait for them not to work.

If insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then the United Nations Security Council, led by the U.S., is conducting a policy against Iran that is dangerously deranged.

Of course, the member states know this fourth round of economic sanctions won't stop Iran's march toward nuclear weapons, any more than the first three have. Indeed, ending Tehran's nuclear program is not why President Obama made a point of getting this ineffectual nonsolution in place. But figuring out the rationality behind why he did isn't easy.

Was it so the president could campaign that "by working with other nations multilaterally, we enacted measures against Iran that are tougher than anything the Bush administration put in place"? (A harder wrist slap is still a wrist slap.)

Was it in the belief that it would force the Iranians into talks — and once the president gets talking to them he'll be able to work his magic, the way he did on American voters?

Or was it just to "do something" in the slim hope it would get Americans to devote less attention to the chilling prospect of nuclear-armed jihadists?

Now that these latest feeble sanctions have passed, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foggy Bottom's smarter-than-thou diplomats are busy patting themselves on the back, what is left of our Iran policy? What do we do now, as Tehran thumbs its nose at us and continues inexorably toward nuclear status?

We apparently wait. Some anti-nuclear terrorism policy that is.

There are goose-bumpy reports in the press of U.S.-backed covert operations to throw technical monkey wrenches into the development of an Iranian bomb. Considering the CIA's track record, we'd be safer expecting Superman or Spider-Man to appear in the nick of time to save the day.

After all, the spy agency was dumbstruck in May 1998, when India conducted a nuclear test explosion.
"The warning bell never rang," according to Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Tim Weiner in his history of the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes." "The test revealed a failure of espionage, a failure to read photographs, a failure to comprehend reports, a failure to think, and a failure to see." India's adversary, Pakistan, almost instantly followed up with its own nuclear test.

So don't count on James Bond either.

Both the Obama and Bush administrations have squandered their opportunities to solve this singularly dangerous dilemma.
There were years during which we knew Tehran was headed toward nukes, and all the time we could have been explicitly supporting Iranian freedom fighters — millions of Muslims who want an end to rule by the ayatollahs.

We could have been sending student organizers, religious leaders and labor organizations resources — everything from computer communications equipment to cash — so they could rally the populace, disseminate news about government oppression and stage massive strikes. And publicly give them our moral support.

Last year, for example, President Obama had the perfect chance to support the people of Iran, as multitudes risked their lives in mass protests against the questionable re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But being just a few months into his presidency, Obama refused; it would have undermined his offer of direct talks with Ahmadinejad.

But those talks never happened.

With the proper groundwork laid over years, those demonstrations of 12 months ago could have been the catalyst to end the Islamist revolution launched by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. And under a new popular government, we might not even have to worry about Iran's pursuit of nuclear power, or at least worry less.

As the Weekly Standard reports, the Obama administration this week will apparently endorse a United Nations probe of Israel's conduct in the Gaza flotilla incident.

Since Israel may end up being the ones to prevent a nuclear Iran, this may be an even better definition of insanity: rewarding your worst enemy as he plans to kill you, while abusing your best friend who's in a position to save you.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537145/201006111858/From-Here-To-Extermination.aspx

http://www.investors.com/image/Web_Issues_Iran0614jpg.jpg.cms

“A Mexican cartel plots to blow up a dam — in Texas! Another pack of Mexican terrorists takes cash from Hugo Chavez. And what is Washington wringing its hands about? Why, racism in Arizona.”

We suspect that a more immigration reform would be addressed quite expeditiously, responsibly and respectfully if the object of Mexican cartel’s terrorism acts were instead the White House and Congress. Instead, Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to divide the nation and corruptly obtain votes from the Hispanic community.

Bordering Disaster
Investors Business Daily    Posted 06/04/2010

National Security: A Mexican cartel plots to blow up a dam — in Texas! Another pack of Mexican terrorists takes cash from Hugo Chavez. And what is Washington wringing its hands about? Why, racism in Arizona.

If still more proof is needed that the border needs to be secured, the latest threats emerging from Mexico should do the trick. Together, they signal that the country's war could advance to a more savage stage.

Last month, the Los Zetas paramilitary drug cartel tried to blow up the Falcon Dam near Zapata, Texas, on the Rio Grande River. The motive was to destroy a smuggling route controlled by the rival Gulf Cartel. Had it succeeded, 534 billion gallons of water could have been unleashed onto a region of 4 million people.

The plot was primitive, and U.S. lawmen took preemptive steps to foil it. But it showed motive, and the threat remains.
On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called it a reminder that more federal resources are needed to secure the border. Perry said he hoped he never had to tell U.S. officials "we told you so" after a major attack.

Moreover, the threat is no longer just over smuggling routes. Last Tuesday, the Washington Examiner quoted Mexican and U.S. intelligence sources as saying Mexico's Ejercito Popular Revolucionario (EPR), a Marxist terror organization aligned with drug cartels, is secretly receiving funds from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

The group seeks to overthrow the Mexican government while engaging in drug trafficking, much as the FARC guerrillas do in Colombia. What's disturbing here is not just EPR's growing ties to the drug trade — which in time could lead to an alliance with the Zetas. It's the threat to Mexico's democracy, as well as the group's expertise in destroying infrastructure like gas lines, which EPR did in 2007.

FARC itself has also begun operating in Mexico, cutting out drug trafficking middlemen to forge closer ties with Mexico's cartels. StrategyPage, an intelligence forecaster, warned that FARC could begin launching attacks against the U.S. from Mexico in an effort to stop the U.S. from helping Colombia in its war on drugs back home.

These blood-chilling scenarios aren't fantasies. They are signs of an emerging threat that gets little attention from U.S. lawmakers. Instead of focusing on making the border secure, they play partisan political games, pandering to potential voting blocs by dangling amnesty in front of illegal immigrants, grandstanding against Arizona's effort to enforce federal law and coming up with one excuse after another for not erecting a border fence.

As illegal armed groups plot to blow up infrastructure even in this country, Democrats in Congress are more concerned about an illegal immigrant getting his feelings hurt if a police officer in Arizona asks him to show some ID.

Such distractions create opportunities for Mexico's already-odious drug traffickers to be even more ambitious.

The developments from Mexico parallel what happened in Colombia in the 1980s and 1990s, before that country got a grip on how to defeat drug lords.

As drug lords such as Medellin cartel kingpin Pablo Escobar became rich and powerful, their depredations became increasingly callous and casual. Trying to murder a politician, Escobar blew an Avianca 727 out of the sky in 1989, killing 110 people.

To destroy court records that could have meant extradition to the U.S., he teamed up with the Marxist terrorist group M-19 to blow up Colombia's supreme court building, killing 11 justices in 1985 to make sure the papers burned.

He also played politics, aligning with left-wing lawyers and human rights activists, claiming fealty to the poor and victimhood for himself on the human rights front. After Escobar's demise in 1993, political terrorist groups such as FARC took his place.

Now we have Mexican cartels and terrorists emerging in the same pattern. The plot on the border dam and Chavez's funding of Marxist narcoterrorists are an emerging menace that demands immediate attention. Mexican groups like EPR and the drug cartels find only advantage in Congress' indifference to security and laugh at its political priorities.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536460/201006041853/Bordering-Disaster.aspx

In America, he has unleashed divisiveness and racism (ie. - incendiary comments on Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation with countless cities and organizations now attacking or boycotting Arizona- also pitting one state against another; his countenancing of Helen Thomas’ anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rants setting a poor example; dropping prosecution of the New Black Panther Party in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case; maintaining strong associations with black racists such as Cornel West, Henry Jones, Louis Farrakhan, Jay-Z, etc.)

Internationally, by denigrating America and apologizing for it, insulting and /or decreasing support and protection for our long-time allies (Great Britain, Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Honduras, etc.), remaining silent in the defense of freedom and democracy (ignoring the Iranian people uprising against the theocratic repressive Islamic regime), talking loudly but carrying a very tiny stick (none to useless threats to Iran; loser in nuclear talks to Russia/Putin) and denying Islamic terrorist we are unquestionably witnessing the expected consequences.

Our enemies are emboldened and that spells death and disaster. There has been an explosion of terrorism attempts (fortunately they have thus far failed) in this country since he took office. Iran is progressing unimpeded in its quest for nuclear weapons which it will use – and which will precipitate a conflagration of unparalleled proportions. Turkey and other countries see a green light to be aggressive to Israel. Venezuela is saber rattling even more and upsetting the stability in South America.

And the list goes on.

Obama is not fit to be President. He must be removed from office to protect our country and the world!

Open Season On The Jewish State
Investors Business Daily   06/08/2010

In its latest slight, the White House temporarily withdrew an invitation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following Israel's killing of nine.

Israel: Of all the ironies of the Obama presidency, the strangest is now unfolding: The election to purge American racism somehow lowered the bar for anti-Semitism.

The 89-year-old Helen Thomas had been roosting in the front row of the White House press briefing room for decades. Yet her ugly feelings that Jews should get the hell out of Palestine and return "home" to Poland or Germany or America — or wherever it is the Jews belong — took this long to bubble up out of the cauldron of her gut in proximity to a camera.
The now ex-doyenne of the White House Press Corps was long known as no friend of the Jewish state, but somehow the intentional chill that the Obama administration has engineered in U.S.-Israeli relations has reduced the caution regarding attacking the state of Israel, and undoubtedly helped set her off.

It's almost like people sensing that the brawny big brother, America, has grown tired of going to the trouble of escorting his persecuted little brother, Israel, through the neighborhood. And all that long-suppressed resentment is beginning to burst out now that the protector is not on hand.

"Israel is finally getting its comeuppance" seems to be the perception of many of the critics of the Middle East's only democracy, save for U.S.-liberated Iraq.

In wondering how someone in public life, who was in her 20s when the Nazis were slaughtering millions of Jews in Germany and Poland, could act like the caricature of a bigot from an earlier era, it's impossible not to consider the disintegration over the past 16 months of our relationship with our staunchest Mideast ally.

The latest slight was the temporary withdrawal of an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to come to the White House after Israeli forces killed nine aboard a Turkish-backed flotilla trying to break an Israeli blockade of Gaza last week.

It turns out, according to reports, that the administration's rejection of Israeli intelligence reports and consequent refusal to provide advanced weapons led to Netanyahu refusing to authorize the use of tear gas and other anti-riot measures. After Israeli commandos were soon outmatched by Turkish personnel, live fire was ordered by the Israeli naval commander.

The White House demand that Israel "exercise extreme caution and restraint," as a diplomat told WorldTribune.com, apparently ended up costing lives. Would this "Freedom Flotilla" have even attempted to break an Israeli blockade if Israel still had our strong backing? And would Iran be threatening to use its Revolutionary Guards to help smash the blockade with a naval escort?

Would the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency be placing Israel's nuclear weapons power status on its governing board's agenda this month for the first time in nearly two decades if the American-Israeli relationship wasn't deteriorating?

Would the likes of bush-league diplomatic players such as Turkey and Brazil be coming out of the woodwork with a deal to threaten even the tepid sanctions against an Islamofascist regime in Iran that will soon be able to launch a nuclear warhead against Israel?

A good case could be made that little or none of this would be happening if the U.S. had not let it be known, in various ways, that it wasn't going to be supporting Israel the way it used to.

With photos circulating of the president hugging Helen Thomas in the press room, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs scrambled to condemn her remarks as "offensive and reprehensible." And then the president followed with a personal condemnation.

But distancing itself from Thomas' bigotry doesn't allow the president to escape blame. Like former President Jimmy Carter, who used the flotilla incident to accuse Israel of "besieging Gaza" and claim that because of Israel, "the people of Gaza remain isolated and deprived of their basic human rights," this administration believes Israel should be blamed for defending itself from terrorism.

In fact, the Jewish state, surrounded by bloodthirsty enemies, should be lauded for its restraint over the decades, not subject to further persecution.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536739/201006081901/Open-Season-On-The-Jewish-State.aspx

PC In The DOD
Investors Business Daily       04/26/2010

Political Correctness: The Army disinvited the Rev. Franklin Graham from praying at the Pentagon because he might offend Muslim soldiers. But isn't that the same attitude that led to the Fort Hood massacre?

The Army didn't want to offend a Muslim soldier — Maj. Nidal Hasan — who openly threatened "infidels" in Islamic diatribes. Brass ignored his jihadist rants and treated him with kid gloves. Hasan later opened fire on soldiers.

An internal Pentagon probe mentioned none of this, so no one should be surprised that the painful lesson of Fort Hood has not been learned — that catering to militant Muslims does not win their hearts and minds. In fact, it can embolden them.

In the latest chapter of military PC, the Pentagon canceled the appearance of Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, at an upcoming National Day of Prayer event because of Muslim complaints over his past "inappropriate" remarks about Islam.

After the 9/11 attacks, Graham described Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion." He explained that he thought it was his "responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on its supporters to pressure the Pentagon to withdraw its May 6 prayer invitation to Graham. CAIR hailed the Pentagon's cave-in as a "victory."

No matter the circumstances, bowing to such a radical group — one with proven terror ties — is a new low in political correctness, even for the Army.

Another group, the liberal Military Religious Freedom Foundation, joined CAIR in complaining about the "Islamophobic" Graham. It argued that the Pentagon showed religious favoritism toward Christianity in inviting him.

Really? The Pentagon holds annual Iftar dinners for Muslims and is building mosques for them. It's also actively recruiting Muslim soldiers, even after the Fort Hood betrayal, and offering them leave for Islamic holidays.

Yet letting an evangelical preacher pray is too "Christian-themed"? Please. If the Pentagon favors any faith these days, it's Islam.

Our military leadership has been impaired by a PC culture that blinds it to even internal Islamic threats. Now comes this affront to one of the nation's leading evangelicals, who has boldly warned about such threats.

As it happens, President Obama met over the weekend with the 91-year-old Billy Graham at his North Carolina home as part of a pre-scheduled meeting. Out of respect for the elder Graham, the commander in chief ought to overrule the Pentagon and re-invite his son to speak on the National Day of Prayer.

But given this president's obsession with apologizing to the Muslim world, we won't hold our breath.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531381