Monthly Archives: April 2010

Update III: Tell Establishment Media A Dog Died On The Border

Barack Obama, Bush, Crime, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Private Property, Republicans, States' Rights

The excerpt is from my new, WND.COM column, “Tell Establishment Media A Dog Died On The Border”:

“In response to CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux’s concern that the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, SB 1070, has made “a lot of people very angry, very upset” [a life threatening condition, apparently], the upstanding Antenori demanded: “What about my constituents whose homes are ransacked? What about the ranchers who’re shot at while patrolling their fence lines; whose cattle are being slaughtered ? there are millions of dollars of economic damages ? what about them? What about their civil right?”

Bad move.

Although not as rude as Chris Matthews and his malevolent MSNBC colleagues, Malveaux was only mildly interested. To grab her attention, Antenori ought to have begun what to Malveaux was a white, hot, racist rant with the story of a dog ? a dog that was shot by one frequent “visitor” to Arizona.

The same marauder who beat a retreat to Mexico killed the dog’s faithful companion, Rancher Robert Krentz. A pillar of the Cochise County community, Krentz had for decades raised cattle along the Arizona-Mexico border.

The violent death of a dog on the border is more likely than that of his owner to rate a mention in mainstream media.

State Senator Russell Pearce might also have mentioned a mutt—or even better, a Mulato family member—to justify the ‘racist’ law he sponsored

Washington does not want immigration laws enforced. And it matters not that its open-house policy is costing American lives and livelihoods. This applies to Barack Hussein Obama as well as to his predecessor, George W. Bush. …

Put more accurately: Arizona is doing the work Washington doesn’t want done. …”

The complete column is “Tell Establishment Media A Dog Died On The Border.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update I (April 30): BREAKING. Coincidence or way of life? Arizona “deputy shot by illegal immigrant.”

Update II (May 1): In my column, I mentioned that “One of the finest minds on matters pertaining to immigration and the Constitution is Kris W. Kobach.” The NYT, no less, ran an op-ed by Kobach, “Why Arizona Drew a Line,” refuting the misinformation put out by bimbos and politicos who’ve not read the law—the former because they can’t read (Shakira); the latter (American Civil Liberties Union/The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) because they can get away with lying. He concludes:

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Update III (May 2): While the activists make demands, patriotic residents of the “The Grand Canyon State” “Clean up our trashed border.” Via Michelle Malkin.

Fact Sheet On New Arizona Immigration Law

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Law, Propaganda

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES ON THE NEW ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW, SB1070

WASHINGTON (April 29, 2010) – The new law recently signed by the governor of Arizona, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to violate some federal immigration statutes. While the law is extremely popular in the state, with 70 percent of Arizona voters approving of it and just 23 percent opposed, it has raised controversy. Below is a brief summary of the relevant information on illegal immigration in Arizona, followed by a short analysis of SB 1070’s major provisions.

Illegal immigration in Arizona:
• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9
• In 2007, the Center estimated that one-third of households headed by illegal immigrants in Arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food-assistance programs or Medicaid. Benefits were typically received on behalf of U.S.-born children.10
• The new law (SB 1070) is extremely popular among Arizona voters. A Rasmussen poll found that 70 percent of voters approve of the new bill, and just 23 percent oppose it.11

Among the new law’s provisions:
• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
• A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver’s license or other form of federal or state identification.
• A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
• A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.

• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13

# # #

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent non-partisan research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States. It is not involved in drafting legislation and has not formally endorsed or opposed SB 1070.

Endnotes

1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

2 See ‘Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.

4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.

7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

10 See Tables 25 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

11 Rasmussen poll released April 21, 2010, of likely voters in Arizona, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration.

12 See ‘Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Figure 2, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf.

13 See http://www.azpost.state.az.us/bulletins/eo201009.pdf.

Survivalism, Resistance, Self-Defense For South Africans

Crime, Criminal Injustice, GUNS, Individual Rights, Race, Racism, South-Africa

AS PROMISED, via friend and activist Dan Roodt, who writes:

People can join the Pro-Afrikaner Action Group (PRAAG) here:

Afrikaans (local): http://praag.co.cc/nl
English (international): http://praag.co.cc

While PRAAG is driving the internet, media and strategic communications to inform and educate people about the imminent danger and options in facing it, we have teamed up with three other groups involved in community security. One of them, the Kommandokorps, is currently recruiting people all over the country into sixty district groups of about 1000 each, to be trained in self-defense and community security. Within the next few weeks and months we aim to have 60,000 trained people on the ground, able to protect and organise the communities where they are based.

I am also putting them in touch with a communications expert so that we can set up a country-wide radio network independent of all cellphone and landline infrastructure, with two-way radios in vehicles that will therefore function even when the power might be down, driven by the cars’ batteries.

Anyone should be able to get joint PRAAG/Kommandokorps membership for R75 per month, i.e. the equivalent of ten dollars per month. For that, they will also receive training in self-defense, how to make their home or farm environment safer and how to handle all kinds of weapons. They can simply join on the above website. The Kommandokorps is also holding meetings in various towns and suburbs almost every day of the week, attended by on average a thousand people every time.

There is another group called the Suidlanders who are counselling people to get out of the cities into rural areas, but we do not agree with that doctrine as we believe our chances of survival in our own homes and streets are better than in an unfamiliar rural area where food or water could run out and where large concentrations of people will be easily spotted from the air or from afar.

SA is definitely getting more and more unstable. The other day the black taxi drivers stormed the Union Buildings and got access to them, harassed and attacked motorists in Pretoria and generally caused mayhem in the capital.

The general expectation is that after the soccer world cup all hell will break loose as the ANC government will no longer have to put its best foot forward in dealing with white discontent. It will also have a free hand in implementing the second, radical phase of its revolution when all farmland and mining assets might be nationalised and “redistributed”, mainly to party officials, of course. So that gives us less than three months to get really organised.

I will follow-up with a more detailed, coherent and persuasive “call to arms,” which I will send to your Barely A Blog [now a repository for facts and analysis about what’s underway in our once glorious homeland, South Africa].

Regards,

Dan

Update II: Further Financial Centralization (Budding Bureaucracies)

Bush, Business, Democrats, Economy, Federalism, Law, Regulation

Charles Krauthammer points out that BHO’s financial-reform bill is a move toward a further increase in the overweening powers of the Executive branch, which will now be able to seize a firm it designates as systemically risky. Where was Krauthammer during the Bush administration? It invented the doctrine of an overreaching executive. Still, he is right.

Michele Bachmann sums up the impetus of the bill: privatizing profits; socializing losses. (By the way, Bachmann is infinitely superior in intelligence to Palin who’s only growing more ignorant with notoriety. The more I see of Bachmann, the more impressed I grow with her demeanor and unshakable command of the facts.

Here is The Wall Street Journal’s “Factsheet: Senate Financial-Regulation Bill”

Update I (April 27): As Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has been pointing out, the bogus lawsuit against Goldman-Sachs, a major donor of Obama and the beneficiary of a bailout, is political theater designed to prepare the public for the passage of enormously intrusive financial regulation.

The Heritage Foundation on “The Dodd Bill:

“Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration want to create a permanent bailout mechanism all [the] while spouting their rhetoric of getting tough on Wall Street, but if you look at who is already lining up to support their ‘reform’ measure it’s a who’s who of the big banks that have already received the taxpayer bailout the first time.” … “Wall Street supports this measure. Why? Because big investment houses realize they’ll get bailed out and would have less reason to worry about risky behavior.”

“Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) crafted the Senate version of so-called ‘Financial Reform’ with the support of the President. The procedure used to date resembles the non-transparent and secretive tactics used to pass ObamaCare. The Senate Banking committee marked up the bill in 22 minutes, with no amendments offered and no debate allowed. …

“There are two specific problems with the Senate approach to ‘reform.'”:

“First, this legislation would create a new $50-billion bailout slush fund controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Very big banks and other ‘eligible financial companies’ would be taxed by the FDIC to build up this fund. As with any tax, though, it’s consumers–you and me–who would eventually pay this levy.

The Obama Administration this weekend requested that the $50 billion pre-funded bailout money be removed from the bill. But according to Foxnews.com, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner advocated last year that any bailout funding should be addressed post bailout through a tax on big Wall Street firms. If Senate Democrats only take out the $50 billion slush fund and leave the bailout authority intact, then the taxpayers will still be on the hook for any future bailouts.

Another problem with this bill is that it would bail out the creditors of companies and wouldn’t require any creditor to take a loss after a company starts to fail. If the bailout slush fund is tapped, the FDIC would have the power to reimburse creditors. That could allow the FDIC to pay creditors more than they invested (pursuant to Section 210 of the Dodd bill).

Think about that. If creditors know they aren’t likely take a loss, and risk has been eliminated from an investment, its taxpayers who are assuming all the risk. Of course, taxpayers get none of the rewards if the investments pay off–we would simply be on the hook if they fail. Taxpayers could expect no reward for having insured transactions and protected wealthy investors from any risk. The AIG bailout is a great example of this model.”

Update II: BUDDING BUREAUCRACIES. Senate Republicans are, so far, blocking debate, and thus a vote, on The Bill, which makes them look like obstructionists to a moronic populace.

Bloomberg:

“Republicans say the bill would set up a permanent bailout of Wall Street banks and create bureaucracies … Dodd’s legislation would create a consumer financial protection bureau at the Federal Reserve with authority to write rules and enforce them at banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets. … The bill would limit the Fed’s regulatory authority to banks with assets of at least $50 billion, transferring its powers to monitor smaller lenders to other regulators. It would also set up a council of regulators to monitor the economy for systemic risk and ban proprietary trading at U.S. banks.”

What pigs do with power ….