Tancredo needs to keep his eye on the ball – Mission First - B.S. Politics Second, if at all.

 In a rare display of poor judgment Congressman Tom Tancredo, flag bearer of a principled crusade to solve the Nation’s Illegal Immigration and Border Sovereignty Crisis, shot himself and his mission in the foot by slamming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

  Tancredo advises DeLay to 'temporarily step aside'

A 2nd Republican says House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should step aside -- Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican.

    Mr. Tancredo said he doesn't believe the charges against Mr. DeLay and thinks they are motivated by partisanship, but said it might be better that Mr. DeLay step aside for some time.   "If the majority leader were to temporarily step aside so that these trumped-up charges can be dealt with in a less-hostile environment -- as they have proven to be an unnecessary distraction -- it may be a productive move," Mr. Tancredo said.

    His comment came a day after he told the Denver Post it was "probably not the worst idea" for the leader to step aside. But he also told that paper that Republicans should not move to oust Mr. DeLay.

    Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican, has given no indication he will step aside, telling The Washington Times in an interview this week he has not been distracted by the charges. Asked about Mr. Tancredo's remarks yesterday, DeLay spokesman Dan Allen said the Republican agenda remains on track.

    "Majority Leader Delay is focused on working with the House Republicans to ensure that we move our agenda. We've been very successful this Congress, already passing the toughest budget since 1997, permanent repeal of the death tax -- which makes it 11 years in a row we've passed tax relief -- and reforming lawsuit abuse, to name a few," he said.

    "The leader has made it clear he looks forward to sitting down with the chairman and ranking member of the Ethics Committee to get the facts out and dispel all this fiction," Mr. Allen said.

    Last weekend Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut became the first House Republican to call for Mr. DeLay to step aside. But Mr. Shays' call was not a surprise to many Republicans, because he has tangled with House leaders on a number of high-profile issues before and is often critical of his party's leadership.

Stephen Dinan full text at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050415-105857-5340r.htm

     Congressman Tancredo is a might warrior fighting the good fight.   He has rightfully challenged the White House.  His challenge was mission oriented.

    However, undermining the Republican House Majority Leader is both unnecessary and unwise. 

    Why?  What does the DeLay issue have to do with the Mission? 

    Not only is Tom DeLay likely totally innocent and a victim of partisan political infighting, he is a strong backer of the Mission.

    At a time when Tancredo and the cause need all the support possible in the Congress - this is just plain dumb. 

    I am wondering why his staff is letting him down by not applying a cautionary hand or whisper - yea even a shout... What are you doing??

    This lapse in plain common horse sense may cost him dearly in the future -- it may also severely and unnecessarily undermine the Mission.

In their reporting on the Minuteman Project, the following nationwide newspaper headlines exhibit a remarkable commonality. 

What do they all have in common?

 Not ONE of the headlines had the 'guts' to print the words 'illegal aliens' or use the adjective 'illegal' in conjunction with their nouns!

 It is a national disgrace that 99% of the media have deliberately obscured the illegal alien issue by applying the tactic of omission. 

 Why do the media routinely and systematically apply euphemistic nouns such as 'immigrant' or 'migrant,' or 'border crossers,' and then deliberately omit their status of illegality? 

 For what purpose or rationale does the media subvert by omission, their coverage of the invasion of our country by a 'human tsunami' of illegal aliens? 

 Just how cleaver and underhanded  are the media in their subterfuge . . . let me count the ways:  

1. 1,000 activists to patrol Arizona border for migrants
2. Volunteer patrols stir uneasiness on border:  Minuteman Project could draw 1,000 for migrant watch 
3.  'Minutemen' wage immigration battle at border
4. IMMIGRATION:  More than 20 area activists plan to watch border crossers.  Fears of violence arise
5. Wanted :  Border Hoppers.  And Some excitement, Too.
6. Hispanic legislators to monitor monitors:  Lawmakers will keep tabs on border project
7. Tombstone at the eye of Minuteman storm
8. Border watch group, human right activists arrive for monthlong patrol
9. US vigilantes begin border stake-out
10. Immigration Opponents To Patrol U.S. Border:  Rights Groups Condemn 'Minuteman' Protest
11. Private volunteers patrol a porous border 
12. Border watchers have eyes on Texas
13. Tombstone gang guards US border
14. Border volunteers descend on tourist town 
15. Armed Volunteers Plan to Patrol Border

 What exactly is being implied by using terms like:  "migrants" or "border hoppers" or "border crossers" or a "migrant watch" or "immigration opponents?"  

 It seems a whole lot like saying:  

• a carjacker, is a "temporary owner?
• a house burglar, is an "uninvited house guest?"
• a thief, is someone who has "appropriated" your belongings?
• a pick-pocket who uses your credit cards, is an "undocumented cardholder?"
• a bank robber, is someone making an "unofficial withdrawal?"

  What all those euphemistic terms are missing, is the pertinent, descriptive adjective "illegal" as in "illegal immigration opponents" or "illegal migrants" or "illegal border hoppers/crossers!"  The wide-spread pervasive use of such euphemisms is deliberate! 

 They are subversive because they cover up a person’s illegal status. The solution, why not use the official term of "illegal alien" as set forth in the United States Code of immigration law! 

 Some other euphemisms, such as:  undocumented migrants; immigrant workers; undocumented immigrants; economic migrant; undocumented individual; undocumented residents," etc., ad nauseum are routinely substituted for 'illegal immigrants' or 'illegal migrants!'   

 Most frequently the term 'undocumented' is used in an obvious attempt to imply an immigrant or migrant is just some poor hard working person that is only lacking some sort of paperwork (undocumented).  When in fact, the "undocumented" are illegal aliens breaking our immigration laws, invading our country, and flaunting our sovereignty with impunity.  

 When you add the qualifying adjective "illegal" to those euphemistic nouns, then they become factual and accurate. 

Isn't that what media reporting is supposed to be about, facts and accuracy?

 Notice anything else?  Not ONE headline calls the Minutemen "patriots!"  These are volunteers who gave up their  vacations and left the comfort of 'hearth and home' to participate in a protest in the desert  beneath an unrelenting sun, exposed to wind blown sand, oppressive heat and camping out . . . sans swimming pool.  They may live thousands of miles away and yet they feel compelled to come.  They leave behind their personal obligations to jobs and family.  It takes money, perhaps needed for other things, to travel!  These are true American patriots who are fighting to seal our southern border to millions upon millions of illegal aliens, some of which are gang members, drug runners, murderers and possible terrorists!   For their efforts, they are called "immigration opponents," (minus the adjective "illegal"), "monitors," "border watchers," "activists," the "Tombstone gang," and "armed volunteers!"  

 As it stands today, the American public is being shamelessly 'brainwashed' by the media and others, concerning the 18-20 millions illegal aliens that have invaded our country and continue to do so at a rate of 10,000 per day!

 By deliberately employing unspecified vagueness, and euphemistic substitutions such as, "immigrant (unspecified)," or "migrant (unspecified)" or "undocumented worker" they continually insult and offend their knowledgeable audience!

Why do you suppose there is such wide-spread use of these euphemisms?  It appears to be a concerted effort by many to "put lipstick on a pig" as Tom Tancredo has famously iterated.  It is simple way to cover up, disguise, and gloss over the massive illegal immigration invasion that is Balkanizing our country.  Sadly, it is being propagated and proliferated by the media, Hispanic groups, and politicians, including our president.  It is particularly galling and egregious when those euphemisms are followed by the mantra:  "After all we are a nation of immigrants aren't we?"  The response to that comment is:  Legal immigrants YES . . . illegal immigrants, NO!   

   Others who participate in the illegal alien "cover-up," are the Hispanic and Latino groups like La Raza (The Race), LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, Aztlan, who pose as 'immigrant-rights activists.' 

 They loudly condemn any legislation denying "public benefits" to illegal aliens, such as Arizona's Prop. 200; and, when anyone has the temerity to speak out about the massive illegal immigration overwhelming America, they are branded "anti-immigrant."  Hispanic and Latino groups have repeatedly called the Minutemen "anti-immigrant!"  They NEVER say anti-illegal immigrant.  The word illegal, is not in their vocabulary.  They and their 'leaders' are deliberately obfuscating, duplicitous, hypocritical and dishonest!  The national media routinely assists them in their campaign of disinformation.  As such they both need to be admonished! 

 It is disingenuous for Hispanic and Latino groups to lobby in support of illegal aliens by promoting it as "immigrant-rights."   By definition that term includes both legal and illegal immigrants!  Their dissembling is then perpetuated by the media!  The media's 'permission by omission' facilitates the Hispanic community, en masse, to remain unchallenged in their support for massive illegal immigration.  Since the vast majority of the illegal aliens are Hispanic and Latino, their motives are without doubt, the purist form of racism there is!   What have we come to in America, the land of laws, that we are expected to silently accept the duplicitous hypocrisy of such racist groups and their complicit media. 

 We need to demand that our media stop being part of the cover-up.  

  We need to encourage them to use the proper legal term of "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" or "illegal" (whatever noun they choose) when they report in the future. 

When Hispanic and Latino "activists" make the fallacious charges of racism, xenophobia and label someone as "anti-immigrant," the follow-up question needs to be:  "is that anti-legal immigrant or anti-illegal immigrant?" 

This simple 'accuracy check' will go a long way towards framing the public conversation about this serious, important problem of massive illegal immigration and its impact on our country.

 Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.  http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_7807.shtml

  This has been going on for years.

  The media is simply not held accountable.

  We can must do so by calling and writing letters to the editor and challenging the reporters.

          Amnesty by Any Other Name

 Hundreds of "Minuteman" volunteers are fanning out this week across the Arizona-Mexico border. They hope, by so doing, to help the authorities reduce somewhat the human tsunami of illegal aliens crossing into America.

    More important, perhaps, they seek to focus the our leaders' attention on the public's rising anger about this invasion of our territory -- and its huge national security, social, economic and other costs.

 In the meantime, some less than honest or patriotic Senators are trying to scam America with S.359, the Craig-Kennedy Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005 (better known as the AgJobs bill), amounts to an amnesty for a class of Illegal Aliens.

    The full extent of those costs may yet to be tallied. By some estimates, there were 75,000 "other-than-Mexican" Illegals among those who sneaked into the United States last year. A growing number are from the Middle East and may well be Islamists using well-established alien-smuggling routes as the first step to perpetrating new acts of terror in this country.

    Lest there be any lingering doubt, however, that politicians need the sort of pointed reminder the Minutemen are offering that, as they say in the movies, the American people are "mad as hell and not going to take it any more," consider the likely scenario on the floor of the U.S. Senate this week.

    The scheduled business is urgent action on an emergency supplemental appropriations measure to provide funding needed now by our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without such funding, critical war materiel will begin running short -- jeopardizing the mission, and possibly the lives, of our servicemen and women on the front lines.

    This priority legislation became the vehicle the House of Representatives used last month to fulfill a promise made in December by its leadership and by President Bush: In exchange for passing last year a bill intended to carry out the recommendations of the September 11 Commission, but that failed to address several of the most important ones -- in particular, those dealing with the need to enhance the authenticity and security of driver's licenses, the "REAL ID" bill fixing the latter would be given expedited consideration.

    The REAL ID legislation is aimed at denying future terrorists the ability exploited by the September 11, 2001, hijackers (even those in this country illegally) -- namely, to hold numerous valid driver's licenses, which they used to gain murderous access to airports and their targeted aircraft. It is no small irony, therefore, that the presence of the REAL ID provisions on the military's supplemental funding bill is being cited by the Senate parliamentarian as grounds for Sen. Larry Craig, Idaho Republican, to try to attach to it legislation that would help eviscerate what passes for restrictions on illegal immigration.

    Mr. Craig, a Republican legislator from Idaho, has an idee fixe he shares with, his co-sponsor, Sen. Teddy Kennedy: The agricultural sector of the U.S. economy needs cheap labor.  

·         So, let's legalize the presence in this country of anyone who can claim to have once worked for a little more than three months in that sector.

·         If that were not bad enough, their families would be allowed to become legal residents, too, even if they are not now in the United States.

·         The same would apply for Illegals who had ostensibly been agricultural workers here in the past, but who have gone home.

·         They can all become "temporarily" legit, a status the notoriously left-wing, yet federally funded, Legal Services Corp. will be happy to help them subsequently adjust to permanent resident status.

    In short, S.359, the Craig-Kennedy Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005 (better known as the AgJobs bill), amounts to an amnesty for a class of illegal aliens.

     While the proponents insist it is something else -- for example, "hard-earned legalization" -- there is no getting around the fact it hugely rewards people for coming to this country illegally. And, as we have seen with previous, misbegotten immigration amnesties, the effect is to encourage more people to do so.

    That will surely be the case with the Craig-Kennedy AgJobs bill, too. Though it requires the illegal alien's 100 days of agricultural work in the U.S. to have occurred during any 12-month period between February 2002 and August 2003 -- and, therefore, is not something new "invaders" could cash in on -- this legislation further reinforces the expectation that, if you can get into this country by whatever means, you will at some point likely be allowed to stay legally.

    Interestingly, Messrs. Craig and Kennedy have significantly fewer co-sponsors (43) on their legislation this year than in the last session of Congress (62). At this writing, it is unclear if many of those senators who no longer want to be publicly associated with this amnesty bill will nonetheless vote for it.

    We can only hope they have heard the Minutemen's message on behalf of the vast majority of Americans of just about every walk of life and political persuasion:  

• The time has come to take effective action to secure our borders against the swelling tide of people trying to get into this country illegally;
• To find ways to decrease, not increase, those already here unlawfully; and
• To ensure that documents needed to access airports, government buildings, bank accounts, etc. are valid and held only by those entitled to carry them.

       And get all this done now, without hurting our troops.

    Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Original test at  http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050404-084658-1907r.htm

     Senator Larry Craig R-Idaho and Senator Teddy Kennedy D-Massachusetts are both despicable individuals.  Kennedy’s character flaws are well documented and he is a national joke.  Senator Craig has just recently exposed himself as a bought and paid for Cheap Labor Politico.

     Massachusetts has proven itself to be a ‘lost state’ willing to shame itself repeatedly by electing the likes of Kennedy and Kerry.

     One can only hope that Idaho can shed itself of a sorry individual like Craig at the ballot box.  It is up to them.

    500,000 Anchor Babies a Year?

Imagine what would happen if Americans could vote up or down on the Fourteenth Amendment. Hypothetical choices:

1. Any child born in the United States is entitled to full citizenship regardless of the circumstances of his birth.
2. Only children born to U.S. citizens will be American citizens.

Choice B would pass overwhelmingly—perhaps by as much as 75%.

And wouldn't that be wonderful? Anchor babies, whose families often depend on welfare to get through the day, would no longer burden us.

Foreigners who enter the U.S. legally or illegally to give birth for the sole purpose of getting an American birth certificate and U.S. passport for their children would be out of luck.

Volumes have been written on the accident whereby American citizenship is bestowed on anyone born here—even if their parents are here illegally. I refer you to the analysis of my friends and colleagues: Howard Sutherland and Robert Locke, Michelle Malkin, Allan Wall, and Ed Rubenstein.

Now, thanks to the recent essay in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons by Dr. Madeleine Pelner Cosman entitled Illegal Aliens and American Medicine, birthright citizenship is back on center stage.

As we renew our thinking on the abuse of the 14^th Amendment, we need to focus on one of the major oversights in earlier reporting.

Historically, the most frequently quoted number of Anchor Babies born each year is 200,000.  But the 200,000 figure is woefully understated. Since illegal immigration has increased significantly in the last decade. Just look around you. Wherever you live, you are likely to see young, fecund Mexican women, walking children in strollers and possibly pregnant, in every corner of town.

There are four major reasons why a very much higher number of Anchor Babies is now the case:

"First, some anchor babies are born in facilities that actively encourage anchor babies, but report the births only to those organizations that will provide long-term assistance to Hispanics by providing welfare benefits. This list would include pro-illegal alien 'rights' groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Foundation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Second, because of the privacy and confidentiality stipulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and with additional privacy regulations in 2003 and 2004, medical facilities and physicians withhold all information on 'immigration status' as being confidential to the patient. This obviously creates the potential for significantly higher numbers of anchor babies than anyone would previously have guessed.

Third, sanctuary cities like California's San Diego, Los Angeles and Stockton as well as Austin, TX and New York have laws that prevent physicians, nurses, or police officers from reporting aliens to immigration or local law enforcement. Hospitals and obstetric suites in those cities have significant numbers of anchor babies born. But they are not reported as such."

            Fourth, America's absurd generosity: "Logic demands that whenever free goods are offered freely, people take and take again.  To refuse free    goods requires an act of will and an ethical determination not to take the unearned. If America offers incentives to illegal aliens to take citizenship, the illegal aliens are acting with intelligent self-interest in accepting our absurd generosity. After all, to refuse what is freely offered is impolite and insulting. Therefore illegal aliens who take the birthright citizenship are simply polite guests willingly accepting the offered hospitality of their American hosts."

Taking four-point analysis into account the numbers of Anchor Babies born in the U.S. each year at 500,000 and it still may be underestimating the problem."

Boil it down to the simplest logic. If there are 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S., then how could there not be a minimum of 500,000 Anchor Babies born annually?

The situation is best expressed:  "We are drowning in immigrants."

And when Anchor Babies those babies turn 18, they can sponsor their illegal alien parents.

This gaping hole in America’s immigration defenses has been obvious for a long time. Amazingly, the House task force on illegal immigration set up by Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker ten years ago called for a constitutional amendment ending automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

Georgia U.S. Representative Nathan Deal recently introduced H.R. 698, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 that would deny citizenship at birth to Illegal Aliens. But H.R. 698 is languishing with only eighteen measly cosponsors.

Short of a constitutional amendment, the simplest way to end the absurdity of Anchor Babies is to cut the problem off at the source.

First, seal the borders. Then, report aliens, end “confidentiality,” and eliminate sanctuary.

Pressure is mounting on all levels of government to enforce immigration laws.

Once those laws are obeyed, that will be the last you'll hear about anchor babies.

Joe Guzzardi, full text a  http://www.vdare.org/guzzardi/050325_birthright.htm

  It is The Anderson Report’s contention that the 14^th Amendment has been and continues to be wrongly interpreted and applied.

ARTICLE XIV

Section 1.  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

  Anchor Babies are born of Illegal Aliens and are not eligible for citizenship because their mothers are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for they are in the United States illegally.   They are citizens of their mother's country of origin.

  It has been convenient for liberal minded courts to wrongly interpret or disregard the wording of the 14^th Amendment.

       VAYA CON DIOS, TERRI SCHIAVO

Fifteen years ago Terri Schiavo told one or more of her friends that she was leaving her husband, Michael. The next morning Terri was found lying face down at her home at roughly 4:00 A.M. by her husband, Michael. Was his first response to call 9-1-1? No. He called non-emergency personnel instead and only after a significant period of time, first responders.

For the last fifteen years Terri had been handicapped. Neurologists agree that she was brain damaged. They don't agree on whether she was in a "persistent vegetative state".

Terri's eyes wandered. Her heart beat. She breathed on her own. She had normal sleep cycles. She smiled. She got a pleasant look on her face when her mother stroked her face. She made noises as if she was trying to communicate.

Terri was never kept alive by machines. She was fed through a tube, but so are patients with various other ailments.

Allegedly as Terri and Michael were watching a movie, Terri made a comment that she would never want to be kept alive by artificial means. She was 22 years old at the time.

Years later, her husband-Michael, remembered the comment and the setting under which it was made. Allegedly, two immediate relatives of Michael remembered such comments made by Terri, both named Schiavo. How convenient.

Remarkably, these comments were remembered seven years after they were allegedly made. During Michael's civil suit to win money to keep Terri alive, none of these comments came to light. Yet, these unproven comments were admitted in proceedings to allow Terri to die of thirst.

She was sentenced to death by a probate judge, no less. Terri was sentenced to death on evidence offered by those with a personal conflicting interest. There was never any irrefutable proof that this is what Terri wanted. Higher courts reviewed the proceedings and pronounced them "legally correct".

There was apparently no consideration of what is moral, just or what constitutes common sense. Our imperial judiciary is focused on the
process.

Justice be damned!

The black-robed arbiters of "justice" have held themselves above any standard except that which they have established for themselves. The Constitutional right to life is non-existent if you are brain damaged and your guardian wants you dead.

When Terri and Michael were married, they entered into a civil contract recognized anywhere in the world. Terri had certain obligations to Michael and Michael had obligations to Terri. Among those obligations understood as standard for all marriages is the obligation not to indulge in adultery.

 
Michael Schiavo has abrogated his marriage vows to Terri. For the last ten years Michael has shacked up with another woman and has two children by her.

Terri has been unable to divorce Michael. She has been trapped in a marriage which, if she could, she no doubt would have ended. She has been totally unable to violate her marriage vows. So, Terri's side of the marriage contract was never violated.

Michael has repeatedly violated his. He has taken a "common law" wife.

Why then is he still "guardian" of Terri?

He has either left the marriage and not entitled to be guardian or he is guilty of bigamy. It is a clear conflict of interest that the courts
allowed him to dictate Terri's future in a guardian capacity when he left the marriage.

He wanted her dead.

Michael has been offered one million dollars to relinquish guardianship of Terri. He refused.

Terri's parents had offered to assume all expenses and responsibilities to keep Terri alive.

Yet, Michael refused to get on with his life and let Terri live.

What does Michael have to hide?

What did he have to lose?

If it is undying loyalty and love for Terri, why is he shacked up with another woman?

Did love motivate Michael to deny Terri communion and last rites until public pressure caused him to relent?

Why didn't the courts recognize that Michael gave up any moral right to dictate Terri's treatment when he left the marriage?

Terri was alive. She was sentenced to death by dehydration. Her tongue swelled. Her tissues parched. Her kidneys failed. It took her thirteen
days to die a slow cruel death.

Why is an innocent person sentenced to death in America? She committed no crime. She was brain damaged. It was never firmly established that she was a "living vegetable" whatever that means in medical terms.

What gives the judiciary the right to determine whether a handicapped person's life is worth living?

Already the courts have determined that an unborn baby can be killed on its mother's whim.

Now, by virtue of a handicap, the courts have declared that Terri's life wasn't worth living. This determination was made on the strength of dubious statements submitted by Terri's "husband" who long ago left the marriage.

Terri left nothing in writing. She made no such comments to her parents who fought a valiant and expensive battle to keep her alive.

There is no irrefutable evidence that Terri wanted to die.

A high priest in the cult of death, (otherwise known as the "right to die movement"), George Felos, had the gall to go on national television and announce that Terri was having a "pleasant" death. He described how there were flowers in the room. There was music playing. He stated that Terri looked "beautiful" and that she was in no pain.

Oh yeah?

Why was she administered morphine if she was having such a euphoric experience?

I would think differently if Terri were on real life support. Perhaps a feeding tube is considered by others as "life support". I don't think so.
Heart-lung machines are life support. A tube that delivers natural substances like food and water is not life support.

Some doctors testified that there is no hope for Terri's "recovery".

What is "recovery"?

Perhaps Terri was happy simply being stroked and having her hair combed by her mother. Perhaps Terri would have enjoyed being taken out of her room and sat in the sun. Michael even denied her that pleasure.

Maybe by our standards Terri had no life.

What did Terri think?

Was Terri satisfied with the quality of life she did have?

Only Terri knew and she was not represented. Terri NEVER had anyone representing her in the courts.

There was only Michael, with a clear conflict of interest doing everything possible to have her put to death.

Our courts decided that Terri's life wasn't worth living.

Now, what about the person with MS who can't communicate?

What about an Alzheimer's patient?

How long until severe depression will be considered a basis for euthanasia? The Cult of Death will never be satisfied.

Terri's death was a threshold event. If the court can sentence Terri to death by dehydration because her "husband" wanted it that way, what prevents a tribunal or even an individual like Judge Greer, from sentencing any other "useless life" to death because someone able-bodied wants them that way?

When does life cease to be sacred? According to the Cult of Death, life was never sacred.

By legalizing abortion on demand, and now euthanasia, our judiciary system has lost its moral authority.

Terri was not terminally ill. If Terri had no right to life, liberty and happiness, then none of us do.

We no longer have God given rights; we have to look to a fickle judiciary to determine whether our life is worth living once we become handicapped like Terri. As in Nazi Germany, we risk becoming "useless eaters".

Terri suffered a slow and agonizing death that is not legally allowed even for animals. At least convicted murderers are given a painless lethal injection.

There needs to be a rebellion against our judiciary. Any time a judge is focused on proceedings and does not consider morality or simply what is
right and wrong, we have a problem in America. What is ultimately important is the righteousness of the decision.

                            Vaya con Dios, Terri. May God reward you abundantly. I hope your death was not in vain.


Dave Stoddard

Hereford, Arizona

      Illegal Alien Gangs, the Minutemen Project and National Security

  The notorious crime syndicate Mara Salvatrucha is threatening Arizona's Project Minuteman and reportedly plans to teach it "a lesson" once the Minutemen begin fanning out along Arizona's border regions this weekend. This probably was not the bedfellow that President Bush, the U.S. Border Patrol and the American Civil Liberties Union were counting on when they began criticizing the civilian border-surveillance group in recent weeks. But the president, law enforcement officers and activist groups have unintentionally ended up on the same side of the issue as a violent criminal gang targeted by coordinated raids just two weeks ago.

    It is not hard to see why Mara Salvatrucha prefers the border status quo. The gang stems from a town in El Salvador named La Mara and salvatruchas means guerrillas. The gang grew from Salvadoran refugees in California in the 1980s into one of the largest criminal syndicates in North America, with as many as 20,000 members in the United States and branches throughout Mexico, Central America and Canada. Mara Salvatrucha is among the most successful smugglers of drugs, weapons and people across the U.S.-Mexico border.

    It's ruthless, too: When federal authorities arrested more than 100 gang members two weeks ago in Operation Community Shield -- spanning New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Baltimore Miami, Dallas and elsewhere -- more than half of the suspects had prior arrests or convictions for murder, assault, arson, weapons offenses or charges of drug possession. Mara Salvatrucha has reportedly issued "green lights" to kill police officers in Virginia and Maryland. Such a criminal enterprise -- which, we point out, is the largest criminal syndicate in the Washington area -- benefits greatly from lax border security and under-funding of the U.S. Border Patrol.

    Thus, it is clear that Project Minuteman threatens to complicate things for its smuggling and law-breaking operations. Project Minuteman's 1,000 or more observers will likely be able to spot the gangsters as they attempt to cross into Arizona. They will be able to report on suspected criminal activity involving illegal border-crossings and point the Border Patrol toward the worst offenses. Some of the Minutemen with valid licenses will be armed. The Minutemen have been instructed to holster their weapons and not to confront any suspected lawbreakers. Their only purpose is to spot offenders and report them to the Border Patrol.

    But Mara Salvatrucha may well do its best to force them to react otherwise, given the stakes for a criminal enterprise like Mara Salvatrucha and its violent record inside the United States.

    Two key lessons here are that criminal enterprises benefit from lax enforcement and that ordinary citizens protest when the federal government fails them.

    That hasn't been the refrain thus far. In fact, critics of the Minutemen have mostly avoided talking about groups like Mara Salvatrucha and have instead distorted the facts to accuse Project Minuteman of breaking the law. Mr. Bush was wrong last week to call the Minutemen "vigilantes." The Minutemen are not a lynch mob.

    Mexican President Vicente Fox has played the xenophobia card by referring to the Minutemen as "migrant-hunting groups." The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona erroneously stated the Minutemen will "attempt to enforce federal immigration law." In fact, the Minutemen have repeatedly stated they are neither hunters nor law enforcers, and that duly constituted government authorities are the only rightful enforcers of the law.

    Project Minuteman still has both public opinion and the law firmly on its side. Public-opinion data on illegal immigration regularly shows strong support for tougher laws on, and tougher enforcement of, illegal immigration. If only Mr. Bush and Congress would address that agenda.

Original text at http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050328-111230-6455r.htm

   Should Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) become involved in the Minuteman Project in any way President Bush, Homeland Security, the U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement have whole new ball game on their hands.

    If a 20,000 member strong foreign-origin based gang of Illegal Aliens that is among the most successful smugglers of drugs, weapons and people across the U.S.-Mexico border re-orient itself to attack U.S. citizens in an area not previously of interest to the gang - then we have a coordinated foreign attack on the United States. 

   At that point, all the bullshit about guest workers, open-borders, and attempts to support cheap labor or cheap votes for special interest groups goes out the window.  After all, a force of 20,000 is equal in number to combat elements of approximately 2 U.S. Army Divisions.

   And, at that point the U.S. Military must be brought in and the Border Situation elevated to its long overdue proper level of concern.

    Exposing Condi Rice

 Four years after 9/11 killed 3,000 people, Bush violates his oath of office. 

He has not and will not place troops on the border. 

He won’t enforce immigration laws. 

He won’t pursue employers of illegal aliens. 

He won’t deport illegal aliens. 

He is clueless to the crime, drugs, school chaos, diseases and lawlessness facing all of us in every state in the Union. 

He insults Americans by telling them that Mexicans do the jobs that Americans won’t do.

He’s doing nothing more than inviting ‘working slaves’ into our country from the Third World.

  Last week, Condi Rice blurted out that she does not support lawless vigilantes patrolling America’s vulnerable southern border.  Never mind 10,000 illegal aliens cross nightly according to Time Magazine!  She felt the Minute Man Project represented lawless behavior on the part of American citizens.

 But the Christian Science Monitor presented disturbing news, March 22, 2005, “Concern is growing at the top levels of government about the US-Mexican border becoming a back door for terrorists entering the United States. While Al Qaeda infiltration across the nation's southern border has been a constant concern since 9/11, US officials cite recent intelligence giving the most definitive evidence yet that terrorists are planning to use it as an entry point - if they haven't already.”

 The report continues with, “"In the Brownsville sector alone, border patrol officials reported they caught 23,178 OTMs (other than Mexicans) crossing through August 2004," ….  “Of those, 16,616 were released."            Onother loophole is entering Mexico through Brazil, where a visa is not required to travel to Mexico. Experts believe there is an international Salafist jihad movement with a goal to attack the near enemy and far enemy - the US…..These terrorists are smart. They study these issues and learn from one other. And one way in is right through the southern security perimeter.

 Since the president of the USA encourages illegal immigration, The Minuteman Project fills the bill and sports Americans from 50 states while numbering over 1,000 volunteers.  Congress is nervous.  Condi Rice is upset.  Bush is clueless.  

 Therefore, Jim Gilchrist created the Minuteman Project to do the jobs that Bush and Congress won’t do.  This is the largest citizen ‘neighborhood watch’ group ever assembled in defense of America. 

 Gilchrist said, “The Minute Man Project protests the refusal of the Congress and the president to protect our borders from illegal immigrants who have not had criminal or disease background checks thereby creating imminent danger to all Americans.”

 Charges of racism stem from pro-illegal immigration groups such as La Raza who encourage illegal migration.  However, Gilchrist said, “The racism is all on the other side.  People who want to protect and save America from this invasion include all colors, religions and nationalities.”

 “We are simply going about our Constitutional right to peaceful assembly,” Gilchrist said. “We neither condone nor endorse violence.  Nothing will stand in our way to exercise our First Amendment rights.”

 What Gilchrist protests is the doublespeak of Condi Rice issue when she says, “We try and make sure that our borders are as safe as possible and that it is every important the laws of the United States be respected.”  Fat chance!