Archive for January 19th, 2007

Liberals Enabling Nuclear Terrorism

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Valencia, a suburb north of Los Angeles that is home to Six Flags Magic Mountain amusement park, disappeared this week under the magic mushroom cloud of a terrorist nuclear weapon.

This happened Monday night on the Fox Network television drama “24.” And it made media liberals furious — not at the very real prospect that such an attack could happen, but at the possibility that this drama might snap some Americans out of the hypnotic stupor the liberal media has spent years Svengali-ing us into with relentless left-wing propaganda.

Keith Olbermann, whose weeknight show tilts so one-sidedly to the partisan left that the Federal Election Commission should count it as a multimillion dollar campaign donation by MSNBC to the Democratic Party, was outraged.

This episode of “24,” Olbermann opined, was designed to keep American anxiety high to increase support for President George W. Bush’s foreign and domestic policies.

Original Link

TV Weathermen Forced To Agree With Global Warming?

Friday, January 19th, 2007

This is so strange. Notice the link at the bottom to an article where an ABC-TV weatherman says that he does not know one meterologist that buys into the man-made global warming idea. Seems like money may be a driving force behind the whole global warming craze.

In an attempt to stifle debate over global warming, a Weather Channel climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about warming.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program “The Climate Code,” wants the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to revoke its “Seal of Approval” for any TV weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

“If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote on TWC’s Web site.

“Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns.”

Original Link

Here is another link to a very interesting article that may give us some insight into global warming and what meteorologists think of it.

Orginial Link

North Korea Bilks Billions of Dollars from U.N.

Friday, January 19th, 2007

And yet one more reason (as if we need any more) for doing away with the U.N.

NEW YORK — Has North Korean leader Kim Jong Il subverted the United Nations Development Program, the $4 billion agency that is the U.N.’s main development arm, and possibly stolen tens of millions of dollars of hard currency in the process?

According to a top official of the U.S. State Department — using findings made by the U.N.’s own auditors — the answer appears to be a disturbing yes, so far as UNDP programs in North Korea itself are concerned.

And just as disturbingly, the U.N. aid agency bureaucracy has kept the scamming a secret since at least 1999 — while the North Korean dictator and his regime were ramping up their illegal nuclear weapons program and making highly publicized tests of intermediate range ballistic missiles.

Nothing was disclosed even to the UNDP Executive Board, which oversees its operations and is composed of representatives of 36 nations — including the United States and, this year, North Korea itself.

That fact is sure to be a bombshell at the Executive Board’s regular annual meeting, which begins Friday and extends through Jan. 26. Among the main items to be discussed is the UNDP budget in North Korea.

Moreover, the period of scandal and secrecy in the UNDP’s North Korean operations coincided in large measure with the tenure of Mark Malloch Brown, most recently Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations itself, as administrator of the UNDP.

———-

From at least 1999 to at least 2004, it appears the UNDP, and the U.N. itself, had no idea what Kim Jong Il did with the aid agency’s money, ostensibly intended for aid programs ranging from development of energy programs and small and medium sized businesses, and for environmental protection.

But the UNDP had plenty of warnings from auditors it had contracted to look at the program during that period, and who signaled loudly that something was badly awry.

In a letter sent to the UNDP on Jan. 16, Mark Wallace, the U.S. State Department ambassador at the U.N. for management and reform, wrote that the auditors’ testimony shows it is “impossible” for the U.N. aid agency to verify whether its funds “have actually been used for bona fide development purposes or if the DPRK [North Korea] has converted such funds for its own illicit purposes.”

Ironically enough, neither Wallace nor the U.S. government has been allowed to obtain copies of the audits, which are deemed “management tools” by UNDP bureaucrats and therefore not even available to governments that pay for the organization.

Their contents came to light only after Wallace and the U.S. demanded an opportunity to view the audits at UNDP headquarters, and took careful notes based on the documents. Wallace reiterated the contents in his letter, addressed to Ad Melkert, the UNDP’s No. 2 official.

The difficulties in finding out what the UNDP was doing in North Korea were apparently something that U.S. diplomats and UNDP auditors shared.

Wallace relates in his letter that whenever the auditors, contracted from the consulting firm KPMG, tried to discover what was going wrong, they were either limited in what they were allowed to investigate, or they were forced to accept “sham” audits done by the North Koreans themselves.

The picture painted by the auditors, according to Wallace, shows a U.N. agency that “operated in blatant violation of U.N. rules.”

The UNDP allowed members of Kim’s regime to “dominate” local UNDP staff, who were apparently first selected by the North Korean government itself, the auditors said, and added that Kim’s operatives even ran “core” financial and managerial functions directly.

The regime also demanded cash payments from the aid agency in violation of U.N. rules, and kept UNDP officials from visiting many of the sites where development projects were supposed to be underway.

On at least three occasions, in 1999, 2001 and 2004, the KPMG auditors filed reports that brought troubling aspects of the situation to the attention of UNDP headquarters, recommending “timely corrective action.” There is no evidence that any such action took place.

Just exactly how much money the UNDP funneled into North Korea in all those years is not revealed in Wallace’s letter. But he notes that in 1999 there were 29 ongoing UNDP projects in North Korea, with a total budget of $27.86 million. Two-thirds of the programs were so-called “National Execution programs” run by North Korea directly, using UNDP money. The other third was ostensibly run by UNDP itself.

But that may not have made a difference. The auditors complained that even UNDP-run programs paid for everything in cash, which is against UNDP policy, at prices set by the Kim regime, and to suppliers that the regime designated. There were not even any purchase orders involved. The regime provided no audits of the programs under its own direct control.

Original Link.

Border Agents’ Prosecutor Responds to Critics (…kind of. -ed.)

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Yeah, OK. The bottom line…the sentence for the border agents doesn’t fit the “crime” and we gave a drug runner, carte blanc.

Responding to fierce criticism of the imprisonment of two Texas Border Patrol agents, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton expressed frustration his office could not prosecute the drug smuggler at the center of the case, calling him a “scum.”

“We have a leading record prosecuting drug dealers, not letting them go,” Sutton told WND in a telephone interview.

As WND reported, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean began prison sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively Wednesday for their actions in the shooting and wounding of Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila after he assaulted Compean, dumped more than 700 pounds of marijuana, then fled into Mexico.

Sutton acknowledged the case could become for the Bush administration another Harriet Miers or Dubai Ports-type controversy.

“Yes, I understand the public relations problem the case has caused,” Sutton said. “We are trying to get the public to see our side of the story.”

Public reaction forced reversals after President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in October 2005 and after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States in February 2006 approved Dubai Ports World to operate certain U.S. ports.

Ramos and Campean are going to prison just as news breaks that the Social Security Administration has signed an agreement with Mexico to “totalize” Social Security benefits even for illegal Mexican immigrants who have worked as little as six quarters in the U.S. The agreement was disclosed only after a Freedom of Information Act demand for its release.

Opponents of the agents’ imprisonment – who argue they should, at most, have received a suspension for not following procedure after firing a weapon – believe the case could create a chilling effect for Border Patrol agents who might decide it’s easier to look the other way than to use deadly force to apprehend Mexican drug smugglers.

But Sutton argues he had no choice.

“You have to understand that we could not turn our backs on this,” he told WND. “Two Border Patrol officers shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away and posed no real threat.”

The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.

But critics contend the White House essentially is taking the word of a drug smuggler over two Border Patrol agents, as the three were the only people who saw what happened. Ramos and Compean testified Aldrete-Davila did not have his hands up, he was running away, and he pointed an object at them they believed to be a gun.

Much of the outrage against Sutton stems from sending the two agents to federal prison while granting immunity to the drug dealer in exchange for his testimony as the star witness. The drug dealer also was given medical care by the U.S. and now is filing a $5 million lawsuit against the Border Patrol for alleged violation of his civil rights.

Opponents argue Sutton should have extradited Aldrete-Davila for criminal prosecution, because it’s undisputed he was smuggling marijuana across the border. The first crime committed was the drug smuggling, critics point out, even if Ramos and Compean were culpable for their actions.

Sutton told WND “there was no way we could prosecute” Aldrete-Davila.

“Ramos and Compean could not identify him,” he said. “We found no fingerprints on the van, and he managed to escape, even though he had been shot in the behind by the agents.”

Nevertheless, Sutton’s office was able to track down Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and convince him to return to the U.S. to testify against Ramos and Compean. The bullet was removed from the smuggler’s buttocks by a military physician in the U.S. so it could be introduced as evidence in the agents’ trial.

Critics ask how government investigators were able to track down the drug smuggler in Mexico when Ramos and Compean could not identify him in the first place and there were no fingerprints on the van.

The critics say that among the ironies in the case is that Ramos and Compean were prosecuted in part under a federal law that makes it a crime to discharge a firearm during a crime of violence – a law that was intended to prosecute violent criminals, not Border Patrol officers.

They ask, if Ramos and Compean were not committing a crime in pursuing a drug smuggling suspect, how could this law apply?

The agents still insist Aldrete-Davila appeared to point something at them while the smuggler claimed he was only raising his hands to surrender.

WND is in discussions with Sutton’s office to arrange a second interview to answer questions such as why the government thought Aldrete-Davila’s story was more credible than the report of the two agents.

Original Link.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

President Bush Would Consider Pardoning Border Agents Convicted of Shooting Drug Runner

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush left open the possibility of a pardon for two U.S. Border Patrol agents serving federal prison sentences for shooting a Mexican drug dealer as he fled and covering up the crime.

Bush said “there’s a process for pardons” and the case has to work its way through the system. In an interview with KFOX-TV in El Paso, Texas, Bush said the White House will review the case, and he urged people to “take a sober look at the case.”

“People need to take a tough look at the facts, the evidence a jury looked at, as well as the judge. And I will do the same thing,” he said.

Several lawmakers have urged the president to pardon former Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos for the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, who retreated to Mexico after he was shot and later admitted he was transporting marijuana while in the U.S. illegally.

The agents began serving their sentences Wednesday — 11 years and one day for Ramos and 12 years for Compean. Both were fired after their convictions on several charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, obstruction of justice, and a civil rights violation.

Original Link.

This whole mess just defies logic at so many levels.

UFO or What?

Friday, January 19th, 2007

I don’t believe in UFOs, but the Bible does speak of strange things in the sky’s. Guess we’ll just have to see what comes of this.

A retired Air Force colonel who photographed mysterious, colorful lights hovering over western Arkansas last week has ignited a frenzy of interest in unexplained airborne phenomena, as WND has received numerous reports of similar sightings across the U.S., while a digital expert has filtered the pictures to reveal startling images of what he says could be the “pilot” of the unidentified craft.

“I believe these lights were not of this world, and I feel a duty and responsibility to come forward,” said Col. Brian Fields, who spent nearly 32 years in the military piloting F-16 fighter jets. “I have no idea what they were.”

As WND exclusively reported, Fields, 61, was at his Van Buren, Ark., home Jan. 9 when just before 7 p.m., he observed two intensely bright lights as he looked to the southeast close to the horizon.

“At first I thought they were landing lights from an aircraft,” he said. “As I continued to observe them they began to slowly disappear, then suddenly one reappeared, followed by two, then three. On at least one occasion four or five appeared. Each time they would slowly fade and eventually disappear. This occurred several times and when they would reappear they might do so in differing numbers and in different positions, sometimes in a triangular shape, sometimes stacked on top of each other, sometimes line abreast, etc. When the objects appeared they might stay illuminated 10 or more minutes.”

Fields’ wife thought the lights may have been ground-based, but Fields says he’s certain they were airborne.

“I’m certain it wasn’t an aircraft [from Earth],” said Fields, who also ruled out the possibility of flares, saying they didn’t descend like flares typically do. “It’s not anything I ever had any experience with . … They were some kind of energy or something.”

Fields snapped numerous images of the white, yellow and orange lights using a Canon digital camera with 6 megapixel resolution.

The story received heightened exposure after being posted on the Drudge Report yesterday, and became one of the most-viewed news reports in WND history. That prompted many others to contact WND, saying they witnessed the same or similar phenomenon.

“When I read this story, I literally got chill bumps all over my body, because it was exactly as I remember it also,” said Will Childers of Camden, Ark., who says he saw the same lights Jan. 10 at approximately 7:15 p.m. in southern Arkansas.

A pilot from Lancaster, Pa., says he witnessed the mystery lights two years ago over northwestern Arkansas.

“I contacted Air Traffic Control and asked if they were handling or painting any aircraft off my left, and they informed me there no aircraft visible on radar in that direction for a couple of hundred miles,” Rick Armellino told WND. “About 15 or 20 minutes after first noticing these two lights, both began changing position relative to one another, and then multiplied into about five or six smaller lights which began orbiting each another fairly briskly, and then simply just disappeared, leaving me very perplexed.”

Original Link.

Weather Gone Wild

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Yup, the weather is just one thing that has gone wacky in recent memory. You enviro types will howl “global warming” or “global cooling”, whichever mantra suites your purpose this particular day. I say that the weather was accurately predicted over 2,000 years ago. Maybe y’all should read the weather report. It’s written in the New Testament of the Bible.

Icy Storms Kill 66 Across Nine States; Texas, Oklahoma Without Power

SAN ANTONIO — A bone-rattling blast of sleet and snow kept Texas and Oklahoma residents shivering in the dark Thursday, while a blizzard north of Los Angeles caused big-rigs to jackknife.

Many Oklahoma schools remained closed Thursday, but Texas students headed back to class as transportation officials reopened roadways closed by ice.

At least 66 storm-related deaths have been reported in nine states since Friday, including 10 in Texas and 23 in Oklahoma.

Much of the brunt of the latest Southern storms was moving east Thursday — but the reprieve may be short-lived. Another barrage was to bring up to 8 inches snow to the Plains by late Friday.

Snow accumulations were light by some other regions’ standards — the Dallas area topped out at 3 inches — but hundreds of airline flights were canceled and tens of thousands of electricity customers lost power.

About 69,000 Oklahoma homes and businesses remained without power Thursday.

Hardest hit in Oklahoma was McAlester, where many stores operated on generator power. At the E-Z Mart, store manager Becky Clayton was selling out of soda, water and potato chips. With most restaurants closed, customers also made a run on her deli.

Huge storms sweep northern Europe

At least 25 people have been killed as violent storms lashed northern Europe, causing travel chaos across the region.

Britain was the worst hit with nine people killed as rain and gusts of up to 99mph (159km/h) swept the country.

Hurricane-force winds battering Germany have claimed at least seven lives. The other deaths were reported in France, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.

The severe weather has forced hundreds of flight, rail and ferry cancellations and prompted road and school closures.

Meteorologists at London’s Met Office said the winds reached “severe gale force” as they crossed Britain and were the highest recorded since January 1990.

They warned the weather system would intensify as it moved east across the continent – with Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany expected to be worst hit overnight.

STORM DEATHS
A fireman removes a tree which destroyed a car in Dresden, Germany
Britain: 9
Germany: 7
The Netherlands: 4
Czech Republic: 3
France: 2

In pictures: Europe lashed

Winds of almost 105mph (170km/h) were recorded late on Thursday in Germany, prompting the national rail company to suspend all its services, leaving passengers stranded.

No-Spank Bill in Liberal California

Friday, January 19th, 2007

One would expect no less from the “touchy-feely” California legislature. Only a liberal would say that “whipping” and “beating” a child are the same thing as spanking. Listen to me Government…No one knows how to raise my kids better than I do. I don’t need the “village” to help me.

SACRAMENTO – The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some — and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best — but Lieber begs to differ.

“I think it’s pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,” Lieber said. “Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?”

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting “any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.” Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it’s been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists — many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective — the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider “nanny government.”

“Where do you stop?” asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn’t be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. “At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.”

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

“If my 6-year-old doesn’t put his clothes in the hamper, I’m not going to whack him. He just won’t get his clothes washed,” said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. “I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.”

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children’s issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there’s no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a “bright line” in the law making it clear.

“Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?” asked Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. “Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence.”

It’s unclear how a spanking ban would be enforced. Most slapping, after all, happens in the confines of a home, and most children up to age 3 aren’t capable of reporting it.

Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. Nazario said he and Lieber are still debating whether to treat slapping the same way, or simply to encourage those who witness it to report it. But in either case, said Lieber, the law “would allow people who view a beating to say, ‘Excuse me, that’s against the law.’ ”

Experts in child psychology disagree over whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it’s used sparingly and doesn’t escalate to abuse.

“If it’s used in a limited way,” the Oklahoma State University professor said, “it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.” He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn’t be spanked at all, because they can’t understand why it’s happening.

As for Lieber’s proposal, the professor said: “I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it’s a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn’t any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.”

But Lieber is optimistic that lawmakers will find her proposal hard to resist. For the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit.

“And if you never hit a cat,” Lieber said, “you should never hit a kid.”

Original Link.

Senate Bill Attacks Free Speech

Friday, January 19th, 2007

And further to the “grassroots” reform bill in the house that I have blogged about already, the dem control senate has introduced similar legislation.

CWNews.com – WASHINGTON (BP)–Senate Democrats and a few Republicans have slipped into a lobbying reform bill a section that would drastically impact the mission and function of churches and nonprofit organizations — such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council — that seek to inform voters on moral issues.

One of the provisions of S. 1 now being considered by the Senate would require churches and other nonprofits, classified as “grassroots lobbying firms,” to report to the House and Senate any time they spend money to communicate to their constituents on public-policy issues that are before Congress. Failure to comply could result in thousands of dollars in fines and even criminal penalties.

“This is one of the most significant violations of free exercise of religion and the freedom of political speech in our nation’s history,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, wrote in a column posted on the ACLJ website. “Some have said that this plan is the most comprehensive regulation of political speech that has ever been put forward by Congress.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail to supporters, “This should be called the ‘Silence the Citizens Act of 2007.’ … Even pastors who would encourage the members of their congregation to call their senators, their congressmen, about marriage, about life issues, could theoretically fall under the provisions of this measure.”

While pro-family groups say much of the bill is good, they are encouraging constituents to contact their senators and ask them to strike Section 220 — the section that could impact churches and church-related groups — from S. 1. Focus on the Family has created a petition on the matter available at focuspetitions.com.

“Protect your right to know,” Focus on the Family’s James Dobson said on his radio broadcast Jan. 10. “Protect our right to tell you what we know.”

Dobson said the objective of the legislation’s supporters is clearly to silence the grassroots groups that led millions of Americans to contact their elected officials and affect the outcome of votes on Supreme Court justices, the partial birth abortion ban, broadcast decency fines and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Among the actions that would be subject to government tabulation under the proposed legislation are phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, appearances, travel, fundraising and other activities, Dobson said.

“Any time that we send out a CitzenLink e-mail, or we write an article for Citizen magazine or Dr. Dobson goes on his broadcast and talks about legislation — like he did today — we would have to record and report to the government four times a year,” Amanda Banks, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said on the broadcast. “If we did not meet those guidelines, we would be subject to fines of $100,000.”

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family Action, said the proposed legislation would not affect labor unions, corporations, 527 groups or those in Hollywood who express liberal views.

Sekulow, in a post on the ACLJ website Jan. 15, said lobbying reform can be put forward “without impacting the ability of pastors and churches to speak out on the moral issues of the day, which is part of their prophetic responsibilities.”

The ACLJ has launched a nationwide campaign to oppose the legislation, and they’re preparing to take legal action challenging the measure should it become law.

“Our grievance is simple: Congress cannot silence churches and other organizations from grassroots involvement in critical issues of our day,” Sekulow said.

Perkins said any new legislation shouldn’t forfeit the First Amendment rights of citizens to petition their government on issues of importance.

“We don’t oppose legitimate proposals to address unethical actions by members of Congress, congressional staff and lobbyists,” Perkins wrote. “But nothing in those misdeeds provides any justification … for the idea that Congress should regulate the constitutionally protected efforts of groups such as ours to alert citizens regarding legislative developments in Congress. The First Amendment protects our right to ‘petition the government.’ This is the heart of our democracy.”

Sen. Robert Bennett, R.-Utah, has introduced an amendment to S. 1 that would remove the section of the lobbying bill that upsets conservatives.

“The senator realizes that just as it would be unconstitutional to monitor the press because of their contact with their readers, Congress has no business monitoring the motives of citizens who contact Washington to express their views,” Perkins wrote. “I ask you to contact your U.S. senators now and let them know that you oppose the grassroots provisions in S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, and that you support Sen. Bennett’s amendment.”

Concerned Women for America, another conservative organization, said it supports efforts by Congress to reform lobbying practices in light of recent scandals, but it also supports Bennett’s Amendment 20, which would protect grassroots organizations. The amendment is also sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky.

“CWA applauds Senators Bennett and McConnell for respecting the rights of the American people while working to reform lobbying practices,” CWA said in a Jan. 12 news release.

The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

Original Link.

Illegal Aliens Waging ‘Silent War’ on US, Says Minuteman Activist

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Don’t look for these numbers to show up in the main stream media any time soon. CNN enjoys keeping a very accurate total of the number of soldiers killed in Iraq, but they never show the number of people killed in this country every year by illegal aliens.

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. is engaged in “a silent war” conducted by illegal aliens that is causing a higher toll than the war in Iraq, according to the founder of an immigration law enforcement group.

While the mainstream media is focused on the Iraq war, this ongoing silent war is “taking its toll in lives and domestic tranquility,” said Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project.

“Since 9/11 alone, about 45,000 U.S. residents have been killed in action via homicide or manslaughter at the hands of illegal aliens, and about another quarter of a million to 300,000 have been wounded,” Gilchrist told Cybercast News Service in an interview.

Gilchrist said he used the terms “killed in action” and “wounded” intentionally “because essentially, we have a war going on here that’s not a declared war, that’s not a conventional war, but it is costing us 9,000 lives a year.”

That amounted to “about 15 times the rate of KIAs [soldiers killed in action] in Iraq,” he said.

Gilchrist said the financial cost was also significant.

Welfare benefit programs used strictly by the illegal immigration population were costing “$400 billion a year – that’s four times the annual cost of the war in Iraq,” he argued.

Those funds were being spent on “a plethora of related welfare and benefit-type programs, including medication, education, housing, HUD subsidies, Social Security, all that stuff,” Gilchrist said.

“Our coffers are being plundered by those who don’t deserve them,” he noted. “Those programs were earmarked for American citizens.”

He said that figure did not include another half-trillion dollars lost each year “due to payroll and income tax fraud from the underground economy created by having 30 million illegal aliens in the United States.”

Gilchrist conceded that not all illegal immigrants were working and that not all who are working were doing so “under the table.”

“But a good portion of them are, and because they’re staying under the radar, no one knows who they are, where they are or what their intentions are.”

Estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. vary considerably, but the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) said the numbers cited by Gilchrist “sound about right.”

On the costs to the U.S. economy of illegal immigration, the CIS estimates federal costs per year at only $10.6 billion but notes that the vast majority of costs are incurred at the local and state levels.

Crime statistics relating to illegal immigrants are hazy, but on his website, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) says that 12 homicides and 13 drunk driving deaths a day are attributed to illegal aliens.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee immigration subcommittee in 2005, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Heather Mac Donald said that in Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide and up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants in the first half of the previous year targeted illegal aliens.

Representatives from the National Council of La Raza and the National Immigration Forum declined requests for comment on this article.

According to the Americas Project at the Center for American Progress, the U.S. is “making a futile attempt at using Border Patrol agents and physical barriers to regulate our labor market.”

“This massive misapplication of resources fails to make us safer and will not be remedied through appeals to fear, symbolism or by throwing good money after bad,” project director Dan Restrepo says on the center’s website.

“A safer, modern immigration system must combine border and workplace enforcement with mechanisms to regulate future flows of immigrants into our country and allow the 12 million undocumented already here to emerge from the shadows,” he added.
‘Multi-ethnic’

Original Link.