The Audacity of Illegals and Federals

The Audacity of Illegals and Federals

Timothy Baldwin

May 5, 2010

http://libertydefenseleague.com/2010/05/05/the-audacity-of-illegals-and-federals/

For generations, the federal government has pissed on the integrity of the union, supposedly formed by the bonds of choice, reflection, friendship and likeness[1]. It has treated the people of the States as scoopers in the valley of the crap they roll down hill, of which they claim to be king. The society of each state serves as nothing more than just another creditor to their addictive gambling game of power, corruption and debauchery.

Anymore, one cannot even possess an accurate knowledge of just how much degradation permeates the entire system of the federal government and its chain-gang of states. Amazingly, some still believe that freedom can be restored through the political gamesmanship in Washington D.C. For this reason, some of the States have finally awakened to this reality and are beginning to act appropriately and accordingly.

Another blaring contemporary illustration highlights just how true this is.

As many now know, Arizona passed an illegal immigration law which is designed to secure the borders of its State from those who are in that State illegally. The response from the federal government was predictable and typical: “Arizona can’t do that; it is our sole prerogative to ‘secure’ the border. Arizona’s action is unconstitutional. Blah, blah, blah.” Of course, there are always those nationalists and statists who criticize a State for doing anything without the federal government’s permission: “The new law, which is due to take effect in late July or early August in the unlikely event it withstands constitutional challenges, essentially codifies racial profiling, throwing civil liberties to the wind.”[2] (Emphasis added). Together, they make a beautiful partnership of distortion and misinformation.

The federal government and its supporters would rather oxymoronically protect illegal immigrants’ supposed “legal rights” than protect the natural and compact rights of the state citizens, governments and societies. They would rather each state suffer the irreparable harm and costs of allowing (and yes, encouraging!) millions of illegals to come here and suck the life out of these States for now and most assuredly for later.

These people paint a portrait with a set of children’s crayons on cheap toilet paper and frame it with used cardboard paper from a flea market. And somehow we are supposed to hang it on the walls of our most revered sanctuaries and say, “look how pretty our country is with the federal government in control.”

Why would these illegals confidently and self-righteously protest against such a state law: because they have no respect for the law to begin with; they do not know what the purpose and responsibility of the state government is; they could not care less about the cultural, moral and American ideals forming the individual republics of the States and the United States; they do not respect the union of the states’ formation, nor do they care about its foundation; and they know the federal government has no intention of enforcing the already-existing laws to secure U.S. borders. Ultimately, just leave them alone: they are doing fine with the federal government in control of illegal immigration.

Why would the federal government ignore its responsibility in securing the borders and then criticize a state for protecting itself in response to the federal government’s failure to do so: because its agenda is one of amnesty and integration; it is ready and willing to buy illegals’ votes and support by “guaranteeing” them all of the social and governmental benefits that we, the legal workers in America, pay for and provide; and it prefers and seeks after a one-world system of government and despises the sovereignty of individual states and nations. Ultimately, just leave them alone: they are accruing the power and control they desire by exercising unfettered control.

Thankfully, some of the States do not agree. Best-selling author, Jerome Corsi, recently described Arizona’s illegal immigration law as “sparking a state rights revolution”.[3] His acknowledgment of the State rights revolution is correct, but Arizona’s law is not the spark. Rather, it is another burst of oxygen on the fire that has been burning brightly for over a year and has been stoking for many.

The fire will only continue to grow given the despicable manner in which the federal government and its faithful supporters disrespect and even despise the (original) U.S. Constitution, the tenth amendment, the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the ideals of freedom founding the union of thirteen independent and sovereign states of America.

I welcome the fire’s growth and encourage its success. In fact, I just happen to have some (very expensive) gasoline I am willing to donate to Arizona and its like.

Copyright 2010 Timothy Baldwin

---

[1] “[We are called upon to decide whether] societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 1 (emphasis added). “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” John Jay, Federalist Paper 2 (emphasis added).

[2] Author Unknown, “When it comes to illegal immigration, Arizona goes too far,” APP.com (May 3, 2010), found at http://www.app.com/article/20100503/OPINION01/5040309/1029/OPINION/When-it-comes-to-illegal-immigration-Arizona-goes-too-far

[3] World Net Daily, “Arizona law sparks states’ rights revolution,” (May 3, 2010), found at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=149085.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Why Would Anyone Want to Blow Up Times Square?

Hello Everyone,

It is not so hard to see that the media and the politicians go out of their way to not offend the evil that Islam is.  It is a pagan religion based on hate, lies, and death.  Outside of a few, not so many want to say what is before them. 

Remember that you can not defeat and enemy you will not name.  Even the idea of saying we are fighting terrorism is completely insufficient.  Either we are fighting Islamic terrorists or we are not.  How foolish! 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Why Would Anyone Want to Blow Up Times Square?

by Daniel Pipes

National Review Online

May 5, 2010

http://www.danielpipes.org/8336/why-blow-up-times-square

When news comes of Muslims engaging in violence, the triad of politicians, law enforcement, and media invariably presumes that the perpetrator suffers from some mental or emotional incapacity. (For a quick listing of examples, see my collection at “Sudden Jihad or ‘Inordinate Stress’ at Ft. Hood?”).

Instead, I argue, they should begin with a presumption of jihadi intent. That is, the default expectation should be ideological passion, not insanity. Spreading Islam and applying Islamic law are the goals. Of course, some crazy Muslims exist and they do engage in violence, but they constitute a microscopic percentage of the 15,247 Muslim terrorist incidents since 9/11, as counted by www.thereligionofpeace.com.

The failed effort to blow up an SUV in New York’s Times Square prompted speculation about the would-be bomber’s motives even before the identity of Faisal Shahzad, an immigrant from Pakistan, had been made public. The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss discounted the possibility of a jihadi from the Pakistan-based Taliban, “it seems far more likely to me [he] was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.”

Then, just hours after Shahzad had been arrested, authorities rushed to assure the public his action had nothing to do with Islam. Examples from May 4:

·        Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City: the bomb could have been placed by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

·        Mahkdoom Qureshi, Pakistan’s foreign minister: “This is a blow back [for U.S. military activities in Pakistan]. This is a reaction. This is retaliation. And you could expect that. Let’s not be naive. They’re not going to sort of sit and welcome you eliminate them. They’re going to fight back.”

·        Nadeem Haider Kiani, spokesman for the Pakistani embassy in Washington: it’s too soon to tell exactly what motivated the bomber but early indications suggest he is “a disturbed individual.”

·        Cable News Network: “It can confirm that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family.”

·        CBS News: “It isn’t clear if more suspects are at large OR what the motive could be.”

·        The Washington Post: Under the title, “The economic crisis meets terrorism,” Ezra Klein notes that Shahzad’s house was foreclosed and comments: “This guy is like string theory for the media: He brings together the seemingly incompatible stories that drove the past decade. That said, you of course don’t want to speculate on why someone ‘really’ did something. The hearts of men are opaque, and motives are complex.”

And here’s a collection from today’s papers

·        Law enforcement (as reported by NY1): “Investigators say they still have no motive for Shahzad’s actions.” (May 5, 2010)

·        Kifyat Ali, a relative of Shahzad’s: “We are shocked. He had no connection with any political party or jihadi group.” (May 5, 2010)

·        Associated Press headline: “NY car bomb suspect cooperates, but motive mystery.” (May 5, 2010)

·        Associated Press story: “Federal officials aren’t talking about a motive in the arrest of a naturalized U.S. citizen charged with attempting to set off a bomb in New York’s Times Square.” (May 5, 2010)

·        New York Post “exclusive”: Shahzad “said he was driven to evil by the slew of deaths among leaders of the terror group, law-enforcement sources revealed yesterday. Sources said he was an eyewitness to the onslaught throughout the eight months he spent in Pakistan beginning last summer.” (May 5, 2010)

·        USA Today headline: “Motive of NYC car bomb suspect remains a mystery.” (May 5, 2010)

·        The Guardian headline: “Times Square bomb: Pakistanis puzzled by bomber’s motives.” (May 5, 2010)

The establishment agrees - Islam played no role in Faisal Shahzad’s attempted terrorism.

---

Comments:

(1) Some of these interpretations say the motives are mysterious, some of them speculate about one thing or another – but all assiduously avoid the elephant in the room.

(2) You can’t win a war if you don’t have the courage to name the enemy.

(3) Naming the enemy means changing some of the more pleasant aspects of Western life, and so is tough to do.

(4) I expect that naming the enemy will occur only after a cataclysm ends our patience with minced words.

---

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Obama’s Boys Call in Riot Cops on Tea Party Protesters

Obama’s Boys Call in Riot Cops on Tea Party Protesters

(Chavez Would Be Proud)

By Doug Giles

http://clashradio.com/column.html

Somebody help me here. What kind of ominous situation requires local law enforcement to dispatch their Darth Vader look-alike SWAT units to keep the peace or kick some criminal butt? I’m guessing it has to be a SNAFU’d type of thang that regular cops can’t handle which requires special weapons and tactics, correct?

The reason I’m asking this is because of the events of last week in which riot police were sent out to two different locales on two completely different types of crowds. One I understand, but the other has left me a little discombobulated and a tad discomfited.

The first mob that riot cops were called out for was the one in Phoenix comprised of thousands of out-of-control illegal Mexicans who were POed at the fact that Arizona finally wants to treat them like they’re illegal. Imagine that.

Yep, I get why the SWAT dudes from PPD rolled out for that melee. The mass of protesting Mexicans were out of whack, grabbing their crotches in defiance of our laws, smearing refried bean swastikas on government windows, flipping American patriots off, trashing and destroying property, and cursing in TexMex at the Arizonans who want our immigration laws upheld and who are sick of the costly mayhem these illegals have brought to their beautiful state.

Let’s see, what else did the criminal aliens do to solicit the Phoenix PD’s riot police presence? Man, I know there was something else they did. What was it? Come on, Doug, think man, think! Oh yeah, I remember: They pelted Phoenix’s finest with bottles and trash. Yeah, that was it. Oh, and of course the location of their protest was completely trashed after their ridiculous display of unrighteous outrage.

Hey, Julio ... way to further endear Americans to your earthly plight, el stupido. I guess Phil Collins was right; it’s no fun being an illegal alien.

The other crowd that got SWAT called down on them last week was in Quincy, Illinois-a two-hundred member Tea Party that mainly consisted of peaceful, blue haired old ladies in Depends singing “God Bless America” outside of the venue where His Highness was reading a teleprompter about how great he is and how he plans to further whiz on the Constitution.

Yep, in a scene right out of some B-grade Orwellian flick, the tamest and nicest little old nanas and middle-class couples had Quincy’s Robo-Cops dispatched on them to quell... the, uh ... uh ... orderly protest and ... the ... uh ... um ... patriotic singing and ... er ... the ... the American flag waving. Boy does that make Quincy and BHO look bad, or what?

Y’know, what I have gathered from my SWAT friends down here in Miami and what I have watched throughout the years on TV and on the big screen is that the SWAT card only gets played when things are severely jacked up (as in the Phoenix fiasco), but it seems as if the insane-in-the-membrane element was missing a wee little bit from the quaint Quincy rally. But it got the same treatment as Phoenix. Now that’s weird.

Here are my questions: Did the Quincy tea partiers represent a high-risk op that regular officers couldn’t handle? That’s an option, even though that place looked like Barney Fife could have manned it without ever extracting his lone bullet from his left shirt pocket. Who knows?

Maybe Mr. Whipple had an underwear bomb and was going to light his junk on fire after Obama’s speech? Who can say? Maybe Mr. Rogers had secret hostages sequestered in the Dairy Queen freezer that Quincy SWAT was called in to extract. Or, maybe, just maybe, Grandma Moses posed a terror threat with those long-ass knitting needles she carts around and her high-speed electric wheel chair?

I know ... it was the possibility that Floyd the barber would show up to that event secretly armed with his straight razor that required Quincy’s cops to send out an elite paramilitary tactical unit with assault weapons, stun grenades, high-end body armor, and armored vehicles! Gosh, maybe. Who knows? I hope that there was that type of over-the-top reasonable cause for Quincy’s cops to roll like that because if there wasn’t that little display of overt force is beginning to smack of Chavez’s Venez-frickin’-uela to me.

Lastly, if I were a cop and my superiors wanted me to put on storm trooper gear and march against salt of the earth patriots like those in Quincy, Illinois, I’d tell them no, and if they didn’t like it then they could stick my pointy metal badge up their confused and chunky backside.

---

mail@clashradio.com · 305.788.6485 · ClashRadio.com · P.O. Box 800554 · Aventura, Fl. 33280

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Just Whose Feelings?

Just Whose Feelings?

Charlie Daniels

04/26/2010

http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2010/soapbox-2010-0426.htm

When Barack Obama, Janet Napolitano and all of the rest of the politically correct crowd refuse to call the War on Terror the War on Terror and the Islamic radicals the terrorists they are, just whose feelings are they trying to keep from hurting?

Could it be the people who killed 3000 American citizens on 9/11?

Or perhaps the ones who murdered the Dutch politician for saying something they considered derogatory about Islam.

Maybe the same bunch that put a murder warrant on Salman Rushdie’s head for writing The Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoonist who drew pictures of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

Could it be the murdering S.O.B.s who bombed our Marine barracks in Lebanon or blew a hole in the side of the U.S.S. Cole?

Or could it be the terrorist who blew up a subway in London or a train in Spain?

Or maybe it’s in memory of the Ayatollah Khomeini who used children to clear minefields?

Or could it be the ones who strap explosives to the backs of little kids and send them out to blow up human beings, maybe even the individual who told the little boy that when the bomb on his body went off it would explode in flowers, the same ones who send mentally retarded children out as suicide bombers?

Or maybe it’s the sadistic fanatic that cuts off the heads of prisoners while they videotape it.

What do you call somebody like Bin Laden if not a terrorist and what do you call the blood bath we’re involved in but the War on Terror?

Just what is al-Qaeda, if not a terrorist organization?

We are fighting in Iraq but we’re not fighting Iraq so what are we doing there.

We’re fighting in Afghanistan but we haven’t declared war on that nation. Who and what are we fighting there?

Iran is developing a nuclear bomb and has declared that they will destroy Israel. What do you call people who threaten another nation with total extinction?

When death threats are made against American citizens because of the content of a television show they’ve produced, what do you call it?

And the thousands of militants around the world whose most fervent wish is to destroy the United States of America and all the people in it.

Just what name do you put on these people Mr. Obama?

What caused that hole in the ground in New York where two of the earth’s most magnificent buildings once stood Ms. Napolitano?

You can call a rattler a green snake if you want to, but it’s not going to change the fact that it is deadly and would think nothing of biting you and no matter how nice you are to it, it’s not going to change the fact that you can never turn your back on it or drop your guard.

You can’t coddle a rattlesnake Mr. President and you’re going to learn that, I’m just afraid it’s going to be the hard way.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, and for our country.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

©Copyright The Charlie Daniels Band

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

What We Omit Says a Lot

What We Omit Says a Lot

David C. Stolinsky, MD

April 29, 2010

http://www.stolinsky.com/news/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=711

In one of his most famous cases, Sherlock Holmes noted that a dog didn’t bark in the night. Holmes concluded that the dog knew the intruder and thus solved the case. “The dog that didn’t bark” became an expression for something that should have happened − but didn’t.

If Holmes were here today, he would have many similar cases. If the dog fails to bark, intruders can enter. If media moguls, journalists and “experts” tamper with the facts, fraud and bias can creep in.

The case of the missing First Amendment.

“South Park” is notoriously irreverent. It has caricatured famous political and religious figures. This provoked criticism, but never threats. There are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world, but to my knowledge, not one threatened “South Park” because of insults to Jesus.

When “South Park” depicted Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha together, it received no death threats − but that was before 9/11. Recently, the episode was removed from the website. This time, “South Park” caricatured not Muhammad, but the inability to depict him. He was shown completely enclosed in a bear suit. But even caricaturing the inability to caricature Muhammad brought death threats to Comedy Central, so these images were also removed.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and insulting their prophet brings death threats. Recall the Danish cartoons, which caused riots resulting in deaths. Recall Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered because he made a film documenting mistreatment of women in some Muslim nations.

If there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world, why are there no death threats when “artists” exhibit photos of an actual crucifix immersed in urine, or a painting of the Virgin Mary covered with dung? Why do threats of violence come from only one side? And why do cowards give in to the threats?

It is said that discretion is the better part of valor. But for Comedy Central, it’s excretion. Clearly, they soiled their drawers. If people are afraid to stand up for their values, can they remain free? I wouldn’t bet on it.

The case of the altered speech.

In the film “Pearl Harbor,” Jon Voigt gives a fine performance as President Roosevelt asking Congress for a declaration of war against Japan in the “Day of Infamy” speech. The screen version follows the actual speech, but with a major omission. Roosevelt declared:

With confidence in our armed forces − with the unbounded determination of our people − we will gain the inevitable triumph − so help us God.

The film version omitted “so help us God.” Why? Did it detract from the drama? No, it was very dramatic. Was it irrelevant? No, it was entirely appropriate for a respected leader to ask for God’s help in an hour of danger.

So what was the problem with those four words? Or rather, what was the problem with that one word? When people are frightened of dying, or of their loved ones dying, many call upon God. The screenwriters apparently would not do so − fine. But why pretend that others wouldn’t?

Why construct an artificial world where nobody is religious? Why not depict the real world as dramatically as possible? Is an agenda more important than an accurate and dramatic film?

The case of the stolen guns.

In the film “Schindler’s List,” Liam Neeson gives an outstanding performance as Oskar Schindler, a womanizing, hard-drinking German who was a Nazi Party member. Yet during World War II, he saved about 1200 Jews from extermination by putting them to work in his factory. They now have over 6000 descendants.

Schindler escaped the clutches of the Gestapo by claiming that “his” Jews were doing essential war work. But Schindler was even braver. He did something that could not have been explained away. Had it been discovered, he would have been executed.

He stole guns and gave them to “his” Jews, so that if they were discovered, they could defend themselves. The film ran 3 hours 15 minutes, yet somehow there was no time to include this incident, which would have taken a minute or two.

Was the incident boring? No, it would have been dramatic. Was it violent? No, the film depicted awful violence. The problem was that an anti-gun agenda was more important to the film makers than depiction of a dramatic and revealing incident.

To believe that today’s Americans shouldn’t have guns is illogical. Careful studies show that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns reduces the rate of violent crime. But to believe that Jews during the Holocaust shouldn’t have had guns borders on being genocidal.

The guns were stolen twice − by Schindler to help the Jews, and by the film makers to further their leftist agenda.

The case of the unrecognized heroes.

Some time ago, a respected TV newscaster died in Los Angeles. His grieving colleagues gave him an extensive tribute, including details of his distinguished career in journalism.

Also noted was that during World War II, he served in the Army Air Forces and flew 29 combat missions, for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross. Photos of him and his youthful buddies were shown.

The Los Angeles Times ran a lengthy obituary, including details of his TV career, but omitting his military service entirely. When I asked why, a spokesman replied that if it had been included, there might not have been room for other details I found “interesting.” The problem was not what I found “interesting,” but what was important. The editors thought it unimportant that this man risked his life 29 times to defend our country.

If I depended on the mainstream media, I never would have heard of Paul Smith, Jason Dunham, Michael Murphy, Michael Monsoor, Ross McGinnis or Jared Monti. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse? It’s on the front page of the New York Times for 32 consecutive days. But courage and sacrifice by our troops? Positive role models for young people? Honoring those who defend our freedoms, including freedom of the press? It’s not “interesting.”

The case of the missing corpses.

Whether America should make reparations for slavery is a subject that exacerbates the debate on race. But the question implies something untrue − that no reparations have yet been paid.

The total death toll for both sides in the Civil War was about 624,511. About one-third of a million white men and boys died fighting for the Union. This does not include African American soldiers who died, nor does it include Confederate deaths.

Approximately one in four Union soldiers who served died in the war. The total population of the Union was about 20 million. One-third of a million deaths represented an enormous loss of life.

In addition, all serious arm or leg wounds were treated by amputation. Veterans on crutches or with pinned-up sleeves were a common sight on American streets for many years.

If all those severed limbs, and all the blood that soaked into the earth from the dead and wounded, do not constitute reparations, nothing ever could. Yet these facts are rarely mentioned when the subject of reparations is raised. Why? Are the dead and wounded unimportant? Or are they merely inconvenient?

Perhaps we have watched too many televised trials and seen famous, high-priced lawyers make mountains of evidence “disappear” to get their clients acquitted.

Perhaps we have watched too many politicians posturing for the media, while accomplishing nothing even remotely useful.

Perhaps we have watched too much TV and seen mousse-haired “talking heads” shamelessly slanting the news, while omitting inconvenient facts.

We may have gotten the impression that the truth is something we can fabricate to suit ourselves.

People judge us by what we say. But it is equally logical to judge us by what we don’t say. What we choose to omit is as revealing as what we select to include. It tells a great deal about our values.

---

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com

You are welcome to post or publish these articles, in whole or in part, provided that you cite the author and website.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---

Arizona Has It Right

Arizona Has It Right

By Chuck Baldwin

April 30, 2010

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490

Open borders advocates are livid that the State of Arizona has enacted a new law authorizing State law enforcement personnel to arrest illegal aliens. The Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to march. The mayor of San Francisco has declared Arizona off limits as a travel destination. The national government of Mexico has issued travel warnings. President Barack Obama is contemplating bringing a federal lawsuit against the State. Some are calling for a boycott of the State.

So, why all the fuss?

The State of Arizona is rightly sick and tired of the federal government’s refusal to protect our nation (and the State of Arizona specifically) from this foreign invasion that is commonly referred to as “illegal immigration.” In other words, the State of Arizona has said, “If the federal government won’t enforce the law, we will.” I say, good for them! Now, the other border states (Texas, New Mexico, and California) should do the same thing. Arizona has it right, and the vast majority of the American people know it.

As an aside, if you are considering a visit to the American Southwest this summer, why not support the brave legislators and governor of Arizona, and make a point to spend your leisure dollars in Arizona? And when you do, write a letter to the State capitol and tell them. Even more importantly, I suggest that everyone contact their own State representatives, senators, and governors, and urge them to enact a similar law—to the one Arizona passed—in your State.

And since the national news media refuses to set the record straight on the subject of illegal immigration (one could even say that the national news media is deliberately covering up the record), let’s do that right here and now.

First, let’s talk about numbers. Even though the Census Bureau (CB) estimates 11 million illegal aliens live in America, the real numbers are much higher. Even CB officials admit that many illegal aliens purposely avoid the census count. A more reliable count is provided by Bear Stearns. It puts the number of illegal aliens at around 20 million. Former US Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who was Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, puts the number at over 18 million.

According to Tennesseans for Responsible Immigration Policies (TNRIP), 6,000 immigrants arrive in America EVERY DAY. That equates to more than 2 million EVERY YEAR. In many communities in the Southwest, including Los Angeles, California, and Houston, Texas, Hispanics now comprise a majority of the population. But numbers of illegal aliens are quickly beginning to mount in cities throughout the United States.

For example, TNRIP documents the fact that the Hispanic population grew in three Tennessee counties by more than 70% between 2000 and 2004. In one of those counties (Robertson) it grew over 95% during that time. In seven Tennessee counties, the Hispanic population grew by more than 40%. Now, Tennessee can hardly be considered a “border state.” The fact is, what is happening in Tennessee is happening all over the United States. And lest you think this is all harmless, think again.

According to TNRIP, the financial cost of this foreign invasion to U.S. taxpayers is staggering! Here is a breakdown of the annual costs:

Ø  Education: $22.5 billion

Ø  Bi-lingual Education: $3.3 billion

Ø  AFDC: $2.4 billion

Ø  SSI: $2.9 billion

Ø  Social Security: $24.8 billion

Ø  Housing Assistance: $2.6 billion

Ø  Criminal Justice: $2.6 billion

Ø  Jobs Lost by Americans: $10.8 billion

Ø  Other Programs: $51.4 billion

Ø  Food Stamps: $7 billion

Ø  Health Care: $1.4 billion

The first study of the net cost of illegal immigration to American taxpayers was conducted in 1997 by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. This study concluded that from 1970 to 1997, illegal immigration had cost taxpayers over $69 billion. Obviously, the financial numbers have exploded since then.

Furthermore, during 1996 alone, more than 2.3 million American workers were displaced by (mostly) illegal aliens. Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates that today American workers lose $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

Back in 2007 it was reported, “LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

“In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

“‘Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,’ said Antonovich. ‘In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year—this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education.’”

Consider, too, this recent report by Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector. According to Byron York at National Review, “Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household—the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax--$2,509--followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes—the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes.

“Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. ‘Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,’ Rector writes. ‘This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.’”

See York’s column at: http://tinyurl.com/illegal-imm-cost.

It has been noted that 75% of people on LA’s most-wanted list are illegal aliens. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally, and roughly 30% of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border. According to Tancredo, gang membership by illegal aliens in many states is 50%, and in Phoenix, Arizona, illegal aliens constitute 34% of child-molestation and 40% of auto theft cases.

Furthermore, illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 Americans EVERY DAY, according to Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa). Plus, illegals that drive drunk kill another 13 Americans EVERY DAY. That means illegal aliens kill more Americans EVERY YEAR than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in total.

See the report at: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 

Of course, Arizonans are still reeling from the recent high profile murder of a fellow citizen on his own property by an illegal.

Law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge in Latin American “ultra-violent” gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 US states. According to the FBI, one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18^th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, “When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America.”

Retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, “According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens.”

What the Arizona law does is authorize its law enforcement personnel to ENFORCE THE LAW. No one in Arizona is talking about racial profiling or violating citizens’ constitutional rights. In fact, the new Arizona law actually mirrors already established federal law. But the federal government has hamstrung State and local police agencies in their attempts to arrest illegals for decades. Now, Arizona policemen can arrest illegals for being in the State of Arizona illegally, and have them deported: something they should have been doing (and have every right to do) all along. No wonder the vast majority of the American people (not to mention the citizens of Arizona) supports the Arizona law.

But there is a greater issue here: the right of the State of Arizona to protect, defend, and govern itself. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the State sovereignty movement is growing like a wildfire. Whether it is Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Alaska, or a couple dozen other states, legislators are beginning to awaken to the constitutional and moral responsibility of each State to govern itself. And when the central government in Washington, D.C., abridges or impedes that responsibility, it is the right and duty of states to resist.

This is why I tell people everywhere I speak, What is going on in [Your State] is infinitely more important than anything that goes on in Washington, D.C. Without the approbation of the State, DC’s actions and attitudes are irrelevant. This is why we need county sheriffs, State legislators, State judges, State attorneys general, and governors who—along with their State’s citizenry—understand the Constitution and are willing to courageously hold the line for freedom and constitutional government in their respective states. And by passing this anti-illegal alien bill, the State of Arizona did just that—the chagrin and consternation of open borders advocates notwithstanding.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin  

---

NOTE TO THE READER:

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com

---