A WHITE HOUSE BETRAYAL

By Michelle Malkin

S.O.S.

Contact the White House. Send a message: No amnesty. Clean our own house first.

The looming White House open-borders deal is the dictionary definition of amnesty.

***

It's here. The bipartisan amnesty disaster is coming, as I have warned many times. I promise you: This is not going to be forgotten (via the Washington Times):

President Bush and a group of senators yesterday reached general agreement on an immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for many illegal aliens.

But left out of the closed-door White House meeting were senators who oppose a path to citizenship. The meeting even snubbed two men who had been considered allies of Mr. Bush on immigration -- Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and chairman of the immigration subcommittee, and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.

Mr. Bush in brief remarks to the press said there was agreement to get "a bill that does not grant automatic amnesty to people, but a bill that says, somebody who is working here on a legal basis has the right to get in line to become a citizen." But senators, speaking afterward, said Mr. Bush was far more specific in the meeting.

"There was a pretty good consensus that what we have put into the Hagel-Martinez proposal here is the right way to go," said Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican. "I think he was very clear [on] pathway to citizenship, so long as it goes to the back of the line, and he even opened the door here for something we've haggled back and forth on, that you can shrink the time for people to become citizens by simply enlarging the number of green cards."

And Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, said Mr. Bush "endorsed the concept of an earned citizenship."

That would represent a substantial change on the part of the Bush administration, which just last year said it opposed a path to citizenship for those currently here illegally.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October the administration didn't support "a path through which they can get their permanent residence or citizenship," and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao echoed that: "We feel that a pathway to citizenship would reward those who have violated our laws."

Read their lips: No new amnesty. Uh-huh.

The Hagel-Martinez bill would divide illegal aliens into three groups. Most of those who have been in the country for more than five years would be granted access to citizenship, those here more than two years but less than five years would have to go home first but would also be eligible for citizenship, while those here two years or less would not have a path.

Even as Mr. Bush is moving in that direction, the House majority leader yesterday rejected it.

"This idea that was being kicked around the Senate about providing some sort of amnesty for those who have been here five years or more, I just think it was a very big mistake," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said yesterday. "You are just inviting more people to come." Still, the senators in yesterday's meeting were thrilled with where the debate is, and the direction Mr. Bush is headed.

Oh, yes, the bipartisan open-borders collaborators are thrilled:

Hee-haw.

***

Who will clean up the mess at DHS?

If you loved the fraud that resulted after the 1986 mass amnesty, wait 'til you see what's coming next.

IMMIGRATION DEBATE: PARTE DOS

Speaking before a throng of illegal immigration supporters, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) proclaimed that the current immigration debate “goes to the heart of who we are as Americans.” His words were immediately translated into Spanish. No doubt the irony was lost on the senator, as I am certain it is lost on a great many politicians now salivating at the sight of so many potential voters.

The debate is filled with irony. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial described those demanding a no nonsense immigration policy as narrow minded, exclusionary and visionless. A Republican attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigrants is a missed opportunity to curry favor with Latino voters. Mind you, this rather Democratic sounding rebuke came from the right wing. Of course, what one continues to hear from the left is that to demand secure borders is to be racist, xenophobic, and a lot of other bad names one can’t print and shouldn’t say in polite company, which isn’t ironic at all.

The irony of course is borne of obfuscation. We know for instance that the thousands attending rallies around the nation are protesting an immigration bill that would fund the building of a fence across 700 miles of our southern border and make being in the country illegally a felony. But what is it they are advocating? A quick peek:

* Immediate amnesty for 11.5 million current illegal immigrants

* Demilitarization of our border

* Unfettered access to tax-payer funded health care, education and food stamps.

* An end to sanctions for businesses employing illegal workers

* No on site enforcement of immigration laws

* Voting rights

* Drivers licenses

The irony is that Americans haven’t risen in mass demonstrations. Who is it that is truly narrow-minded, nationalist, and bigoted? Those demanding their representatives protect their property and the sovereignty of their nation or those that march in the streets flying a foreign flag, demanding privileges they have no right to from a people they apparently do not wish to become?

The argument has truly been turned on its head. Witness the now universal usage of the term “undocumented workers” as if it were just a matter of finding time in a hectic schedule to go down to the local post office and fill out the paperwork. Or the manner in which the debate has been framed. Above the din of the thousands chanting at immigration rallies across the nation, one hears the cry that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants, we are a nation of immigrants and soulless without them. Some of the rhetoric is true. America was founded by immigrants and immigrants to this nation - both willing and unwilling - have contributed much to American culture and history. However, the heated debate in which we now find ourselves bears no relation to Ellis Island. We are not discussing absorbing immigrants fleeing oppression or famine, or even whether we are accepting too many immigrants from a particular region. The issue is the right of a sovereign people to decide the manner and place of migration across its borders. Americans are not opposed to immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration. It was not upon this rock that our nation was built.

The large numbers of Hispanics marching in the streets is sure to make politicians on both sides of the aisle break out in a cold sweat. They must remember, however, that they are not charged with creating an immigration policy to appease Mexicans or even Mexican Americans. As the people’s representatives, they are charged with protecting the liberty and property of this nation’s citizens. Policy that does not seek that end is against the call of government and is a betrayal of the people government is charged with serving.

In Spanish that is: Americanos primero!

—
Joseph C. Phillips is an accomplished actor and writer, starring in numerous television shows and major motion pictures throughout his career including The Cosby Show, General Hospital, The District and Without A Trace among others and was a three time NAACP Image Award Nominee for his portrayal of Attorney Justus Ward on the Daytime Drama General Hospital.

As a writer Mr. Phillips has had essays published in Newsweek, Los Angeles Daily News, Essence Magazine, Upscale, USA Today, Turning Point, College Digest, BET.com as well as many more, too numerous to list. This author is a Staff Columnist for TheRealityCheck.org. The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

THE ANTI-CINDY SHEEHAN

Thursday’s guest on Hannity & Colmes was Laura Youngblood, known as the “anti-Cindy Sheehan” for confronting Sheehan at a TV interview in which Youngblood was a member of the studio audience. Her husband, Navy Corpsman Travis Youngblood, was killed less than a year ago in Iraq. At the time of the meeting, Mrs. Youngblood had one small child and another on the way.

As they conversed, Cindy told Laura, one week before her baby was born and a month and a half after her husband was killed, that “Your children are fatherless for a lie.”

Watch the video (thanks to Expose the Left)

What Mrs. Youngblood didn’t answer well was Alan Colmes’ question, “Can you support the troops and be against this war?”
The answer: NO. Here’s why:

This is a just war. The “just war doctrine” outlined by the Catholic Church is this:

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Operation Iraqi Freedom meets all these criteria.

Other reasons given for opposition to the war usually includes that US Soldiers and innocent civilians are dying, that Pres. Bush lied about the premise for war (i.e., Iraq’s objective to obtain uranium from Niger), and that America is an imperialistic empire (when the president is Republican) that Saddam never had WMDs, and that there was no link between al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden and Saddam and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

These arguments are false. Thanks in large part to the ongoing release of the Saddam Tapes, Iraqi documents and accounts from former Iraqis like GEN Georges Sada and scientist Khidhir Hamza, we have evidence that Saddam was pursuing a WMD program, he was connected with al-Qaeda and that the President did not “lie” when he reported that Saddam pursued uranium.

Still, Cindy Sheehan has said:

“Iraq DID NOT have WMD’s; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America.”

If that were not enough, the troops on the ground support the mission. Soldiers report something very different than those like Sheehan who oppose the war; that is, it is not a quagmire and liberation has come to Iraq. Misinformation and lies perpetuated by media and anti-war activists damage any possibility for there to be honest disagreement.

The premise to argue the legitimacy or illegitimacy of this war would have to be this: Are American lives more valuable than Iraqi lives? Aren’t Iraqis worth saving? Aren’t Americans allowed to freely join the military to defend the less fortunate?

Compare notes on these subjects:

“Bush is a terrorist”

CINDY: “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

Osama Bin Laden: “We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans.”

“Bush is a liar”

CINDY: “That lying bastard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “Bush, the liar, was forced to announce in November 2005 that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq. Since Bush is addicted to lying, he justified his withdrawal by saying that Iraqi forces have become well-trained.”

“Bush spreading freedom and democracy”

CINDY: “If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullsh**, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free? If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “My Muslim nation, you will not enjoy free elections, protected sanctity, governments which are being called to account by the people and a respectable judiciary unless you are free from the crusader-Zionist occupation and the corrupted governments, and this will not be fulfilled but with Jihad.”

“Bush wants oil”

CINDY: “Are we supporting our troops dying and innocent Iraqi people being killed for oil and greed?”

Aljazeera: “Long before the September 11 attacks, Bush’s administration made plans for oil and war on Iraq. Days after this administration was incepted, a conflict has taken place inside the White House between the neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, and a combination of “Big Oil” executives and U.S. State Department “pragmatists” on the other.

In his book, “Against all Enemies,” Richard A. Clarke mentions that Bush Senior was always thinking of ways in which he can put a direct hand on Iraqi oil, until Bush Junior holds office and fulfils his father’s dream in 2003.”

“Bush and Zionism”

CINDY: “Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.”

Ayman al-Zawahiri: “O, Bush, the son of Bush, you should know that in spite of you, and even if it means you die of your frustration and lose your mind, removing Israel is an individual duty on every Muslim.

“America is not worth dying for”

CINDY: “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for…”

America is not worth dying for… Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and terrorist all agree. They throw away Americanism to side with our enemies, almost verbatim. This is why they do not support the troops. Nor do they care about Iraqi civilians. Cindy Sheehan and those who believe like her are rogues.

“Can you support the troops and be against this war?” Not like that. If you don’t think our enemies are listening, think again. They are. The problem is that both Sheehanites and our enemies are on the same sheet of music, endorsing the same anti-American propaganda. Anti-war activism is not a sincere, genuine movement based on fact.

Mrs. Youngblood was right about this: the best way to support the troops is to honor their memory and carry out their wishes. The best way to honor the fallen is not to politicize a legitimate war effort legally carried out by an all volunteer military. It is to support the amazing work these soldiers and our President have done in Iraq to bring freedom to a people who would otherwise still be living under Saddam Hussein.

Thank you, Petty Officer 3rd Class Travis Levy Youngblood, for your service to America and Iraq. We support you.

IT's THE BORDER, STUPID

That’s the title of Salena Zito’s latest column and the message that Congress needs to hear every day until they take shutting the border down seriously.

Americans sitting in the heartland may not be sweating over border issues but Webb County, Texas, Sheriff Rick Flores thinks they should be. “Any sheriff, whether they are in Dallas, Iowa or even Nebraska, would much prefer that we squash a threat at the border than force them to deal with it after it gets through us,” the sheriff told me in his office here. “Smugglers have a ready-made infrastructure in place…and they are just waiting to substitute terrorists and their cargoes for drugs if the price is right.”

Sheriff Flores’ point can’t be emphasized too often or too vociferously. All the laws on the books are useless if we don’t get this fundamental part right.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has taken the lead in funding border security, is impressed with the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition, “first, by how they identified the scope and magnitude of the growing threat…then by how they delivered a coordinated strategy to address those risks and threats.”
It’s intel-led policing at its best. Talk of a terrorist pipeline is not paranoia. If criminals can smuggle drugs, gang members and illegals, what would stop them from importing members of al-Qaida or Hezbollah?

Let’s hope that Congress, the Senate especially, has heard from their constituents in sufficient numbers that they take enforcement more seriously. Forget about the Kennedy-McCain bill’s ‘guest worker’ provisions. Build the wall and increase the patrols and technology first. Then we can talk about normalization. Normalization conversations comes after we’re secured the border.

NOTE TO REPUBLICANS: Get this right and the elections will look alot better. I’d guarantee it. Ignoring the will of the people is the fastest way to become a minority party.

“How can we reasonably say that al-Qaida or Hezbollah has not passed through here?” The problem essentially is that terrorists get into the United States under the guise of being people looking for work,” former CIA Director James Woolsey told me. “For example, in the tri-border area”, where Brazil, Venezuela and Uruguay meet, “Hezbollah has been a major presence for years and many of its people speak Spanish and might seem merely to be people looking for work.”

Are you scared alert yet? If you haven’t, then you’re ignoring reality. This is a ticking time bomb of the worst kind. If we don’t get the border sealed off, the result will be a terrorist attack that might make 9/11 look tame in comparison.

THE WAR AGAINST U.S. BORDER SECURITY

It certainly comes as no surprise that Mexico’s President Vicente Fox is not in favor of any US-Mexico border protections. He has called such protections “shameless”. Fox and other Mexican presidents have been exporting their impoverished people and criminals to the United States for decades. Two of the “positive” things that these “exportations” have affected for Mexico are billions of dollars sent back to the illegal immigrants’ homeland of Mexico (the 2nd greatest annual income source for that country) and it has offered Mexican leaders a way out of being required to address the serious and growing problems in their own country.

No, Mexico’s export-our-problems policy and its war against US Border protection is not a shock. Neither are the efforts of many of those exports who are now actively and militantly claiming the United States really belongs to Mexico. Two of the militant-revolutionary Hispanic groups, MEChA (which states the US Southwest belongs to their members and should be called “Aztlan”) and the Mexica Movement (which claims that the entire North American continent belongs to it—and should be called the “Anahuac Nation”), are both demanding their “human rights” that include a “reconquista” (or reconquering) of the United States by and for Hispanics.

Note: I don’t remember any first “conquering”—do you?

Due to the relaxed or non-existent US-Mexico border policies, Mexico’s ambitions for the US are neither a surprise nor an unexpected consequence of the US government’s non-action. However, through this continuing debacle, an extraordinary revelation has emerged: US businesses who employ cheap illegal immigrant labor and US Senators who support them have placed said “cheap labor” above national security and the real rights of the US citizenry. And with the Marxist-inspired recent and continuing illegal immigrant marches (demanding “rights” that do not exist—under US law—for those entering our country illegally) “our” Senators (the ones we voted into office—remember?) are siding with the potential-illegals-voting-bloc instead of legal US citizen-voters. Now, THAT is the real bombshell.

In the midst of an environment that includes terrorists who have stated they will destroy us, by whatever means necessary, our elected officials are allowing them—along with any and all illegal entrants from South of the border—to come into our country at will. And they are also allowing illegals to stage massive demonstrations in and on our streets, joined by our leftist-indoctrinated children, to demand rights that don’t exist. Nobody tries to stop them. Our lawmakers and law-enforces ignore their illegal nature. Police have been told they cannot arrest the “protesting illegals”. Further, during the recent illegal immigrants’ demonstrations, Democrats have been caught registering the illegals to vote. US citizens are left with no representation—whatsoever.

Thus far, US lawmakers have refused to support and protect the US citizens and property owners who live along the US-Mexico border region. These citizens contacted the Minuteman Project for help. Chris Simcox, co-founder of the project, has offered his assistance in building a barrier to protect them from the hordes of illegals that cross their lands on a daily basis. Simcox advised, 20 April on Sean Hannity’s Radio program, that he has been “warned” by the US government against building any protective barrier. Some real, legitimate and crucial questions now come to mind. Why is the US government trying to stop the protection of its citizens? Why is the US government patently going against its responsibilities to protect the nation and its citizens (both native and naturalized) from foreign invasion? Are foreign invaders more important to “our” government than are its citizens?

As of this writing, the illegal aliens’ “National Strike Day” is still scheduled for 1 May—the traditional Communist “May Day”. And, as of this writing, a counter-action is still scheduled by US citizens for 5 May. Isn’t it time that we the people US citizens showed our clout, instead of ignoring the dissolution of our country? As just one US citizen, I say it is: http://citizensonstrike.us.

References:
Mexicans Have Plansfor the American Southwest
Mexica-Movement-Liberation

Sher Zieve is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. Columns by this author can be read regularly on TheRealityCheck.org.

MEDIA IGNORE MEXICAN GOV'T BRUTALITY OF CENTRAL AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS

If the news media were truly unbiased in their reportage of Mexican illegal immigration and told the whole story, Americans would be shocked at the degree of Presidente Vicente Fox’s hypocrisy.

For instance, in a recent press release the Mexican government slammed Georgia’s new illegal immigration law saying “it a half-measure that discriminates against Mexicans.”

Ruben Aguilar, spokesman for President Vicente Fox, told reporters Tuesday morning that implementing parts of the Georgia law could result in “acts of discrimination” against Mexicans living in Georgia.

“It’s the position of [Fox] that the half-measures in this law are insufficient to resolve …
the complex phenomenon of immigration between Mexico and the United States,” Aguilar said.

However, Fox and his government appear to be unwilling to acknowledge their own hypocisy in dealing with illegal immigrants who enter Mexico from Central American countries. Considered felons by the Mexican government, these immigrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers beat them and simply take their money and possessions.

Besides the news media’s overall silence on illegal immigrants being terrorized, robbed and killed by Mexican authorities, the Bush Administration and US lawmakers are equally silent. They allow Fox and his flunkies to denigrate and scold Americans who call for tougher border security and a sane immigration policy while the blood of Central Americans who’ve entered or attempted to enter Mexico across its southern border stains their own hands.

While illegal immigrants in the United States have held huge rallies in recent weeks, the thousands and thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico endure their inhumane treatment in silent fear. In fact, Mexico’s constitution prohibits non-citizens from participating in protests or other public demonstrations against the Mexican government.

And while President Fox demands humane treatment for his countrymen who break US immigration laws to enter and remain in the US, Mexico provides few if any protections for its own illegal immigrant population.

The level of police brutality Central American illegal immigrants endure in Mexico was apparent Monday, when a police raid near a rail yard outside Mexico City ended in the death of an innocent man. Mexican cops shot and killed a local man, because the poor soul’s appearance made officers think he was a immigrant.

According to the Washington Times, undocumented Central Americans complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the US side of the border, where aliens may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail.

If an immigrant is carrying any money, Mexican police officers or soldiers take it from the hapless illegal immigrant. And it’s not just local cops: Federal and state police officers are equally corrupt and brutal. There is no such thing as a sanctuary city in Mexico. And the illegal immigrants are lucky if the are confronted by police officers; the soldiers are far worse in their treatment of these foreigners.

While most countries including the United States have some police corruption, the level of corruption in Mexico is shocking. To many, the only difference between Mexican organized crime gangs and the police is that the cops wear uniforms and badges.

While the Bush Administration praises Mexican cooperation with fighting a war on drugs, most law enforcement commanders know better. The Mexican government has been bought and sold by the drug gangs. The only time there is a crackdown on a drug gang is when a rival drug gang “requests” police action in order to eliminate their competition.

Mexico’s President Vicente Fox has called US residents’, who live along the US-Mexico border, plans to build a fence along their properties “shameful”. What’s shameful, Mr. Presidente, is your hypocrisy, lies and corruption.

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.