BORDER PATROL AGENTS WARN: BUSH PLAN IS A TROJAN HORSE

In a joint statement, members of the US Border Patrol, Local 2544, called President George W. Bush’s border security and illegal immigration plan a Trojan Horse.

“Every day that President Bush and the Senate hold real border security hostage to their misguided amnesty program, thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens continue to flood into the country. Make no mistake, most of them get by us. We are losing this war, and it’s not even close. Contact your senators and congressmen now. Tell them to secure the border and tell them to reject amnesty programs (so called ‘guest-worker’),” said member agents.

The agents said that Bush and the US Senate don’t “get it,” but Republicans in the US House of Representatives “get it.” The American people “get it.”

Border Patrol agents point out the illegal immigration problem is a simple issue to solve: Shut the border down to illegal aliens crossing into the US, then begin “hammering” the greedy employers who hire them.

“It’s not complicated, folks,” they stress.

Promising more amnesty is not going to dissuade anyone from coming into the US illegally.

The Border Patrol agents then turned their ire towards the President. They say his post-speech propaganda trip to Yuma, Arizona is a carefully planned PR stunt. There are a lot of very wealthy farmers in the Yuma area who dominate the local economy and have been using the cheap labor of illegal aliens to build their wealth for many years. Bush speaks their language.

The agents add, “The American people should also know that any ’statements’ or ‘comments’ from top-level Border Patrol managers should be taken with a grain of salt. They say what they’re told to say. Period.”

The Border Patrol also noted that “President Bush is doing back flips to assure the hypocritical El Presidente Fox that America will not ‘militarize’ the border.”

“We didn’t realize that Fox was running things here. Is the Mexican government paying for any of this? Of course not. Further, Fox has already “militarized” the border. Mexico has plenty of troops on the border. We know this because we see them all the time and they shoot at us with rather large .50 caliber rifles. All we can do is hope their aim is bad, run from them, and then watch as the cowards from our government hide from the issue, and their government lies about them even being there.

“So…….if Fox is so concerned with the ‘militarization’ of the border perhaps he should start on his side of the border. Fox needs to learn that the United States of America is a sovereign nation and has the absolute right to secure its borders. Fox does not have the right to dictate our internal policies. He uses his consulate officers to harass us, file lawsuits, and use every trick in the book to undermine border security so he can continue to send millions upon millions of his citizens over here to send millions upon millions of dollars back to him.”

According to Senator Ted Kennedy, Americans support amnesty for illegal aliens. “Hey Teddy, we are Americans, and we don’t support anything you’re doing. You are a disgrace. Make sure you count us out when you lie to everyone about the “broad support” your amnesty plan enjoys,” said the Border Patrol agents.

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.

JOHN MURTHA HANGS THE MARINES

By Michelle Malkin

Expose the Left has the video of Rep. Murtha's verdict first, trial later condemnation of the US Marines. Here's the partial transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me ask you Mr. Murtha to give us some details about that. Draw us a picture of what happened at Haditha.

REP. JOHN “JACK” MURTHA: Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians. And, and –

MATTHEWS:—was this My Lai? Was this a case of – when you say cold blood Congressman, a lot of people think you’re basically saying you got some civilians sitting in a room around a field and they’re executed.

MURTHA: That’s exactly it.

The investigation into the incident at Haditha is not complete. Knight Ridder reports:

Murtha's comments were the first on-the-record remarks by a U.S. official characterizing the findings of military investigators looking into the Nov. 19 incident. Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources.

NBC News:

Three Marine officers — commanders in Haditha — have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq.

The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to Murtha's remarks:

"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable."

Murtha held the news conference to mark six months since his initial call for "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq.

He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

Hugh Hewitt:

I cannot imagine a more irresponsible statement from Congressman Murtha given that the investigation is still open. The Congressman should explain his sources, or face the charge that he has judged the men involved before the evidence is even compiled.

Breitbart/AP has a brief story.

Andi at the excellent new Milblogs site:

Let's keep in mind that no matter the outcome of this investigation, it has an effect on all of our troops. Given Murtha's latest comments, the media will no doubt fan the flames, leaving those on the ground to deal with the fallout.

Greg Tinti at Newsbusters has more. Jim Hoft has a big round-up.

Army Times coverage here.

Ed Morrissey:

Murtha gained notoriety last year when he demanded an immediate and precipitate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. He claimed that victory was impossible and that the US forces were sitting ducks for terrorists. Since them, with the exception of one month, US casualties have declined rapidly and the Iraqi forces have demonstrated increasing ability to operate independently.

Now it looks like Murtha once again has jumped the gun, seemingly anxious to paint US forces as murderous now that his earlier assertion of helplessness has been shown false. He has made this leap despite the investigation continuing into the incident, and in advance of any determination by the military. Not only has he convicted the Marines without benefit of a complete investigation, let alone a court-martial, he has also found them non compus mentis by reason of "combat stress". In other words, Murtha says they're war criminals, but it's the fault of the Bush administration.

Yes, indeed, it's all very familiar.

Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee, who has followed the case closely, noted back in March:

There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim. But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.

Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

Per Murtha's comments, Owens writes:

I had no idea just how accurate those words would prove to be. Congressman John Murtha has now gone so far as to accuse American Marines of cold-blooded murder before an investigation has been completed, and roughly doubled the number of dead without any support for his charges, with the sole apparent goal of inflaming outrage at the expense of our military's safety.

It would seem appropriate that the United States House of Representatives should at the very least censure Congressman Murtha, who has gone so far out of his way to initiate such inflammatory and potentially dangerous rhetoric. He has dishonored his seat, the military criminal justice system, the Marine Corps and the United States of America.

How a man can make such vicious, unsupported claims and still claim to love the Marine Corps and America is beyond my understanding.

Mac Ranger:

Cowardly Murtha isn't breaking a story that no one was going to tell, he jumped the gun to again use this reported tragedy for his own cut and run purposes.

He's a freaking disgrace.

***

Flashback: Time magazine's report from March...

The incident seemed like so many others from this war, the kind of tragedy that has become numbingly routine amid the daily reports of violence in Iraq. On the morning of Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb struck a humvee carrying Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, on a road near Haditha, a restive town in western Iraq. The bomb killed Lance Corporal Miguel (T.J.) Terrazas, 20, from El Paso, Texas. The next day a Marine communique from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi reported that Terrazas and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the blast and that "gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire," prompting the Marines to return fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding one other. The Marines from Kilo Company held a memorial service for Terrazas at their camp in Haditha. They wrote messages like "T.J., you were a great friend. I'm going to miss seeing you around" on smooth stones and piled them in a funeral mound. And the war moved on.

But the details of what happened that morning in Haditha are more disturbing, disputed and horrific than the military initially reported. According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began.

In January, after Time presented military officials in Baghdad with the Iraqis' accounts of the Marines' actions, the U.S. opened its own investigation, interviewing 28 people, including the Marines, the families of the victims and local doctors. According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (ncis), which will conduct a criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians. Lieut. Colonel Michelle Martin-Hing, spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, told Time the involvement of the ncis does not mean that a crime occurred. And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves."

Because the incident is officially under investigation, members of the Marine unit that was in Haditha on Nov. 19 are not allowed to speak with reporters. But the military's own reconstruction of events and the accounts of town residents interviewed by Time—including six whose family members were killed that day—paint a picture of a devastatingly violent response by a group of U.S. troops who had lost one of their own to a deadly insurgent attack and believed they were under fire...

83-16

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the Sessions Amendment by an 83-16 vote. The Sessions Amendment mandates the building of 370 miles of border fence in and around urban areas and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. The estimated cost for these barriers, according to Sen. Sessions, is $900 million. During his floor speech, Sen. Sessions said that he’d already gotten estimates from contractors on the project.

Needless to say, this is a major victory for conservatives who’ve been clamoring for a enforcement first bill. Combine that with the immediate deployment of National Guard units to the border, the hiring and training of an additional 6,000 Border Patrol officials, and you have a serious border security system.

These days, conservatives compare the current legislation to Simpson-Mazzoli. How any intellectually honest conservative can reach the conclusion that the curent legislation is just Simpson-Mazzoli II is beyond me. Here’s the Indiana University capsule on Simpson-Mazzoli:

Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming and Representative Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky, recognized that illegal immigration could not be stopped entirely at the borders of our nation and proposed a different approach to curbing the problem. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. It also offered legal amnesty to immigrants who could prove that they had been living continuously in the U.S. since 1982, a concession to the reality that illegal immigrants who had been living in the U.S. for a long period of time had submerged in society and would remain difficult to identify.

Do you see anything in that description that hints of beefing up border security? Anything that increases Border Patrol staffing? Anything that builds 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 more miles of vehicle barriers? Simpson-Mazzoli didn’t put in place a series of hurdles in the path to citizenship like this legislation has.

Frankly, conservatives are lying when they call this amnesty. Let me illustrate this anecdotally. Let’s suppose 2 men rob a bank. One is convicted, serves time in prison, then is paroled. The erstwhile bankrobber stays clean during his parole. The other bankrobber isn’t caught, is convicted in absentia and he’s eventually pardoned by the President. I’d submit to you that one made restitution to the bank, paid his debt to society, met all the stipulations that the judge imposed, then stayed clean during his parole. The other was convicted of a crime, then pardoned.

The end result is that they’re both free men at the end of a certain period of time. We’d be intellectually dishonest, though, if we said that they both were pardoned. We’d be laughed at if we said that.

Similarly, Simpson-Mazzoli said that illegal aliens had a relatively simple path to total amnesty. This legislation puts in place a series of conditions that must be met even before they could apply for citizenship.

The other thing that intellectually honest conservatives must shoot down is the enforcement only/first peoples’ argument. As Tony Snow pointed out on Sean Hannity’s show this afternoon, the Senate bill gives the border patrol more officers and more fence than the bill that Tom Tancredo supports.

How on earth a conservative can say that the House bill is superior enforcement-only legislation is laughable.

THE WINDBAG RAGES ON

Kennedy On Immigration: Detached From Reality, Part II (Video)

By Greg Tinti on May 17, 2006 at 01:12 PM

Click to Download (.wmv)

Another example of Sen. Ted Kennedy's twisted logic on display. According to Kennedy, "the idea that border security, in and of itself, of fencing or non-fencing is going to solve this problem just defies...DEFIES...recent history." His proof? After California erected a fence in that state, there was a spike in the number of people who died crossing the border--through Arizona.

Kennedy is purposely conflating two issues here and implying that physical fences actually lead to more death. But the obvious point Kennedy ignores is that the California fence was effective in preventing entrance to the United States but led to more crossings in Arizona. Now, logic dictates that had there been a fence in Arizona as well, it would have prevented people from crossing there and--more importantly--saved the lives of the majority of those people that died trying to cross.

Even worse, Kennedy would rather have a "virtual fence" which would likely allow more people to cross in dangerous areas and would have much less of an impact than an actual fence on lowering the number of people whom die from crossing our border. That doesn't make much sense to me. But as you've probably gleaned from the title of this post, this isn't the first time that Kennedy's been totally detached from reality on the immigration issue.

Flashback here.

UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin and Hot Air readers!

UPDATE II: Robin Schaffran quips in the comments, "I suggest we replace the real security fence around Ted Kennedy's home estate with a virtual fence instead and see if that provides him with the security he needs."

UPDATE III: BREAKING: The Senate just voted 83-16 in favor of a 370 mile triple-layered border fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the border. It is unknown at this time whether vehicle barriers also cause death.

THE PRICE OF A FENCE

By Michelle Malkin

The Senate ignores the Windbag from Massachusetts and votes:

The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.

Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure.

But if the price of the fence is this...

The prospects were less favorable for their attempt to strip out portions of the legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs.

...is it worth it? And given past history and yesterday's vote against enforcement first, you already know which provision--the amnesty, not the fence--is the Senate's top priority and which will be in place first.

House Republicans aren't falling for the ruse, and continue to push for enforcement FIRST:

Across the Capitol in the House, the story was different. Republicans pushed through a border security bill last year, and several members of the rank-and-file have criticized Bush for his proposals. To calm their concerns, the White House dispatched Karl Rove to their weekly closed-door meeting.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an outspoken opponent of the Senate bill, derided the effort. "I didn't see it was a persuasive event. If it was about Karl Rove seeking to convince members of Congress after debate that he's right and we're wrong it would have been better not to have the meeting," he said.

King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life."

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed that Rove did not seem to have been persuasive. "It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on; either you're giving amnesty to people who are here illegally or you aren't."

Meanwhile, here's just a small reminder of the cost of this nation's long history of open-borders empty gestures.

***

Should be an interesting scene in Washington in about an hour. The illegal alien lobby says it'll have 100,000 amnesty-demanding activists pounding the pavement. I can't make it there tonight, but hope to have a few eyewitness reports. Wonder if the MSM will EVER cover these radicalized protests in a fair and balanced way...

Who will be building the fence? Reader Daniel G. imagines the news story:

Illegal Immigrants Hired to Build Fence To Keep Illegal Immigrants Out

"They'll work for cheap and get the job done right,'' Pres. Bush said.

MORE ON THE MEXICAN INVASION

If you're a fan of unbridled arrogance you're going to love this one. It would seem that the government of Mexico is threatening lawsuits. Yup .. you got it right. Lawsuits. Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez has said that if the Mexican government sees that our National Guard is starting to detain people ... he means Mexicans, of course ... thus preventing them from entering our country illegally ... then the government of Mexico will start filing lawsuits.

Boil down the Foreign Secretary's comments ... If the United States National Guard actually takes any action to protect the borders of the United States by holding back the invasion force then we're going to sue.

One would expect that some highly-ranked U.S. official would stand up and up somewhere and tell the Mexican government that the United States intends to defend its borders, and that any lawsuits brought against our government as a result of those efforts will be considered to be a hostile act. Well .. you might expect that, but you had best not hold your breath.

A 'LAND OF IMMIGRANTS?"

I'm getting a bit tired of Bush's constant references to the fact that we're a "land of immigrants." He's right, of course ... but he seems unwilling to highlight the fact that our ancestors, the immigrants he's talking about, came here legally. They followed the law. They didn't seek an advantage over anyone else by jumping the line. Our ancestral heritage is one of adherence to the law. This is a claim that cannot be made by the tens of millions of Mexicans and Hispanics who have, in effect, told us to take our rule-of-law and stick it.

JOHNNY ISAKSON'S AMENDMENT FAILS

Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson offered a common-sense amendment to the Senate immigration bill. Isakson's amendment would have simply put off the establishment of a so-called "guest worker" program .. which is, of course, an amnesty program, until the Department of Homeland Security could certify to the U.S. Congress that our border with Mexico is secure. In short, Isakson's amendment would have mandated that we first shut off the flood before we try to clean up the flood damage. Isakson's amendment was shot down in the Senate by a vote of 55-40. The Senate sent the message ... don't secure the border first.

WE MUST CONSIDER THIS POSSIBILITY

By their actions our elected officials in Washington are sending us a rather strong message: We are not going to take any affirmative action to insure that the Mexican invasion across our southern border is brought to a halt. We must consider the possibility that these politicians want this invasion to continue because it serves their political needs. For the Democrats, this one is easy. Enabling the invasion is step one. Amnesty for those who have crossed our borders is step two. Step three will be figuring out a way to get those who were once illegal aliens, but by virtue of the amnesty program are illegal no more, to the polls to vote; presumably for Democrats. As for the Republicans? Well, there's always those heavy-duty contributors who benefit from the cheap labor offered by the invasion force. It's also possible that Republicans might actually believe that this legitimized invasion force will be prone to vote Republican!

This controversy over the Mexican invasion all boils down to one simple fact. It is fair to say that job one for the president and the members of congress is to defend and protect the borders of this country. In that regard they can be considered as nothing less than failures.