Robertson Endorses Giuliani

Pat Robertson has announced he will be backing RINO Rudy Giuliani. That's right, the self-anointed mouthpiece of what remains of the once powerful Religious Right has endorsed an pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-illegal immigration social progressive.

Robertson was willing to overlook the liberal positions of the 3-times divorced lapsed Catholic from New York because of Rudy's "ability" to lead the Nation in the "War on Terror." Again, I must ask the question- exactly what is it in Giuliani's past that makes one think he would be effective in fighting terrorism? His horrible decision to move the Emergency Command Center into the World Trade Center after the first bombing? or was it his refusal to supply emergency personnel with communications gear that actually worked like it was supposed to? or maybe it was his backing of a corrupt womanizing Police Commissioner to head the Department of Homeland Security- whose kids of whom Rudy just happened to be their godfather?

These morons all seem to think that somehow, being mayor of a city during a terrorist attack qualifies Giuliani to lead the "War on Terror" and make America "safe." (Note: I'm not taking a position here as to whether 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack or not- I am simply putting the conventional view out there, since that view is central to Giuliani's campaign)

Robertson invoked the Reagan doctrine- my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. If Rudy is only Pat's "20%" enemy, then Pat isn't much of a conservative- or a Christian, for that matter. But then again, we already knew this about Pat.

In the grand scheme of things, this endorsement means very little. Robertson's influence has been fading for years, and may give Giuliani a 1 or 2 point bump- but I doubt it will have even that effect.

Dream Act Goes Down in Flames

Falling short of the 60 votes needed to force cloture, the disatrous "Dream Act" thankfully went down to defeat. When are the Neocons in the White House and the Progressives in Congress going to get it through their heads that WE THE PEOPLE aren't going to stand for them giving special perks and privileges to aliens who are not in this Country legally?

Anyone who is not here legally needs to get out of the United States, and those who are trying to force the American people to swallow their shamnesty plans need to either be impeached or tried for treason.

Readers, be vigilant. Those wishing to sell our sovereignty and security for a burrito aren't going to give up- this bill (or some form of it) will rear it's ugly head again and again and again.

Gutless Republicans voting for Cloture:
Brownback (thank God this idiot dropped out of the Presidential race)
Coleman
Collins
Craig (Guess he wasn't in the bathroom when the vote was taken)
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson (not surprised a neocon from Bush's home state voted for Cloture)
Martinez (don't blame me, I didn't vote for this idiot)
Snowe

Hat's Off to the following Democrats for siding with the American people:
Baucus
Byrd
Conrad
Dorgan
Landrieu
McCaskille
Tester

And of course the gutless Presidential wannabe from Arizona- John MCain- did not vote, nor did Tequila Ted Kennedy.

And of course, now all the pro-illegal Senators are on TV whining about how mean-spirited we are. But I say, score another one for the good guys.

I'm sure there's great sadness in the campaigns of the GOP's pro-shamnesty Presidential candidates- McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee. Ain't that a shame.

There's a Lot I Like About Tancredo

I may not agree with him on everything, but Tom's right on the money on the illegal immigration issue. There aren't many in Congress who have been out front on the issue as long as he has, and there's not a louder voice out there for stopping the invasion of America from our porous southern border.

Congressman Tancredo, my hat's off to you.

________________________

Tancredo Asks Immigration Authorities to Detain Illegal Aliens
Attending Durbin Event in U.S. Capitol

( WASHINGTON, D.C. ) – Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) today released a statement regarding an event Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) reportedly plans to hold in conjunction with discussion of the DREAM ACT – an event that will be attended by several illegal aliens.

“I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference. Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law.”

“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?”

Tancredo alerted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency earlier today regarding Durbin’s 3:00 PM meeting.

Congressman Tom Tancredo

An Act Of War

Mexican troops on US soil, apparently in support of drug smugglers... and what's the point of asking Chertoff or anyone in the Bush Administration to investigate anything dealing with illegal aliens or border security?

From WorldNetDaily.com:

INVASION USA
Mexican military in U.S. border standoff
Police say they aided drug smugglers with Humvees, machine guns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 17, 2007
3:47 p.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers engaged in an armed standoff with nearly 30 American law enforcement officials on the southern U.S. border, according to Texas police and the FBI.

At a spot more than 200 yards inside the U.S., Mexican Army troops set up several mounted machine guns when U.S. Border Patrol agents called for backup Monday, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported.

The paper said Mexican military Humvees were towing what appeared to be thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border into the U.S., according to Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department.

The incident took place on the Rio Grande near Neely's Crossing, about 50 miles east of El Paso.

"It's been so bred into everyone not to start an international incident with Mexico that it's been going on for years," Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. "When you're up against mounted machine guns, what can you do? Who wants to pull the trigger first? Certainly not us."

Confirming the afternoon encounter, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons told the paper, "Bad guys in three vehicles ended up on the border. People with Humvees, who appeared to be with the Mexican Army, were involved with the three vehicles in getting them back across."

Deputies captured one vehicle and found 1,477 pounds of marijuana inside, according to Doyal, who added Mexican soldiers set fire to one of the Humvees stuck in the river.

Such incidents are common, Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. Last November, his deputies were called on to back up agents from the Fort Hancock border patrol station in Texas after confronting more than six fully armed men dressed in Mexican military uniforms.

Armed with machine guns, the men were trying to bring more than three tons of marijuana across the border in military vehicles.

Doyal insisted the federal government must do something about the incursions, pointing out the deputies and border agents are not equipped for combat.

But Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff today played down the reports of Mexican military incursions, suggesting many could have been mistakes or criminals dressed in military garb. Last week, Mexican officials denied their military made any incursions.

The Daily Bulletin reported, however, border agents interviewed over the past year believe the confrontations were with Mexican military personnel.

A story by the paper last year highlighted a Department of Homeland Security document reporting 216 incursions by Mexican soldiers during the previous 10 years.

Chertoff downplayed the reports at that time, as well, calling them "overblown."

But border agents contend otherwise.

"We're sitting ducks," said one who spoke to the Daily Bulletin on condition of anonymity. "The government has our hands tied."

As WND reported in February 2006, an American law enforcement officer and news crew in Hudspeth County, Texas, witnessed an armed incursion into the U.S. by men dressed in Mexican army attire, the second such incident in two weeks.

Mexican officials have said their military is forbidden from traveling within three miles of the border, though U.S. border residents repeatedly have spotted mobile patrols of Mexican military units traversing roads that run directly parallel to the international boundary. Mexico says the armed men crossing into the U.S. are paramilitary forces loyal to drug-smuggling cartels.

Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter and David Drier of California last week asked Chertoff, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee and the House International Relations Committee to investigate the incursions.

Tancredo Tears into Border Mayors

I'm supporting Ron Paul, but there's a lot I like about Tom Tancredo. He's been out front on the illegal immigration issue, and I respect him for that.

It is a sad commentary on the American electorate that, given all the anger and frustration showed by the American people in stopping the McCain/Kennedy shamnesty bill, the most pro-border security and anti-illegal immigration voices in the entire Presidential field- Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter- have lousy poll numbers. It's pathetic that so many voters rely on the mainstream media, pundits, Hollywood, PACs, and other nefarious entities tell them who to vote for- they are mind-numbed sheep being led to slaughter by elitist wolves.
__________________________________________________________

Presidential candidate blasts “rogue” border mayors
Ryan Holeywell
October 11, 2007 - 9:38AM

McALLEN — Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo labeled some border mayors as “rogue” for refusing to cooperate with the federal government’s efforts to construct the proposed border fence in some parts of Texas.

Tancredo, a congressman from Colorado, also suggested in a news release earlier this week that the fence could be built north of U.S. border cities that don’t go along with it.

Tancredo’s comments came after The Associated Press reported earlier this month that some U.S. border leaders had denied some access to federal workers doing preliminary work on the fence.

“I’m glad he said it, because all it means is he wrote his own obituary,” McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez said. “Nobody like him can possibly be elected to a leadership position in this country.”

Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada said Tancredo’s comments were “not constructive” and added those who vehemently support the fence — such as Tancredo — are “being driven by fear or racism.”

“He has no clue how we live, how (the fence) will affect us and how close it is,” Ahumada said.

Tancredo, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, was polling at 1 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal conducted in late September. His campaign has raised $4,825 from two donors in the Rio Grande Valley, according to the Federal Election Committee.

Lately, he’s gained attention for his vocal support of the fence, as well as his vehement position on the need to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

Tancredo told The Monitor his suggestion of building the wall north of some cities was “just for effect,” but he is serious about his support for the fence itself.

While Rio Grande Valley residents and elected officials alike may oppose the fence, Tancredo said, it “is a national security issue and we all have to pay the price and make some sacrifice.”

While Ahumada said he supports a so-called virtual fence created by dredging and expanding the Rio Grande, Tancredo said a physical barrier is the best option to stop “the invasion that is occurring,” referring to the influx of undocumented immigrants to the country.

He also said the fence sends a symbolic message to Mexico.

“It says clearly, ‘Here’s where one country ends and another one begins,’” Tancredo said. “Short of sending someone an atlas, this is the next best thing.”

Cortez said a fence could impede the billions of dollars of trade that comes through the country’s borders. But Tancredo said a fence would not affect legitimate business.

Ahumada said he invites Tancredo to visit the border and see for himself how it would affect the community. Tancredo said he’s visited the border many times and was in Texas last year, but he hopes to visit the state soon.

From: The Monitor

A Scintilla of Hope for Higher Education

The following, from The Daily at the University of Washington, gives me some hope that all is not completely lost in our system of higher education- there are still at least some students who havent't drank the koolaid of the Left.
_______________________________________________________________

Mexican claims to U.S. soil historically unfounded
October 8, 2007
By James Foxcurran

College campuses most often use the negative terms “imperialism” and “colonialism” to describe European and American history. Meanwhile, in 21st century North America, our southern neighbor is being granted moral legitimacy for the same behavior.

Mexican immigrants are now present in the Southwestern United States with a population percentage they have never enjoyed at any other time in history.

While defendants are saying it’s just the natural process of the Mexicans moving back onto land that really belongs to them and that the Hollywood demonstrations should be a source of conventional wisdom, history is being overlooked.

Mexico had barely colonized most of the Southwestern United States when it became U.S. territory in 1848. Spain, then Mexico, merely held imperial sway over Indian territories.

In 1835, Texas had about 3,500 Spanish-speaking residents, compared with almost 30,000 Anglo-American settlers, according to Ray Allen Billington, in his book The Far Western Frontier: 1830-1860.

In California, there were about 4,000 to 7,000 Spanish-speaking residents in the 1840s. The vast majority of the population was still Indian. Scattered missions, pueblos and presidios represented most of the Mexican presence in the area, which is why it was so easy for the United States to seize the area during the Mexican-American war, according to “History of French America” by Gilles Harvard and Cecile Vidal.

Meanwhile, in 1803, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, there were 40,000 to 50,000 French-speaking residents west of the Mississippi River between Missouri and Washington state.

This number tripled to quadrupled by 1850. However, there is no modern political constituency for this group, therefore the story is apparently not worth telling.

The only state that has always had a majority Spanish-speaking population is New Mexico, with 44,000 Spanish-speaking residents in 1830. Since the Spanish were the first to explore the Southwest, their geographic terms are on the map every place they stopped to relieve themselves.

These vestiges are often used to justify the massive Mexican colonization currently unfolding, in spite of the fact that it is actually the first wave of Mexican colonization, not the second.

History is often revised to reflect the current situation rather than the facts. This is exactly what is happening with the American Southwest and the inflation of Mexican claims to the land there.

This historical revisionism clearly has a political motivation to justify and legitimize the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants and to discredit efforts to respect our border and immigration laws.

As former Rep. J.D. (R-Ariz.) Hayworth said in the film Border Wars, “The Left sees cheap votes, and the Right sees cheap labor, so you have the perfect storm.”

While one certainly can’t stereotype all persons of Mexican immigrants, there is a distinction between Mexican-American families who have citizenship and roots in the United States, and an illegal alien of a foreign nation who is violating and evading federal laws.

While illegal immigration is unacceptable, it is important to have sympathy for the migrants.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, working with the border patrol is serving a heroic function that is saving Mexican and American lives in large quantities. I don’t see any Leftists sweating in the Arizona desert, saving illegal Mexican migrants from dying of dehydration and starvation.

The only people that have decisively responded to this human rights tragedy are the groups that Leftists despise and routinely slander.

Mexicans are gaining considerable political power and forcing politicians of both parties to shy away from defending the border and enforcing immigration laws.

A Zogby’s poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.”

This was on display last year with the massive marches of Mexican citizens waving Mexican flags in American cities. If this isn’t blatant colonization, with ulterior imperialist motives, I don’t know what is.

[Reach contributing writer James Foxcurran at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]

2 GOP Candidates Show Some Guts

During the Republican duh-bate yesterday, Representatives Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo showed testicular fortitude in publically stating that they wouldn't support the GOP nominee if they didn't agree with him philosophically. In doing so, both set themselves apart from the other contenders by basically stating what so many of us believe- principles must trump party loyalty.

Giuliani is a social progressive; Romney may as well change his name to Eggo; Thompson has all the charisma of Admiral Stockdale, and we're still not sure where he stands on anything; and McCain, Huckabee and Brownback apparently don't think that having 20% of the Mexican population living in the United States is enough. Paul and Tacredo are right about those guys- I couldn't in good conscience support any of them, either.

To paraphrase Chuck Baldwin, having to choose between Rudy and Romney, or Thompson and McCain, or any combination of those would be roughly akin to having to choose between Nero and Caligula.

Tancredo has been the attack dog against illegal immigration, while Paul has spoken long and loud against the Neocon war in Iraq. They've shown guts in the past, and showed them again yesterday. Good job, guys.
_____________________________________________

From The Hill:

Paul and Tancredo hint at not supporting GOP nominee
By Klaus Marre
October 09, 2007

Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) made it clear Tuesday that they are not inclined to support the GOP nominee for president if that candidate is not in line with their views.

Asked about it during the debate of Republican presidential candidates in Michigan, Paul said right now he would not commit to support the party’s nominee.

“Not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home,” Paul said, to which Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) answered “You don’t want me then, pal.”

Paul also said he would not support a GOP candidate who is unwilling to curb spending in Washington.

“I’m not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes,” Paul said. “I mean, we’ve lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats’ foreign policy.”

Tancredo, a staunch supporter of tight border security, also did not commit to supporting the GOP candidate.

“I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils,” he said. “I really don’t intend to do that again.

I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principled flag carrier for the Republican Party. But if that is not the case, no, then I will not support them.”

Are you a Murdering Rapist in the Country Illegally?

Never fear, George Bush and the Neocons at the White House have got your back. In fact, they'll argue on your behalf before the US Supreme Court!

Apparently, this White House has somewhat of a soft spot for rapists and murderers. Dog Chapman goes to Mexico to apprehend a fugitive rapist and murderer who had fled American justice- and for his troubles, the Justice Department threw the Bounty Hunter in jail and sought to extradite him to Mexico. Now the same Bush Administration will stand before the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court and argue that the convictions of 51 rapists and murderers on Death Row (all of whom are illegal aliens) should be overturned, and those 51 subhumans should be sent back to Mexico to stand trial.

The Neocons are following the marching orders of the World Court on this one. It's interesting to see how they pick and choose which World Court mandates they choose to follow. If it deals with torture, it's ignored; if it deals with illegals, they'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce it.

Fact is, we should have nothing to do with the World Court. No foreign court must hold sway over our sovereignty, and international "law" cannot trump the US Constitution. Apparently, the GOP and Democrats don't think the same way- but the Constitution Party does.

From the Constitution Party Platform:

The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.

To this end, we shall:
steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;

call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;

bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and

propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.


It's not just the World Court- it's the entire web of globalist organizations and trade deals that we must get away from- the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, Law of the Sea Treaty, GATT, WTO, etc., etc., etc. They are all threats to American soveriegnty and enemies of the Constitution.

Ron Paul has said "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." I wholeheartedly agree with him, and so would the Founding Fathers. How about you?
___________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer
International court seeks to block death penalty in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 8, 2007
11:28 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday in which the Bush administration will seek to overturn the death penalty of a convicted rapist-murderer at the behest of the International Court of Justice.

Jose Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.

The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice found Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

That, according to the Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

"We find ourselves in an unusual position," Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the Houston Chronicle. "Texas is not regularly litigating against the United States. But sadly enough, the United States will appear alongside Medellin at the argument."

Medellin v. Texas will be argued Wednesday and could determine the fate of Medellin and 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.

The court is expected to produce a ruling clarifying which powers reside with the president, Congress and courts, which powers belong to the federal government versus the states, and what the relationship is between international and domestic law.

The Bush administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.

The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.

A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.

The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.

The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.

Medellin appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear his case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, will argue this week that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the World Court's decision.

The Bush administration, now siding with Medellin and Mexico, will try to help Donovan's team convince the justices that the Texas court is undermining the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy.

Cruz, who will argue the case for Texas, called Bush's unprecedented attempt to issue orders to the judicial branch – and the state courts in particular – "breathtaking."

"It is emphatically not the province of the president to say what the law is," he told the Houston Chronicle. "If this president's assertion of authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the books?"

Meanwhile, Randy and Sandra Ertman, the parents of one of Medellin's victims, also have weighed in. In a court brief filed on their behalf by the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, the Ertmans argue that their 14-year-old daughter's rights, and the rights of other victims, will be given short shrift if the justices further delay the "already long-overdue execution of this well-deserved sentence."

"This case has produced much lofty discussion about international law and the separation of powers. We must not forget, though, that this case is about a real crime against real people," they wrote. "Enough is enough."

Veteran Enforces Federal Flag Law

4 USC Section 7(c) states:

"No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof:"

Please note the fact that the establishment mentioned in the story below was in violation of Federal law. It's not like it's some obscure clause, either- I learned this when I was still in elementary school, and that was about 35 years ago.

My hat's off to this patriot for taking action.
______________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:

THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Vet cuts down Mexican flag flying above U.S. banner
Took action after hearing of illegal display by Hispanic bar owner in Reno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2007
2:44 p.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Mexican flag flies above U.S. banner at Reno business in footage from local KRNV-TV
After hearing a Reno bar was flying a Mexican flag above a U.S. flag, an angered U.S. Army veteran took matters into his own hands, drove to the site and cut down the banners in front of a stunned group of Hispanic patrons.

Reno television station KRNV, which was there to document Jim Broussard's act of defiance, noted the U.S. code prohibits raising the flag of any other nations above Old Glory.

Broussard pulled up in his truck to the Cantina El Jaripeo near downtown Reno yesterday, cut the rope that anchored the flags and pulled them down from a makeshift flagpole.

He left the Mexican flag on the ground and, with the U.S. flag in hand, turned to the KRNV cameraman:

"I'm Jim Broussard," he said, "and I took this flag down in honor of my country with … a knife from the United States Army. I'm a veteran, I'm not going to see this done to my country. If they want to fight us, then they need to be men, and they need to come and fight us. But I want somebody to fight me for this flag. They're not going to get it back."

The KRNV footage shows a Hispanic man, possibly the bar owner, picking up the Mexican flag after Broussard briskly walks past him down the street to his truck.

Later, Broussard, told nationally syndicated talk-radio host Mike Gallagher he took action after hearing on a local talk station that the flags had been flying all day.

"I was immediately infuriated and felt a duty to do something about it," Broussard said. "I feel there's a lot of this turning-our-heads-on-things in concern with the Hispanic community and the things they do. They seem impervious to our laws in a lot of situations."

Broussard, pointing out the bar was committing a federal offense, said local authorities weren't sure what to do about it.

He affirmed Gallagher's comment that many Americans are afraid to speak out on the problem of illegal immigration and lack of assimilation because they are afraid of being called bigots.

Broussard said he had no idea a TV camera would be there until he arrived on the scene.

About a dozen Hispanic men came pouring out of the building when he showed up, according to Broussard.

The men said, Broussard recounted, "What do you think you're doing?"

"I said, well, watch me."

Broussard said he talked to local police after the incident, and they have not taken any action. But Hispanic leaders, he said, "are trying to coerce the bar owner to file charges against me."

The veteran affirmed to Gallagher there are many Hispanics who are equally upset about illegal immigration and the resistance to assimilation.

"We have many cultures who've come here, and they've learned our language, and they respect our culture, because they know America is a great country, and they simply want to be a part of it," he said.

KRNV said it sent a cameraman to the scene after a viewer called to say "a business near downtown Reno was flying a Mexican flag above an American flag ... which is, in fact, illegal."

Illegal Aliens Could Give, Cost House Seats

Here is a consequence of illegal immigration that isn't receiving much press- the unchecked flood of aliens into Florida, Texas and Arizona could net them more seats in the House of Representatives.

From the Norwich Bulletin:

Census to change Congress
Sep 30, 2007 @ 01:31 AM
By ERICA JACOBSON

Florida could get as many as three additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives with Arizona and Texas each gaining two seats if the 2010 U.S. Census counts the nation’s undocumented population.

This is according to a study released today by the Connecticut State Data Center at the University of Connecticut. New York and Ohio would each lose two seats and Illinois, Michigan and Missouri would lose one seat each. Connecticut’s seats would stay the same.

The changes could be problematic, the study’s author said, considering undocumented residents don’t vote.

“The number of voters hasn’t changed,” Orlando Rodriguez, the center’s manager, said Friday. “What you’ve actually done is allocated an extra seat to a group of people who are not participating in the political system. It gives more voting power to those who do participate.”

(The rest of the article can be read at the above link)

Not Our Fathers' America

Pastor Baldwin is spot on with this commentary. A must-read for anyone who loves America and is sickened at Her present condition.

________________________________________________________

Not Our Fathers' America
by Chuck Baldwin
June 8, 2007

Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars, minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very quickly disappearing.

In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be American.

For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided practical day-by-day decisions and choices.

Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.

In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not just a maxim; it is a fact.

Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted us liberty.

Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.

Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the government will take care of us.

For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential frontrunners is elected next year.

If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)

Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House, and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!

Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker practically every time he walks into the woods.

In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)

Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.

Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes. Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.

With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes, two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal protection on campus.)

However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."

Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.

Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.

In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America, not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that opportunity.

However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of being unpatriotic and un-American.

Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America. An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence. An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do, say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.

The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do? Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So, what will we do?

It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But, what exactly will those decisions be?

One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.

© Chuck Baldwin

Contact Your Congressman

Tell them to support H. Con. Res. 40, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."

Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).

The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.

This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration in Florida

2005 estimates placed the number of illegal aliens in Florida at 630,000. No doubt this number is higher in 2007, but the older figures will serve well enough to demonstrate how much educating, treating, and incarcerating costs Florida taxpayers.
-----------------------------------------------
From the Federation for American Immigration Reform website:

Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Florida’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly more than $1.7 billion dollars per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated taxes collected from illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly one billion dollars per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $300 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident.

This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison a decade later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.

There are other significant costs associated with illegal immigration, and federal and state officials should take these into account as well. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Florida taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.

The nearly two billion dollars in costs incurred by Florida taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:

Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Florida and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Floridians spend more than $1.5 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 8.7 percent of the K-12 public school students in Florida are children of illegal aliens.

Health Care. Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $165 million a year.

Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Florida’s state and county prisons amounts to about $60 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).

State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $910 million per year.

The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.

It's Midnight in America- Do You Know Where Your Country Is?

Howdy, ya'll, and welcome to Midnight in America.

It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.

So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.

First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.

It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."

So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.

That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.