[Rushtalk] Flood of illegals

Carl Spitzer lynux at keepandbeararms.com
Wed Aug 20 07:48:24 MDT 2014


World Affairs Brief, July 11, 2014 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled
World.



ILLEGAL ALIEN CROSSINGS BECOME A FLOOD
With each day of delay in sealing the border with Mexico, the flood of
illegals increases. The administration claims the numbers are falling
but they are fudging the numbers. There is a sense of increased urgency
for the thousands of would-be illegal immigrants pouring in from Central
America into Mexico and heading for the US. The current border crisis
will force the US to do something and they know that they better get
over the border while they can. The Mexican government is, I believe,
acting in collusion with the Obama administration to facilitate this
flow of illegals. Just this week, instead of making it harder for
Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans to cross over into Mexico, the
presidents of Mexico and Guatemala signed a pact facilitating the
process of granting the coveted 72 hour transit visas into Mexico.
Strong sanctions against Mexico should be the first order of business in
Congress next week, if there were any real intent to solve the problem—
which there isn’t.

The Obama administration is clearly in full damage control as the tide
of public opinion is strongly turning against Obama and amnesty—that
magnet attraction for thousands to cross the border into Texas every day
where there is no effective fence to stop them. But the administration
has absolutely no intention of actually doing anything to stop the flow
or change the drawn out and unnecessary legal process for deportation.

Gov. Rick Perry is taking the lead in criticizing Obama as being fully
responsible for the current crisis and is demanding that Obama put
National Guard troops on the border to seal it. Let me explain why that
could temporarily solve the problem—but won’t.

First, National Guard units will be given orders prohibiting them from
actually policing the border—just like in 2006 when we sent in the
Guard, as the NY Times reported:
 
Most of the Guard members will be unarmed unless they are in a hazardous
area. Much of their time will be spent in Border Patrol offices watching
monitors and handling other equipment, while those in the field will
alert Border Patrol agents if they see someone crossing the border
illegally. "The National Guard is not going to be involved in any law
enforcement mission," Mr. Martinez said[Mario Martinez, Border Patrol
spokesman]. "Actual arrests, seizures, custodial — none of that stuff. “

If the Guard were issued weapons and night vision goggles, they could
stand rotating watches on the border and stop most intruders. Right now
less than one-quarter of illegals are caught, if you can believe the
Border Patrol’s politicized figures.

It would take 8 guards per mile of the 350 miles where some pedestrian
fence exists—about 6,000 troops for two shifts, because the fence would
impede the speed of illegals trying to get across. It would take at
least twice that many troops in areas where there are only vehicle
guards or no fence at all.

That’s a lot of manpower which is a costly and only temporary solution,
but at least it would send a strong signal to immigrants to think twice
about trying to cross the border. This effort would have to be coupled
with a rapid commitment to finish the fence, which the troops could even
help build during the day—at a fraction of the cost of the outrageously
expensive government contracts. I would suggest first a quick and easy
10ft high fence topped with razor wire so that the number of troops
could be lessened in short order. Then once this single fence is in
place, a higher and more substantial double fence can proceed. It’s been
costing a ridiculous $1 million dollars per mile in the San Diego area.
 
Obama is now calling for almost $4 billion dollars to deal with the
humanitarian crisis, but he will not use any of that money to actually
secure the border. Remember, you’ve got to seal it completely for it to
do much good, otherwise, the illegals merely go around the areas you
block. In short, the money will be used up and the crisis will continue—
just as the administration wants.

Obama is talking about using the money to hire more immigration judges
to cut down on the backlog of cases that is giving the INS the excuse to
release all these illegals into society while awaiting their court date.
But this entire legalistic mindset is the problem, not the solution.

There is no reason to give illegals caught near the border any hearing
at all. Immigration hearings and court proceeding should be reserved for
those immigrants who have come through the system formally from the
beginning and need to appeal for some other status or who may have
violated their visa or green card restrictions—not for illegals who
crossed the border without any documentation. They should be taken back
immediately without a legal process.

In short, any person from a foreign country in Latin America caught
illegally in the country should be immediately fined and transported to
the Mexican border and forcibly repatriated, even if from Central or
South America. Mexico is responsible for giving them transit visas, so
Mexico should bear the burden of dealing with the humanitarian issue
they created.

Incredibly, Obama told the public in 2011 that the border fence is "now
basically complete.” But as Politifact.com says, this is mostly false,
and describes the real state of the fence:
 
In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011,
President Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is
"now basically complete...We have gone above and beyond what was
requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform
as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "All the stuff
they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these
concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who
are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."

But it’s Obama who moved the goal posts:
 
"Five years ago, legislation was passed to build a 700-mile double-layer
border fence along the southwest border," DeMint wrote. "This is a
promise that has not been kept. Today, according to staff at the
Department of Homeland Security, just 5 percent of the double-layer
fencing is complete, only 36.3 miles." So what gives? Is the border
fence "now basically complete" or not?

Department of Homeland Security officials told us they have finished 649
out of 652 miles of fencing (99.5 percent), which includes 299 miles of
vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence. You need to go back
to the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican
Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. It authorized the
construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border
with Mexico. The act specified "at least two layers of reinforced
fencing."

But the law was quietly altered in a significant way the following year.
 
Responding to urging from the Department of Homeland Security -- which
argued that different border terrains required different types of
fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border
didn't make sense -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas,[they always get
compromising Republicans to undermine strict border controls] proposed
an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was
appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, "nothing in
this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and
sensors in a particular location along an international border of the
United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of
such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain
operational control over the international border at such location."

Incredible! In other words, Border Patrol would have the leeway to
decide which type of fencing was appropriate in various regions—
including the option to do no fencing at all! And what they do choose is
not contiguous with the other fencing, leaving huge gaps.
 
At the time, Hutchison told the San Antonio Express-News, "Border patrol
agents reported that coyotes and drug-runners were altering their routes
as fencing was deployed,[duh...] so the amendment gives our agents
discretion to locate the fence where necessary to achieve operational
control of our border."

But that’s not what they did—they simply allowed the costs to rise
dramatically so as to justify almost no new fencing at all. Only half
the border is fenced today and half of that doesn’t stop pedestrians.
Even the 700 miles of fencing dictated by the 2006 Fence Act didn’t
cover most of Texas at all. Here’s a linkto the definitive history and
description of the current fence including a visual graphic showing how
much of the border is still wide open.

The Democrats are openly trying to sabotage the process. Listen to Nancy
Pelosi, (D-Ca):
 
This crisis that some call a crisis we have to view as an opportunity.
I'm a mother of five. I have nine grandchildren. I wish that I could
take all those children home with me. We are all Americans in this
hemisphere North and South America.

Bill O'Reilley responded: 
 
So that's an open border statement. Let them all in and no restraints at
all. According to Congresswoman Pelosi, we're all Americans. It doesn't
matter whether you live in Tierra del Fuego. It doesn't matter if we
live in the arctic we are all Americans. Therefore everybody come on
in... I mean this woman is off the chart loopy, is she not? If Mrs.
Pelosi knew anything, which she apparently doesn't, she would know that
the United States simply cannot afford to absorb millions of uneducated
people. Our welfare system is strained to limit now. So is the public
school system. Schools in the poorer precincts are generally a disaster.
And now you are going to add millions of more poor students to an
already crumbling system? Is that what you are going to do?

Again, with a debt approaching $18 trillion, the USA doesn't have the
money to support all these people. In addition our infrastructure is
declining along with median incomes with working Americans. And you
can't tax working folks anymore.

So the unintended consequences of illegal immigration are staggering.
Nancy Pelosi and other liberals ignore the facts preferring to live in a
fantasy world of self-righteousness. Oh I wish I could take each and
every one. And attacking those who want immigration law to be enforced
-- why do we have the law in the first place?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to evade confrontation
with the protestors at Murietta, California. Last week it was widely
reported that the Feds would be out in force with SWAT teams and riot
gear to deter protestors, but the illegal immigrant buses were simply
diverted to Chula Vista Border Patrol Station again. They are playing a
wear-the-protesters-down game, and it will work unless the protest
movement grows to Chula Vista and other places. Perhaps they should send
the buses to Nancy Pelosi’s house.

In fact, the government is using other military bases to keep this
growing number of illegals out of the public eye. In Ventura County,
near Los Angeles, the government is using Port Hueneme to hide illegals.
This from a local source:
 
“Around 500 of the Central American "refugees" have been dumped in Port
Hueneme. They are being taken by the bus loads to the Ventura County
hospital. They are very, very sick and some pregnant. The staff is not
allowed to ask them where they are from, and there is a government rep
there to insure that no one does.”

Rush Limbaugh had an interesting phone call this week from a devout
Catholic woman in Southern California. Apparently the Obama
administration is getting the Catholic Church to take in some of the
excess illegal children—and telling everyone to keep quiet about it.
 
RUSH: This is Ann and Ed in Southern California. Welcome. It's great to
have you on the phone. Hello.

ANN: Well, we have some interesting news. My husband Eddie is on the
phone with us. We live in Southern California, and we're Catholic,
active Catholics in our community, and there was a town hall meeting
last evening, emergency meeting called by our local parish priest,
ordered by our bishop and the Archdiocese of San Bernardino. They have
made the decision that they're going to absorb the immigrants that are
coming through because the federal government called the bishop's office
on Monday and they're gonna be busing these immigrants to our
communities and asking us to open our homes and to house them for up to
a month. The church will reimburse us for any out-of-pocket expenses and
we were told not to talk to anybody about it, especially the media. I'm
not especially happy about it. My husband is a retired doctor, and he
will share his concerns with you regarding this matter.

Obama continues the “big lie” by vowing to swiftly return to their home
countries the tens of thousands of children under 18 who have flocked to
the United States in recent months. The standard media line is that most
of these poor people and children are simply “fleeing from poverty,
gangs and drug violence.” PBS put on a debate between the leading
promoters of amnesty—the Leftist “Center for American Progress” and
Jessica Vaughan, the director for policy studies at the more balanced
“Center for Immigration Studies.”
 
Marshall Fitz of the CAP pushed the establishment line: “it’s clear that
the major drivers behind this recent influx are the conditions in the
sending countries... endemic violence, the weak institutional
government, and lack of protections for the civil society there.

There are conditions like that all over the world and US citizens can’t
help that. Fitz thinks this should justify letting people stay—a recipe
for a disastrous influx.
 
Jessica Vaughn counters with, “Well, there certainly is poverty and
violence in the three countries that are sending most of the people
across the border in South Texas now, but many of them who are coming
are not actually coming from the violent areas of those countries.

They’re coming from all over, rural areas, areas distant from the
violence. What we do know from Border Patrol intelligence, from
immigration agencies’ assessment, from all of the interviews that the
migrant themselves have done with reporters, from their own government
officials, is that the main reason that they’re coming is because they
know that they will be allowed to stay, for the most part.

And that’s what’s driving this at this time. They have been told by
friends and family who have already come here illegally what they can
say and that if they come with kids or if they send their kids, that the
chances are almost certain that they will be allowed to stay here.

And that’s the bottom line. It doesn’t matter what conditions drive
people to leave. Americans can’t do much about that. But we can stop our
government from offering all these incentives to come across the border
illegally and sabotaging efforts to restrain and deport them.

No other country in the Americas except Canada allows this kind of open
border policy, and Canadian crime and ethnic conflict is rising fast in
both Vancouver BC and Toronto as a result.

.................................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 
EVIDENCE WITHHELD IN SEATTLE SHOOTING CASE
One of the key evidences of a cover-up is when officials withhold video
security recordings that would either confirm or contradict the official
version of events. Professor James Tracy gives a devastating critique of
how the shooting at Pacific State University parallels the cover up at
Sandy Hook elementary by refusing to let the public or even other public
investigators see the security footage: Evidence Withheld In Seattle
Pacific Shooting Case

In a move redolent of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and
similar unexplained events, attorneys representing Seattle Pacific
University and as many as 30 anonymous parties connected to the June 5
campus shooting there have filed a lawsuit requesting to block release
of surveillance video of the event captured by the school’s security
cameras...[claiming the videos would have] “catastrophic impact on their
lives,” by causing them to recollect the events of that day.

—No more so than having to testify in court. That’s part of dispensing
justice.
 
The unnamed parties claim to be either victims or witnesses of the
shooting. SPU attorneys are asking for a temporary restraining order
against the King County Prosecutor’s Office and the Seattle Police
Department, who presently are in possession of the video. Both the King
Prosecutor and Seattle Police believe they are required to release the
records under Washington public records laws.[true]

Aaron Ybarra’s lawyer filed a separate motion asking that judge prevent
release of the video and other records. Brandes claims the release would
violate Ybarra’s state and federal constitutional rights and impede his
ability to receive a fair trial.

Not at all. A public security video doesn’t diminish a person’s right to
a fair trial any more than does an eye witness to the crime. What the
video does is make a much wider audience the witnesses to a murder. It
doesn’t stop the defense from trying to explain any anomalies to the
jury in either witness testimony or video evidence.
 
As discussed here in recent weeks, in the unusual Isla Vista and Las
Vegas mass shooting events, law enforcement agencies charged with
carrying out the investigations have withheld their official incident
reports, opting to manage the aftermath of each event through their
public affairs officers.

Members of the news media often file requests for information about
high-profile criminal cases and other significant stories. Several
Seattle area news media organizations requested the security camera
video, the 9-1-1 calls and Ybarra’s personal journal.

Close to nineteen months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School
massacre–the almost certainly fraudulent event most every feckless
political leader and law enforcement agency still invokes to justify
heightened security and mental health measures to keep children “safe”–
no surveillance video of the bloodletting, or of alleged shooter Adam
Lanza marching through the school, has been produced. The Federal Bureau
of Investigation is notorious for carrying out phony terror and active
shooter-related events to justify the “war on terror,” and their
agency’s continued relevance.

Many amateur conspiracy theorists claim that the Sandy Hook shooting
never occurred. It did occur, but there is an ongoing massive effort to
cover up the other shooter(s)—not just Adam Lanza, the fall guy. At
least one student told a TV cameraman that he saw the police leading
away the shooter in handcuffs. So if Lanza is dead on the floor in the
school, who were the police leading away in handcuffs as witnessed by
the students? I think the security footage would show all that and that
is why it is being suppressed.

In high-profile, government-directed false flag shootings (using
unstable, hypnotized and drugged patsies), they have one or more
accomplices go along to make sure the fall guy gets killed (if he fails
to kill himself as his programming dictates).

CHICAGO SHOOTING SPREE NOT CAUSED BY WEAK GUN LAWS
On Monday morning, July 7, the Chicago Tribune reported that between
Thursday and Monday over the July 4th long weekend, Chicago experienced
82 shootings with 14 killed. That may seem like a lot but not for
Chicago—it was actually only a bit higher than normal, and all of those
shootings weren’t bad. Chicago has near total gun control but that still
doesn’t stop criminals from getting guns. Chuck Baldwin had the best
commentary this week on the Chicago mayor’s attempt to blame this on
“weak gun laws.”
 
Predictably, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel [the notorious globalist insider
who used to work for Obama] blamed the increased violence on “weak” gun
laws in the neighboring states of Indiana and Wisconsin.
 
Of course, what Emanuel won’t tell you is that the violent crime rates
of those states where the right to keep AND BEAR arms is less infringed
are far less--far less! For example, there are 11 states in the country
that allow their citizens to carry firearms freely and openly with no
permit or license required. Those states are Alaska, Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky,
and Virginia. So, using Emanuel’s logic, one could expect that there
should have been hundreds of shootings in those states last
weekend--what with their “weak” gun laws and all, right? You know that’s
not true.

Breitbart.com reported the fact that one man’s life was actually saved
by virtue of the fact that he had a concealed carry permit (no small
feat in the City of Chicago) and used his PDW to protect himself against
three violent miscreants. In this case, one of the dead was a violent
predator. Had the innocent citizen not been armed, he would have been
the statistic. In addition, the report states that eight of the dead
were at the hands of Chicago police officers in the line of duty,
proving, once again, that policemen carry guns, not for the protection
of the citizenry, but for their own protection.

Of course, it’s not only various and sundry governments (though they are
the most egregious usurpers of the Natural right of self-defense) that
want to deny people the right to bear arms; many large retailers are
adding their weight to the anti-self-defense hysteria.

Just a few days ago, the giant retailer, Target, announced a corporate
policy that asks its patrons to leave their firearms at home.
Breitbart.com noted that,
 
By taking this step, Target joins Chipotle, Jack in the Box, Sonic, and
Chili's in asking law-abiding citizens not to carry guns in their
businesses.

>From now on I intend to boycott all of these stores.
 
The author of the report, AWR Hawkins, notes, “Within two weeks of
asking law-abiding customers to come unarmed, two Jack in the Box stores
were robbed, and a shooting took place at a third. Patrons were robbed
at gunpoint in one of the robberies, as well.”

Then Baldwin covers the replacement of Piers Morgan on CNN with another
gun control advocate:
 
After CNN sacked Piers Morgan due to his immense unpopularity, which was
mostly due to his arrogant attacks against America’s Second Amendment,
the cable network recently announced that it was replacing Morgan with
former America’s Most Wanted host, John Walsh, who immediately
proclaimed that his show would continue Morgan’s attacks against the
Second Amendment.

Obviously, CNN is hoping that it’s continued anti-Second Amendment
agenda will be more palatable to the American people if it comes from a
fellow American--especially one with whom everyone can truly sympathize
with by virtue of his losing a child to an act of violence (although
Adam Walsh’s murder did not involve the use of a firearm)--than from the
arrogant and pompous British elitist, Piers Morgan. But make no mistake
about it: the anti-Second Amendment message is the same. Only the
messenger has changed.

And most sadly, churches, too, are often at the forefront of the
anti-self-defense fanaticism. Christian leaders from denominations
across the board are often the ones who promote gun control (even gun
confiscation) among their congregations and who deny their parishioners
the right to be armed on church property.

For example, back in 2004, the president of the LDS church issued a
declaration to all Mormon churches in Utah that gave “public notice that
firearms are prohibited in the church’s houses of worship, including
temples, meetinghouses, the Assembly Hall, the Salt Lake Tabernacle, and
the Conference Center.”

Sadly, a Mormon Bishop in Visalia California was gunned down at the
Mormon chapel in August of 2010.
 
But if you think the LDS church is the only church in the country that
has taken such a position, you are sadly misinformed. My educated guess
is that the vast majority of denominations and churches in America have
a very similar position.

But Mormons should know better—they have a long history of persecution
and abuse at the hands of government where they had to employ the use of
arms in self defense. The Mormon militia even held off the US army
during the Mormon war of 1857-58. There are a lot of pro-second
Amendment followers in the Mormon faith and I know several who still
carry concealed at Church—perhaps because LDS doctrine sustains
self-defense in a statement hard to misinterpret:
 
“We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all
wrongs and grievances... but we believe that all men are justified in
defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government,
from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of
exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief
afforded.” [Doctrine and Covenants 134:11]

A new study has recently emerged that demonstrates what gun rights
advocates have long contended: more guns [in the hands of responsible
citizens] equal less crime.
 
Admittedly, to many, the concept sounds counter-intuitive. However, with
a skyrocketing increase in the number of Americans carrying concealed
weapons in recent years, the study by the Crime Prevention Research
Center shows a spike in concealed carry permits that coincides with a
significant drop in homicide rates.

The exhaustive study details the rise in permits and Americans carrying
concealed firearms and notes that currently 11.1 million Americans are
exercising their right to carry a concealed weapon, which is a dramatic
increase from 4.5 million in 2007. During this same period, as the
number of concealed carry permit holders jumped 146 percent, homicide
and violent crimes dropped 22 percent.

While many Americans might find the news startling that so many around
them are armed, the study notes the incredibly small rate of
law-breaking amongst permit holders. In states with very lax permit
requirements like Florida and Texas, the violation rates remain a
fraction of a percentage point.

John Lott, the center’s president and a leading gun rights advocate,
stated, “When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see
changes in the behavior of criminals. Some criminals stop committing
crimes, others move on to crimes in which they don’t come into contact
with victims and others actually move to areas where they have less fear
of being confronted by armed victims.”

Ever wonder why almost all mass shootings occur in “gun free” zones.?
 
Lott also notes that six states do not require permitting for carrying
concealed and those states possess some of the lowest crime rates in the
union. The study also shows that it’s not just the number of permits
issued in a state, but the percentage of population carrying concealed.
In ten states, more than 8 percent of the adult population carries
concealed weapons and all ten enjoy some of the lowest violent crime
rates in the country.

PREPAREDNESS TIP: BUG OUT BAGS by Andrew Skousen
Of all the levels of preparation, the most basic is a 3-day emergency
bag or 72 Hour Kit that you can grab if you have to evacuate your home
quickly. Also keep a kit in your car to help you get home in a crisis. A
Bug Out Bag (BOB) is similar but should be designed to get you from an
urban home to a secure retreat. This means your kit must also have items
like a firearm and detailed maps with several routes out of town that
DON'T involve freeways or intersections with on/off-ramps to freeways
(which will all be clogged). Carefully map out alternate routes around
possible blocked points like river-crossings and mountain passes. Our
book, Strategic Relocation, has a specific section on how to map out
evacuation routes.

Everyone's bag will need to be different based on your location and
experience with different products. Be careful not to weigh yourself
down with survival gear that you are unfamiliar with. Focus on the
basics: Water, food, clothing, shelter and getting where you need to go.
Ideally you can carry everything on your back, but additional items can
be stored in a duffel for the car (to be left behind if you have to hoof
it). Try backpack camping with your pack to test it out—you'll soon see
what you're missing, and the importance of packing light.

There are several off-the-shelf kits and BOBs, but not all of their
contents are practical or of good quality. For instance, typical First
Aid kits are only good for preparing you to get to the hospital. For
better options consider the medical packs at AMP-3. Designed by an
emergency room doctor with the items he would want, these kits have
useful products and quality tools. He also has bigger medic bags with
preparations for more serious problems.

As a good starting point for your Bug Out Bag consider this list with
accompanying picturesfrom www.survivalistblog.net. Note that he uses a
tarp and head net instead of a tent. Also consider a bedroll and change
of clothes (at least underwear and suitable spare socks), but these do
add bulk. I keep my backpacking gear ready to go, with survival and food
packs added in. Don’t forget grab-and-go bags for the kids and stock
them with clothes a size larger than they currently need so you don’t
have to update it as often.

Update and rotate the food stores—particularly anything stored in a
vehicle which gets hot. Some people make a tradition of using their
supplies on a specific day or camping trip each year—this also helps
them choose foods they actually like. Too often we short our future
selves with only “emergency rations” and forget the morale-boosters in a
crisis. [END] 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140820/95ed43e0/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list