Saturday, August 07, 2010

Joe Miller's Plan To End Illegal Immigration

If we are to restore our founding fathers' principles we have to have Senators who will fight for the Constitution and the rule of law. They have to be able to articulate a conservative agenda and offer solutions to the problems plaguing the Republic. Joe Miller fits this mold. Here is his plan to deal with illegal immigration. It appears to be the solution to the problem DC is apparently unwilling to fix.

Miller Rejects Obama's Lawless Immigration Policy; Offers Plan

Illegal Immigration Major Difference Between Candidates for US Senate

Anchorage, Alaska -- Republican US Senate candidate Joe Miller says the Obama Administration is trying to rule by executive fiat regarding the country's immigration policy. Miller unveiled his plan for tackling the growing problem of illegal immigration and faulted Senator Murkowski for being on the wrong side of this vital issue.

Late last week, the National Review broke a story indicating the Obama Administration has been working on a way to enact back door amnesty if Congress does not pass a new immigration bill to its liking (see
National Review, "The Amnesty Memo," July 29, 2010). The Obama Administration has also sued the state of Arizona and received a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state's new law, which tries to address the growing problems caused by drug trafficking and other illegal border crossings.

Miller, a former U.S. Magistrate Judge, challenged the Obama Administration's rule by executive order as totally contrary to the Founders' intent. "It is a simple question. Are we a nation of laws? I believe we are. Therefore, the President must enforce our immigration laws as written and secure our borders, not sue the state of Arizona for acting where the federal government has failed to do so," said Miller.

Miller offered his plan for dealing with the growing challenging problem of illegal immigration:

*Build a permanent border and deploy the necessary military and border security personnel to secure it.

*No Amnesty for the people who broke our laws to come the U.S. Unlawful behavior cannot be rewarded.

*End the "Catch and Release" policy by making expedited removal of illegal aliens mandatory and require the completion of the US-VISIT entry-exit system, which uses biometric information to confirm the identity of foreign travelers entering and leaving the United States.

*Require employer verification of worker eligibility to work in the United States and stiffer punitive penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers.

*Enact legislation declaring English as the official language.

*Limit birthright citizenship to the children of United States citizens and legal permanent residents.

*Deny certain federal funds to states that allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.

*Deny federal education grants to public universities that violate the law by offering in-state tuition breaks for illegal immigrants.

*End all loopholes in federal law[s] that benefit illegal aliens, and those who profit from their illegal presence in the United States.

"We must eliminate the incentives that encourage immigrants to cross our borders illegally and work in a black market economy especially when our nation faces widespread unemployment," Miller said.

Incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski has a different view. Unlike Miller, she voted for amnesty (
S.2611, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, May 25, 2006). She also voted for continued federal funding for sanctuary cities, against funding a fence along the border, and against requiring our border to be secure before amnesty is granted (See S.Amdt. 1399 to S.Amdt. 1373 to H.R. 2892, July 8, 2009 and S.Amdt. 1311 to S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, June 7, 2007). Miller said, "The incumbent wants to reward people who have broken the law to get into our country. Her position only encourages more people to break the law and threatens our national sovereignty and security."

Friday, August 06, 2010

Founding Fathers Quote

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.

Gouverneur Morris

Mexico's Juarez Cartel Gets Desperate

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

By Scott Stewart

On Aug. 3, the U.S. Consulate in Juarez, Mexico, reopened after being closed for four days. On July 29, the consulate had announced in a warden message that it would be closed July 30 and would remain closed until a review of the consulate’s security posture could be completed.

The closure appears to be linked to a message found on July 15, signed by La Linea, the enforcement arm of the Juarez cartel. This message was discovered at the scene shortly after a small improvised explosive device (IED) in a car was used in a well-coordinated ambush against federal police agents in Juarez, killing two agents. In the message, La Linea claimed credit for the attack and demanded that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and FBI investigate and remove the head of Chihuahua State Police Intelligence (CIPOL), who the message said is working with the Sinaloa Federation and its leader, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera. The message threatened that if the intelligence official was not removed by July 30, La Linea would deploy a car bomb with 100 kilograms of high explosives in Juarez.

The deadline has now passed without incident and the consulate has reopened. Examining this chain of events provides some valuable insights into the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities as well as the current state of events in Juarez, a city that in recent years has experienced levels of violence normally associated with an active war zone.

Security Standards

When considering the threats in Juarez that led to the closure of the U.S. consulate, it is useful to examine the building itself. The consulate is housed in a new building that was constructed in accordance with security specifications laid out by the U.S. State Department’s Standard Embassy Design (SED) program, standards first established by the Inman Commission in 1985. This means that the building was constructed using a design intended to withstand a terrorist attack and providing concentric rings of security. In addition to an advanced concrete structure and blast-resistant windows, such facilities also feature a substantial perimeter wall intended to protect the facility and to provide a standoff distance of at least 100 feet from any potential explosive device. This standoff distance is crucial in defending against large vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) because such a device can cause catastrophic damage to even a well-designed structure if it is allowed to get close to the structure before detonation. When combined, a heavy perimeter wall, sufficient standoff distance and advanced structural design have proved very effective in withstanding even large attacks.

The U.S. Consulate in Juarez is a well-designed building with adequate standoff. Certainly, the building could withstand the type of attacks that the cartels in Mexico have conducted to date, which have largely consisted of armed assaults, grenade attacks (the U.S. consulates in Monterrey and Nuevo Laredo have been attacked using hand grenades in the past two years) and occasional attacks involving small IEDs.

The building and its perimeter would also likely withstand a VBIED attack of the size threatened by La Linea, but such an attack in not something the U.S. government would want to risk. Despite the security design of the Juarez consulate, a VBIED attack would likely cause substantial damage to the facility and could result in the deaths of people outside the building. Perhaps the most vulnerable people during such an attack would be the hundreds of Mexican citizens (and other foreigners) who visit the consulate every day to apply for immigrant visas. Juarez and Mexico City are the only two U.S. diplomatic posts in Mexico that issue immigrant visas and both have a very heavy flow of visa applicants. U.S. consulates also frequently have a number of American citizens who visit each day in search of consular services.

Such visitors are screened at a security facility located on the edge of the consulate’s perimeter in order to keep weapons from entering the consulate complex. This screening facility/waiting area lacks standoff distance and would provide a soft target vulnerable to an attack. The local guards who provide perimeter security for the facility and screen visitors would also be vulnerable. The concern over the vulnerability of visitors was evidenced in the warden message that announced the Juarez consulate’s closure. In the message, people were urged to avoid the area of the consulate during the closure, which not only would reduce the risk of collateral damage if an attack occurred but would also give security personnel less activity to monitor for potential threats.

One other intriguing point about the security at the U.S. Consulate in Juarez and its closure due to La Linea’s VBIED threat is that the incident did not occur at a diplomatic post in a far-away terrorist hotspot like Yemen, Iraq or Pakistan. The U.S. Consulate in Juarez is located less than seven miles from downtown El Paso, Texas.

Desperate Measures

As we noted some months back, there have been persistent rumors that the Mexican government has favored the Sinaloa cartel and its leader, Joaquin Guzman Loera, aka “El Chapo.” This charge has been leveled by opposing cartels (like Los Zetas and the Juarez cartel), and events on the ground have seemingly supported the accusations, despite occasional indications to the contrary, like the July 29 death of Sinaloa operative Ignacio “El Nacho” Coronel Villarreal in a shootout with the Mexican military.

Whether or not such charges are true, it is quite evident that the Juarez cartel believes them to be so, and has acted accordingly. For example, in March, three local employees of the U.S. Consulate in Juarez were murdered, two of whom were U.S. citizens. According to the Mexican newspaper El Diario, a member of the Los Aztecas street gang was arrested and has confessed to his participation in the murders. Los Aztecas and its American cousin, Barrio Azteca, are both closely linked to the Juarez cartel. According to El Diario, the arrested Azteca member said that a decision was made by leaders in the Barrio Azteca gang and Juarez cartel to attack U.S. citizens in the Juarez area in an effort to force the U.S. government to intervene in the Mexican government’s war against the cartels and act as a “neutral referee,” thereby helping to counter the Mexican government’s favoritism toward El Chapo and the Sinaloa Federation.

Then, in the wake of the July 15 IED ambush in Juarez, La Linea left the message threatening to deploy a VBIED in Juarez if the FBI and DEA did not investigate and remove the head of CIPOL. Using an IED in an ambush to get the world’s attention (which it did) and then threatening to attack using an even larger device is further evidence that the Juarez cartel believes the Mexican government is favoring Sinaloa.

And this brings us to the current situation in Juarez. The Juarez cartel is wounded, its La Linea enforcer group and Los Aztecas ally having been hit heavily in recent months by both the Mexican government and Sinaloa forces. The last thing the group wants to do is invite the full weight of the U.S. government down upon its head by becoming the Mexican version of Pablo Escobar’s Medellin cartel, which launched a war of terror upon Colombia that featured large VBIEDs and resulted in Escobar’s death and the destruction of his organization. In a similar case closer to home for the Juarez cartel, one of that cartel’s predecessors, the Guadalajara cartel, was dismantled after the U.S. government turned the full force of its drug enforcement power against the organization following the 1985 torture and execution of U.S. DEA special agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena. Intervention by the U.S. government prompted by the Juarez cartel not only would focus on the organization in Mexico but also would likely result in U.S. law enforcement going after the organization’s assets and personnel inside the United States, which could be devastating for the cartel.

The current leader of the Juarez cartel, Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, is the nephew of Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, one of the leaders of the Guadalajara cartel and one of the Mexican traffickers arrested in 1985 and convicted of killing Camarena. Fonseca Carrillo was also convicted of murdering two American tourists in Guadalajara in 1985 and a host of other charges. Now in his late 70s and reportedly suffering from cancer, Fonseca Carrillo will die in prison. Because of this family history, there is very little doubt that Carrillo Fuentes realizes the potential danger of using such tactics against the U.S. government.

And yet despite these dangers, both to the organization and to himself, Carrillo Fuentes and his followers have apparently tried to draw the U.S. government deeper into the conflict in Juarez (though they have been careful so far not to assassinate any U.S. diplomats or conduct any large and indiscriminate terrorist attacks). At present, the Juarez cartel seems to be walking a tight line of trying to get the U.S. government’s attention in Juarez while not doing anything too provocative.

These actions reflect the desperate situation in which the cartel finds itself. In practical terms, an increase in U.S. activity in Juarez would not only hurt Sinaloa but also impact the ability of the Juarez cartel to traffic narcotics. Although the FBI has already noted that it believes Sinaloa now controls the flow of narcotics through Juarez, the willingness of the Juarez cartel to suffer this type of impact on its own operations indicates that the organization believes the deck is stacked against it and that it needs an outside force to help counter the combined efforts of the Sinaloa Federation and the Mexican government.

For its part, the U.S. government has not shown the willingness to become more actively involved in Juarez, nor does it have the permission of the Mexican government to do so. The Mexicans are very protective of their sovereignty, and the U.S. government has shown that it will not overstep its bounds unless it is provoked by an incident like the Camarena murder. This means that the limited threats and attacks the Juarez cartel has been using are unlikely to result in any real increase in the U.S. presence in Juarez.

Ordinarily our assessment would be that the various Mexican cartels learned from the Camarena case and Escobar’s experience in Colombia and have been very careful not to provoke the U.S. government and to avoid being labeled narco-terrorists. It simply would not be good for business, and the cartels are, in fact, businesses, even though they specialize in an illicit trade. That said, in the recent past, we have witnessed cartels doing things inside Mexico that used to be considered taboo, like selling narcotics on Mexico’s domestic market, in an effort to raise money so they can continue their fight for control of their territory. (Their ability to make money has been affected not only by the cartel wars but also by drug interdiction efforts.) We have also seen cartels that are desperate for cash becoming increasingly involved in human smuggling and in kidnapping and extortion rackets.

It will be important to watch the Juarez cartel closely over the next few months as the United States refuses to become more involved and as the cartel becomes increasingly desperate. We believe the Sinaloa Federation and the Mexican government will continue aggressively to target the remnants of the Juarez cartel. Faced with this continued onslaught, will the Juarez cartel choose to go quietly into the night and allow Sinaloa to exercise uncontested control over the Juarez plaza, or will it in desperation undertake an even more audacious attempt to draw the United States into Juarez? Killing U.S. consulate employees has not succeeded in increasing the U.S. presence, and neither has threatening a VBIED, so it may feel compelled to take things up a notch.

Although we have not yet seen a VBIED deployed in Mexico, explosives are readily available in the country, and the July 15 attack demonstrated that La Linea has the ability to deploy a small IED in a fairly sophisticated manner. It is quite possible that La Linea could use that same technology to craft a larger device, even a VBIED. The capability, then, seems to be there for larger attacks. This leaves the intent part of the threat equation. It will be important to see, above all, if desperation pushes Carrillo Fuentes and the Juarez cartel to take the next, large step.

Read more: Mexico's Juarez Cartel Gets Desperate STRATFOR

Pence Applauds Victory for Freedom in Missouri

“Americans continue to reject ObamaCare’s job-killing mandates and tax increases.”

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today, a day after 71 percent of voters in Missouri supported a proposition which says the state of Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage:

“The American people have been loud and clear about their
opposition to ObamaCare, but Democrats pushed it through against the will of the
people. Yesterday’s vote in Missouri is a strong declaration that Americans
continue to reject ObamaCare’s job-killing mandates and tax increases. By a
margin of more than two-to-one, voters in Missouri rejected this
government-takeover of health care that impinges on fundamental freedoms.

“House Republicans have been listening to the American people, and we
continue to work toward repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with common sense
legislation that will reduce health care costs and leave individual Americans
with the freedom to choose their own health insurance.”

The Show-Obama State

The Southern Avenger: Meet Clint Didier

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Senate Confirms Pro-Abortion Activist Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

by Steven Ertelt Editor
August 5, 2010

Washington, DC ( -- The Senate today approved President Barack Obama's nomination of pro-abortion activist Elena Kagan to replace retiring pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Kagan joins four other justices who support unlimited abortions allowed under Roe v. Wade. [read more]

Still No Baby

The light posting is due to several false alarms with baby. In a way I am relieved because he is not supposed to be here for a few more weeks, however I am exhausted and more than a little stressed. The good news is that SR has been able to rest and baby's heart rate and everything is normal.

So I see the Senate failed utterly in their duty by confirming Kagan who will spend the rest of her life destroying our Constitution. The courts are really at a low point. It worries me because they are becoming so radicalized that they have lost the respect of the people. When we retake the Senate they had better do their job and reign in the courts or risk becoming irrelevant also. It is the Senate that can limit the scope of what the court has jurisdiction over.

Gov. Palin also made a surprise endorsement. The establishment is writing it off as meaningless. Now I am even more curious to see how this one turns out.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Founding Fathers Quote

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.

Joseph Story

Rebecca Kleefisch On The Jay Weber Show

Rebecca Kleefisch on The Jay Weber Show Tuesday Hour 2 Part 1 to talk about her run for Lt. Governor. In today's political stage it is not political experience, but the understanding that our rights are God given, that it is the politician that answers to the people, that the Constitution is not a living or flawed piece of work to be interpreted or ignored, and that less is more when it comes to government intrusion into our lives that counts in the minds of the voters. The media and liberals need to stop using experience as an attack; after all they elected Obama as president and made it very clear to the world that experience doesn't really matter to them in the least.

Rebecca's real world experience has helped her see what really needs to be done to bring Wisconsin out of the progressive mire that she has fallen into under the oppressive collective hand of Doyle and the liberals have so irresponsibly forced us all into. We need conservative candidates voted in here in Wisconsin and all across this Republic if we are going to ever save our sovereignty and our way of life. Get the government out of our pockets, out of our guns, and out of our childrens' classrooms and you will see real change, hope, and healing.

Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

By George Friedman

Arizona’s new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.

Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.

The Centrality of New Orleans

The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that oceangoing ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.

Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today’s Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.

Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible — nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.

Mexico’s strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.

The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico’s original political order.

A Temporary Resolution

The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region’s status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region’s economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region’s accelerating economic growth.

The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.

The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor — and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn’t notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.

Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.

Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration

Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensible to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.

That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.

This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward — in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.

This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.

The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland — the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.

The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.

The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona — between those who benefit from the migration and those who don’t — and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.

Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don’t coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.

Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement — legal and illegal — changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.

Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona’s new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.

Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a subnational issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer.

Read more: Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations STRATFOR

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

It's Election Season and Murkowski Sheds Her Views - Short Version

Joe Miller for U.S. Senate

Ron Johnson Ad: "Clear Choice"

Ron Johnson for U.S. Senate

Andre Jacque Update

Andre Jacque's campaign announced a new round of endorsements in Manitowoc County today. It is great to see continued momentum with the campaign. Remember this November we take back our State.

Sharron Angle TV Ad: "Please Stop"

Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate

Update from the House Republican Study Committee (RSC)

RSC Update: Tuesday, August 3, 2010

From the Chairman
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently made a vow to a large gathering of liberal activists that should have you concerned.

“Frustration with the Democratic Party was a major theme during the four-day
event, where progressives voiced their loss of patience with those in power for
not doing enough to make major policy changes. … ‘We’re going to have to have a
lame-duck session,’ Reid promised. ‘So we’re not giving up.’”
The liberals Senator Reid was talking to do not think ObamaCare’s unconstitutional mandate to buy insurance went far enough. They do not think the failed $862 billion stimulus created a large enough deficit. They do not think Democrats have done enough to “change” America into an economically and militarily weak cradle-to-grave welfare state. They want more – and Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are planning to give it to them in a lame duck session of Congress.

But here’s the catch – most Americans have had more than enough. These Americans are tired of being ignored and are ready to register their dissatisfaction at the voting booth in November. That’s why Pelosi and Reid have delayed dealing with a number of far-reaching and controversial issues until a post-election lame duck session. They know Americans don’t support the tax hikes, spending deficits, and other job-killing policy prescriptions Democrats want to enact. By holding off until a lame duck session, they hope to avoid an even greater backlash.

This is not how the Founders intended the federal government to function. Our republic is based on those who govern having the consent of the governed. That is why I went down to the House floor last Thursday and offered a privileged resolution calling on Democrats to stop ignoring the will of the people and pledge not to hold a lame duck session this year except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress.

Instead of taking a clear position on this important question, Speaker Pelosi’s Democrats delayed the vote and then left town for a six-week summer recess. When Congress returns in September, I will once again offer this resolution and give my colleagues another chance to show if they support the use of a lame duck session to override the will of the American people. Americans should know where their Representatives stand on the issues before going into the voting booth.

House Republicans know we must restore Americans’ faith in their elected Representatives by listening when you speak. There is no better way to make your voice heard than via I encourage you to read through the solutions, draft your own, and show your support.


Congressman Tom Price
Chairman, Republican Study Committee

RSC Media Activity – Republican Study Committee members work hard to ensure that the conservative viewpoint is well-represented in all corners of the media. Visit our Media Center for more.
· Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05): States Try to Slip Abortion Coverage into ObamaCare; SmartGirlNation, July 27.

· Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-07): Lawmakers Must Swear Off Activist Lame-Duck Congress; National Review Online, July 28.

· Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01): Members Shouldn't Hide From Voters; Politico, July 28.

Outlook – Here is a preview of upcoming Democrat proposals to advance their liberal agenda.
· Believing as VP Joe Biden said that “the heavy lifting is over,” House Democrats have adjourned for a six-week recess in August and September. With only a few more weeks of Congressional session scheduled before Election Day, Democrats could push much of their liberal agenda to a lame duck session.

House Floor Activity – The following key legislation came through the House of Representatives last week.
· Under the guise of a response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, House Democrats cobbled together the CLEAR Act, which would force consumers to pay higher energy costs, kill American jobs, and make our economy even more dependent on foreign oil.

· House Democrats approved their version of two FY 2011 appropriations bills last week. The THUD bill would spend $67.9 billion next year (a 38.1% increase in just 3 years), and the MilCon-VA bill would spend $78 billion next year (a 26.2% increase over 3 years ago).

· After months of delay, Congress finally approved funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan last week.

RSC Reports
· Each week, the RSC Budget and Spending Taskforce compiles a weekly report on the latest budget and spending news. Additionally, the RSC Money Monitor tracks how bills passed by the House affect authorizations, mandatory spending, and federal government revenue.


House Republican Study Committee
Rep Tom Price, M.D., Chairman
Paul Teller, Executive Director
Brad Watson, Policy Director
Natalie Farr, Professional Staff
Emily Henehan Murry, Professional Staff
Bruce “Fez” Miller, Professional Staff
Jonathan Day, Director of Member Services and Business Outreach
Alex Shively, Director of Conservative Coalitions
Ryan Murphy, Communications Director
Brian Straessle, Deputy Communications Director
Curtis Rhyne, Research Assistant
424 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 226-9717

STRATFOR Video Dispatch: Expanding Russian Naval Influence


Founding Fathers Quote

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Thomas Paine

Drowning in Paperwork

Monday, August 02, 2010

Voter Fraud And The Democrat Party - Time To Put An End To It

Here is a must read article on voter fraud and the Democrats. This is a serious issue that the mainstream media continues to ignore. There is really no doubt that the Democrats have won elections through voter fraud and in Wisconsin we have a particularly bad epidemic of voter fraud thanks to the Democrat Party's refusal to secure our elections. The Republic will not last long if there is no belief by the public that our elections are secure.

UN Once Again Does Not Let The Facts Get In The Way

The only country the UN despises more than the US is Israel and they waste no opportunity to attack Israel. This latest attack lives up to what we have come to expect from the UN. It really is time for the US to leave the UN. It does nothing, but undermine our sovereignty and support dictators all over the world.

Mark Levin Interviews Joe Miller for US Senate

Joe Miller for U.S. Senate

Founding Fathers Quote

Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.

John Witherspoon

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Joe Miller For US Senate

Joe Miller for U.S. Senate

Fox News' Hatchet Job On Republican Candidates

I tuned into Fox today to catch their election special. I could not be more disgusted. It was almost as bad as watching MSNBC as they went after every Republican candidate they featured. Two of my favorites, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle, were among the candidates to be mocked and belittled during the Fox election special.

Bret Baier who is normally extremely fair and balanced hosted this pathetic excuse for reporting. All he did was guarantee that I will not be watching Special Report regularly anymore. If people want to see this kind of biased garbage they could tune in to MSNBC or CNN.

Perhaps Fox has been on top of the ratings for too long. I think they take their audience for granted and probably figured a hatchet piece at the Republicans would win them some fans at the private cocktail parties so many in the media seem to favor.

Hot Air Finally Notices Wisconsin

In what should have been a national story for a while now, Wisconsin is about ready to turn a deep red. Now that Hot Air is reporting on it hopefully the rest of the media will wake up too. This didn't just happen, it has been obvious for the last year that Wisconsin residents were not happy with the liberals in charge of everything.

Contrary to popular belief that Wisconsin is a Democrat Strong hold Republicans have actually controlled the governorship, Supreme Court, State Senate, and Assembly pretty regularly. It has only been since 2006 and 2008 that the Democrat strangle hold actually took over. Let's make sure we do turn Wisconsin red this November. In the primary I am supporting Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, and Ron Johnson.

Sharron Angle On Fox News today

Please tune in and support a true conservative today.

Dear ,

ALERT! Sharron will be appearing on Fox
News today (Sunday) at 12pm and 6pm PST (3pm and 9pm EST).

The segment, entitled "The Fight to Control Congress"
covers six Congressional races, one each in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New York,
Arkansas, Colorado and Nevada. Our part is the last section.

Tune your channel to Fox News today and then visit us
on our
Facebook page to tell us what you

Prayers For A Quick Recovery For Rep. Michele Bachmann

I learned yesterday that Rep. Bachmann had been taken to the hospital due to an illness. Here is the release from her website

Bachmann’s Absence in the U.S. House
on Friday Due to Illness

Washington, Jul 30 - Today, Congresswoman Michele
Bachmann was admitted to the hospital due to a sudden illness. As a result, she
was unable to participate in several votes in the U.S. House of Representatives
on Friday, July 30, 2010. The Congresswoman is currently resting this evening
and on her way to a full and quick recovery.

Our prayers for a speedy recovery. Rep. Bachmann is one of the few true defenders of the Constitution in Congress. Her loss, even for a single day, is truly a loss for the whole Republic.

MP3 players filled with Catholic content for troops and wounded soldiers

h/t: A Catholic Mom in Hawaii

STRATFOR Video Dispatch: The Meaning of Military Exercises in East Asia


Founding Fathers Quote

The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson