While the world watched North Korea’s 28-year-old leader Kim Jong-un defy American and United Nations sanctions by launching a missile to carry a “satellite” into orbit, it’s interesting to know that the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy have successfully shot-down missiles using laser energy beam weapons naked to the human eye.
The primetime billion-dollar launch failure in North Korea reportedly lasted just a minute – far shy of the time required to reach orbit. Both the U.S. and S. Korean forces claimed the rocket exploded, broke up and fell into the Yellow Sea.
In February, Washington and Pyongyang entered into an agreement whereby the U.S. would provide North Korea with 240,000 tons of food for it to halt its missile and uranium enrichment programs … was it just coincidence that same month the Pentagon “mothballed” the US Air Force’s Airborne 747 anti-missile laser system, just a year after it successfully destroyed a missile in flight?
Was this an Osama bin Laden-esque moment for President Obama to impress upon the new N. Korean dictator that he stood no chance against the U.S.? Or will the new unpredictable “dear” leader look to re-establish N. Korea’s pariah status and begin new nuclear testing?
To view American military anti-missile laser technology click on links below;
(US Air Force Anti-missile Laser)
(US Army Anti-missile Laser)
(US Navy Anti-missile Laser)
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak
© Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Continue reading on Examiner.com What DID happen to that North Korean missile? – National Homeland Security | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/what-did-happen-to-that-north-korean-missile#ixzz1s0xN8nEG
GOP Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) sent a letter to President Obama, requesting a detailed description of the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Border Patrol Agent Jesus “Chito” Diaz for essentially lifting the handcuffs of a 15-year-old known drug smuggler.
The letter had 36 other Members of Congress signatures looking for answers regarding the harsh two-year federal prison sentence.
It was reported today that the Mexican government requested Agent Diaz’s be prosecuted despite the fact Agent Diaz was previously cleared of any wrongdoing by department investigators.
“In two separate letters, I’ve asked the Attorney General to provide information and take action on what has proven to be a serious miscarriage of justice,” said Rep. Hunter. “The Attorney General has been silent so far, perhaps because he’s busy making excuses on why he should not be held accountable for Operation Fast & Furious.”
Meanwhile, Agent Diaz’ wife, Diana, must now pay $7,000 in court fines.
Mrs. Diaz is working with Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC), to get her husband, “Chito,” cleared of all charges. Andy Ramirez, LEOAC’s director said; “We will continue to lead this fight and stand by Chito, Diana, and their children until his name is cleared. Having worked on as many cases as we have, this one is, without question, the most atrocious yet. It is clear that our government gave Mexico City the scalp of yet another agent.”
This is a position echoed by Congressman Hunter.
“This prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. Someone—whether the Attorney General or the President—needs to provide answers on why a two-year prison term is justified and what motivated the U.S. Attorney’s Office in West Texas, the same office that prosecuted Ramos and Compean, to go after Agent Diaz.”
Agent Diaz remains behind bars and will miss Christmas with his wife and six children if Attorney General Eric Holder or President Obama do not take up the case.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Continue reading on Examiner.com San Diego Rep. Hunter sends Obama a letter on jailed Border Patrol agent – San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/san-diego-rep-hunter-sends-president-a-letter-on-jailed-border-patrol-agent#ixzz1e566BQnM
While the storyline in the Middle East is still developing the plot centers around the sustainment of government protests by oppressed citizens that has captured the world’s attention.
In recent years it has been the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that dominated the headlines, but something has changed, the people have risen up, ousted brutal dictators and they’ve done it with the help of social media- not military invasions.
There is no question the Internet has sustained these revolutions and provided a podium for oppressed peoples to question authority and change their destinies.
Protesters in countries like Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Egypt have demanded their authoritarian leaders step aside and give the people a say in their own government. Even the lukewarm reception from the Obama Administration hasn’t stopped these young people from risking their lives in order to enact change.
The latest, and perhaps most surprising country to stir the caldron, is Syria.
It’s been subjected to nearly 50 years of brutal and barbaric rule by the Ba’ath Party and the Assad dynasty. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that the ruling Assad party makes up less than 10 percent of the country’s total population.
“The Syrian people are ready to reclaim their country,” says Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
Syria fell into dictatorship 1970, when Hafez Assad swept the thriving European-style country into a vacuum and begin a powerful totalitarian regime that remains in power today. Under the Assad rule, Syrians that speak out in opposition to the ruling party are subject to torture and death.
Dr. Jasser, whose family hails from Syria, contends that the country “has been tragically immune to the world attention, opinion and pressures.”
“The time is now for America to act. Syria is a republic of fear. The dissenters in the streets have now begun to breach the divide of its own government’s terror.”
Like many of the regions’ dictatorships, President Bashar Assad has promised the western world change and said the regime would lift the 40-year emergency rule and acknowledged that the Syrian people have “legitimate grievances.”
However, Assad announced a severe warning to the protesters already in the streets that further unrest would be deemed sabotage. And as such the government would use a heavy hand to end the protests. “We will not tolerate any attempt at sabotage,” he lamented.
Meanwhile the European Union called for President Assad to “change his ways” or face stiff sanctions. The EU will meet again tomorrow to discuss sanctions against Syria’s government. This threat carries serious financial implications for Syria as 23 percent of its trading, $7.9 billion, is with the EU.
Perhaps more concerning for the anti-government protesters in the streets, is the United Nation Security Council’s inability to put forth a statement condemning the violence and deaths of hundreds of dissenters.
According to Al Jazeera, “Russia insisted that the violence in Syria did not meet certain criteria that justified international action against the Syrian government- namely that it was not a threat to international peace and security- and that foreign intervention would pose a threat to regional security.”
However, hundreds of Ba’ath Party members have already announced their resignation after reports of regime henchmen murdering hundreds of innocent protesters began circulating within the media.
The Wall Street Journal released a portion of one letter and it read in part; “Considering the breakdown of values and emblems that we were instilled with by the party and which were destroyed at the hand of the security forces… we announce our withdrawal from the party without regret.”
As news of the defections and murders continue to be released via social media networks, primarily Facebook, the world is finally able to see how an authoritarian regime operates in the face of adversity.
One of those sites was started in the United States. “Save Syria Now,” was created by influential U.S. individuals with a Syrian descent. The Facebook page provides the latest Syrian uprising information for those inside the country and provides a conduit for Americans who wish to lend a hand or follow the events unfolding in the repressive country.
“It is precisely the social media that is providing a platform for Syrians to stay connected. Many are getting the posts out by using technology and satellites from neighboring countries,” Jasser said.
Also Jasser cautions the Obama Administration to not let this opportunity slip away. “The Syrians you see on the street protesting are not only putting their lives on the line, but their families. If the U.S. allows Syrian leaders to stay in power and squash the protesters, the American people will be reading about hundreds of Syrians that have ‘gone missing’ over the next year. That’s how this dictatorial government operates.”
Dr. Jasser as well as 21 others wrote the Obama Administration a letter explaining the urgency that the Syrian revolt represents and the importance of U.S. support.
Even Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) stepped into the fray and said, “We should use the diplomatic weight and authority of the United States to undermine the Syrian dictatorship. I think we are witnessing the slow end of the Assad dictatorship, and we should stand with the people of Syria.”
Dr Jasser agrees with the senator and goes further in explaining the importance of democratic Syria. “A democratic change in Syria could create one of the greatest obstacles to the continuing dangerous ascendancy of Iran, Hezbollah and other pan-Islamist interests in the Middle East.”
“The deep diversity of Syria with its Sunni, Christian, Druze and Alawite populations has been significant reason for its predominantly secular history.”
At the behest of Dr. Jasser, Syria needs to be held accountable for its actions and the best way for that to happen is for the U.S. to place tough economic sanctions on Syria. “These sanctions need to cripple the regime’s ability to inflict harm upon her people; the international media must be allowed to fully cover the protests; and the American government must insist the entire Syrian government resigns and welcomes U.N. observers to oversee a clear roadmap toward democracy.”
So far the 2011 Middle East uprisings have seen Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya successfully fight dictatorial regimes. The question remains will Syria be added to that list?
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Syria’s crackdown on protesters leaves hundreds dead – San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/syria-s-crackdown-on-protesters-leaves-hundreds-dead#ixzz1KqgZreQH
President Obama released a letter today addressed to the nation’s top four lawmakers, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, encouraging them to immediately draft legislation to end government subsidies to the oil industry.
The letter pointed out that American families are feeling the pain of surging fuel prices and the need for lawmakers to address the issue immediately.
“The recent steep increase in gas prices, driven by increased global demand and compounded by unrest and supply disruptions in the Middle East, has only added to those struggles,” Obama wrote.
While Obama said there is no “silver bullet” to bring down the cost of fuel in the short term, eliminating unwarranted tax-breaks for oil and gas companies could free up $4 billion per year to invest in alternative energy.
Commodities traders say taking money from oil and gas companies will do only one thing – force companies to pass the cost onto the consumers.
Oil and gas companies continue to face an uphill battle from the Obama Administration when it comes to drilling domestically. Shell Oil is the latest victim of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will scrap their plans to drill this summer in the Arctic Ocean.
Shell spent five years and roughly $4 billion on their plans only to meet road block after road block from the EPA. Shell paid the government $2.2 billion for the leases only to have the EPA conclude that drilling would be hazardous for people who live in the area. The nearest village is 70 miles off shore and has a population of 245 native Alaskans.
Also a month ago the President came under fire for giving Brazil $2 billion to explore for oil and even said “America will be your best customer.” And more recently the Obama Administration gave Columbia a $2.84 billion loan to expand and build oil refineries in their country.
Obama also claims that CEO’s of the big oil companies stated that high fuel prices means they will make enough profit to invest in domestic exploration and no longer need subsidies.
According to American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Jack Gerard, “It’s no surprise the administration is proposing yet again to raise taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. But it’s still a bad idea and comes at one of the worst times in our economic history.” He goes on to explain that the industry is among the nation’s largest job creators and pays more than $100 million per DAY in taxes to the government.
Last week the President spoke to more than 1,000 students at elite Georgetown University (one of the most expensive colleges in America) and reminded them of his presidential bid when soaring gas prices help secure a White House victory.
“Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 per gallon…You had all kind of gimmicks and outraged politicians – they were waving their three-point plans for $2 a- gallon gas (drill, baby, drill),” Obama told the students.
Today’s letter reaffirmed Obama’s push for reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil that leaves the U.S. vulnerable to price fluctuations.
“Without a comprehensive energy strategy for the future we will stay stuck in the same old pattern of heated political rhetoric when prices rise and apathy and neglect when they fall again,” Obama said.
The President called on lawmakers to focus on a new energy plan and referred to oil-base fuel as “yesterday’s energy sources,” and the need to “invest in tomorrow’s” 21st century clean energy. “That’s the key to helping families avoid pain at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” he finished.
One thing is certain, high fuel prices hurt economically-challenged families who are unable to purchase “the green cars” the President often speaks of as the solution to the energy crisis.
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Obama asks lawmakers to end oil subsidies to ease gas prices – San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/obama-asks-lawmakers-to-end-oil-subsidies-to-ease-gas-prices#ixzz1Keo1cLMK
With his $1.6 million peace prize in his pocket, President Barack Hussein Obama launched an aggressive onslaught of U.S. cruise warfare missiles into a sovereign nation, Libya, who has an internationally recognized leader in Moammar Qaddafi- a tyrannical leader to be sure, but a leader none-the-less.
Now America’s young and globalist president has taken the helm for America’s third Muslim country war. As such, Obama has further solidified his place, “in a war of his choosing” by involving America in another blurry-eyed Middle-East quagmire.
America’s latest foray into hostilities, with its NATO allies Britain and France is aptly named operation “Odyssey Dawn.” The president said he was reluctant to commit American resources to another war, but added it was the Arab League’s approval for a ‘no-fly zone’ that reassured his administration it was the right thing to do.
Needless to say it only took 24 hours for the military endeavor to draw criticism from the very leaders the president relied on. The Arab League complains that the U.S. tomahawk missile airstrikes are responsible for killing innocent Libyan citizens.
Amr Moussa, spokesperson for the Arab League, claims military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed; “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. What we want is civilians’ protected not the shelling of more civilians.”
Moussa’s proclamation suggested many of the 22 Arab League members have been taken aback by the U.S.’s aggressive bombardment. Moussa’s statement also implies that some leaders are regretting Western military intervention and fear that Muslims may look like they are accepting of Western countries.
This response is ironic since many of the region’s leaders generally look down on Qaddafi, as a non-traditional dictator, most of Libya’s neighbors want the eccentric leader removed from power.
America’s ‘shock and awe’ military capability has also drawn criticism from Russia (who abstained from the vote on United Nations Resolution 1973 which authorized a no-fly zone in Libya). Russian diplomats are now calling for the immediate halt of all air strikes into the North African country.
With skepticism growing around the need for military involvement, many Americans are left questioning why the president committed the military to another conflict. Why is the U.S. government investing more blood and treasure into another unpopular Middle Eastern war?
Perhaps it has something to do with the ‘King of Tripoli,’ Qaddafi, who poked the eye of American families who lost loved ones in Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. On December 21, 1988, flight 103 was destroyed in-flight by a bomb that was planted on the aircraft by a Qaddafi intelligence operative. The terrorist-engineered airplane crash killed 270 passengers, including 189 American citizens.
Just over a year ago the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdel baset Al-Megrahi was released from a Scotland prison for compassionate reasons. It was believed the terrorist had only a few months to live and Scottish officials allowed him to return to Libya where he received a hero’s welcome from Qaddafi.
Is this payback?
Most likely not, but President Obama (the man the Nobel Peace Prize committee said would bring peace to the region) has brought more death and warfare.
Sources on the ground in Libya say the U.S-led attacks have left at least 50 civilians dead and are blaming the American military strikes. Where is the Arab League? Why aren’t they using their own troops and military arsenal (that the U.S. gave them) to defend their own neighborhood?
In a pre-empted move the disgruntled Libyan leader has taken to state radio and characterized the raids from the West as “acts of terrorism.” The Obama Administration is dancing on thin ice and would like nothing more than to rid the world of Qaddafi.
As a result of foreign aggression, Qaddafi says he has opened his country’s weapon depots so Libya’s people can defend their nation with automatic weapons, mortars and bombs. “We will not leave our land and we will liberate it,” Qaddafi said. “We promise you a long war,” he said in a radio address.
However, President Obama explained the importance of targeting Libya’s air defenses; “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”
Qaddafi returned the favor and addressed President Obama in a letter in which he tried to explain why he has reacted to the rebel’s uprising. “If you had found them taking over American cities with armed force, tell me what you (Obama) would do?”
While Obama currently enjoys support from both sides of the political aisle regarding the Libya offensive, many security experts question why the United States would even consider a third war in the Middle East.
“This is an absurd situation; there is absolutely nothing of interest to the United States in Libya,” said former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer. “If all the Libyans killed each other for the next week, what difference does it makes to life in the United States.”
However Obama explained it was America’s “unique capabilities at the front end of the mission (that would) protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by international partners. And as I said yesterday, we will not – I repeat – we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.”
To which the CIA front man said; “Air power never wins anything … air power will not resolve the question and we will ultimately be faced with another incursion of U.S. forces on the ground. It is an extraordinarily irresponsible thing for the president to do – he should have said from day one: ‘The U.S. cavalry is not coming.’ If the Europeans want to go, let them go.”
Yet the President’s team waded into the coalition war anyways. “I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.”
In spite of what Obama wants, Qaddafi removed, there is executive order 12333 signed by President Ronald Reagan and upheld by every administration since that stipulates; “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.”
Obama’s declaration for Libya intervention continues; “we must be clear: Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.”
Despite his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama has opened himself to criticism.
Over the weekend Louis Farrakhan warned the president during a Chicago radio interview. “I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world…Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?”
Curiously, the Obama Administration stayed on the sidelines during the Egyptians quest to remove an equally brutal dictator President Hosni Mubarak. Even the threat of a takeover by terrorist sympathizers, the Muslim Brotherhood, wasn’t enough to get America militarily involved in the regional uprising that has swept the Middle East.
However, Islam Lutfy, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt said his group is “opposed (to) the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests.”
With that presumption in mind, did the president abandon his Nobel Peace Prize for oil and war? And, unlike the UN resolution establishing a “no fly zone,” an end state was not mentioned in the coalition actions. So, what of the post war Libya and have our actions also committed the U.S. to rebuilding Tripoli?
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
On a seasonably warm day in the nation’s capitol, the Dean of American University’s School of Public Affairs, William LeoGrande’s welcomed Obama’s speech on immigration reform. “We are very lucky the White House staff chose our university,” he said. The Dean and the country expected to hear how the president was going to lead the country forward on the embattled immigration issue. However Obama chose to use old rhetoric and gave no specifics on how to make immigration reform a reality while delivering a lackluster immigration speech.
“Despite the forces of the status quo, despite the polarization and the frequent pettiness of our politics, we are confronting the great challenges of our times. And while this work isn’t easy, and the changes we seek won’t always happen overnight, what we’ve made clear is that this administration will not just kick the can down the road,” said Obama during the 45-minute speech.
The administration alluded to the fact that the topic received fresh status thanks to the new law passed in Arizona. “The passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America” has given the administration some much needed ammunition. “Some have rallied behind this new policy. Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state. And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.”
President Obama has made no bones about it, he subscribes to the globalist vision for America and open borders are a prerequisite. The only problem with open borders is the majority of American’s would rather continue with the country’s 234 years of tradition.
There is no doubt the U.S. was built with the sweat equity of legal immigrants. The key word is legal. In the past most immigrants passed through Ellis Island on their way to the promise land. For the most part they followed the law, kept their heads down and worked hard in order to give their children a better life.
When looking at the illegal-immigration prism the small Central American country of Honduras has at least 500 Hondurans leaving daily for the U.S. looking for the “American dream.” The commissioner of the regional Human Rights Commission organization said that “monthly, about 15,000 leave the country in search of jobs in the U.S.”
The president rightly said immigrants have “allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change. To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe.”
He further described a naturalization ceremony that took place in April at the White House for members of the armed forces. “Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, ‘I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.’”
The beauty of America is anyone can write the next great chapter in the country’s storied history.
Obama contends there is too much politics involved with who is and isn’t allowed into the country and says the issue has always been contentious. “It’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.”
Everyone can agree that the borders remain porous. While the Northern border has plenty of openings, it is the Southern border that presents the greatest problem. In fact, the U.S. doesn’t do a very good job of tracking who enters and exits the country as visitors or students- many simply overstay their visas to get a shot at the better life.
Those who have entered the country legally say the process to become Americans is fraught with lengthy backlogs and bureaucracy. The current process often means years of waiting.
The president complained about the legal immigration process and said families often had to spend time apart during the naturalization process. However, residents of Southern states are not fooled by this rhetoric. Keeping families together really means bringing the entire family to the U.S. and that means 20 million illegals currently in the country could double or triple if they are granted amnesty.
Obama also contends that high fees and the need for lawyers can exclude worthy applicants. “While we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.”
The President points to the many worthy immigrants who may not have the ability to become American citizens, however in a time of extreme economic crisis, perhaps the country should focus on training American children to be the future leaders of industry, policy making and even legislators.
The system is broken and most Americans know it.
“Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling- and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support,” Obama explained.
Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) couldn’t disagree more with the president. Bilbray’s district lies just north of the U.S./Mexican border and he really understands the immigration issue. As a leader of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Bilbray says if the President took amnesty out of the legislation the Congress could pass immigration reform today. “But the president is insisting on amnesty.”
“Currently there is a bill sitting in Congress with more than 230 votes that would start the process of securing the borders and streamlining the immigration process,” Bilbray said. “The name of the bill is Shuler bill. In late 2008, Congressman Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) introduced a bill that would increase border security measures, add new Border Patrol agents and mandate that employers verify if their workers are here legally.”
However the bill doesn’t include a mass amnesty and that is a deal breaker for the president and most liberal-progressive Democrats.
The persistent issue of amnesty has been the kryptonite to immigration reform and has sent states like Arizona through the state-legislative process in order to solve the out-of-control crime and financial liabilities illegal immigrants bring to the table.
According to a recent story by Fox News, Arizona’s budget deficit of $2.7 billion and it is directly related to illegal immigration. “Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable (trying to take illegal immigration issues into their own hands),” Obama said. “But it is also ill conceived.”
As such the Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton let the cat out of the bag last month regarding the federal government’s intention to file a lawsuit to block Arizona’s SB1070 law that mirrors the current U.S. immigration enforcement policy.
“Our task then is to make our national laws actually work – to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.”
“Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship,” he continues. “And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”
Yet a majority of the country doesn’t want amnesty. To be fair Americans also realize deporting more than 10 million illegal immigrants is nearly impossible. “If the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty,” Obama said. “They are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people.”
Moreover the President claims a mass deportation” would tear at the very fabric of this nation – because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”
Obama also admits the government has the responsibility to secure the country’s borders. “That’s why I directed my Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, former Arizona governor, to improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.”
But this statement rings hollow for those living along the Southern border. The White House said weeks ago they would send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, however, those same troops would be carrying unloaded guns and come nowhere near the number of National Guard troops needed to protect the borders from the ever-increasing violence plaguing the border region.
When former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard members to the border, states saw a reduction in violence and a slowing of human smuggling. However, in the end President Bush continued the failure of meaningful immigration reform.
President Obama subscribes to the open-borders/amnesty theory as a way to increase a huge voting block. “There are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders. But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”
Additional focus needs to be placed on businesses who hire illegal workers, they need be held accountable, especially if business owners break the immigration law deliberately.
During the 45-minute speech, Obama made blanket statements that law enforcement agencies are not wanting to take on a job the federal government refuses to implement.
However law enforcement agencies throughout the state of Arizona say the federal government isn’t doing enough regarding interior immigration enforcement. As such, there has been a growing population of sanctuary cities that have made enforcing illegal immigration more difficult.
States like California are the poster child for renegade sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The three largest cities continue to quash interior apprehensions. In the Golden State’s case, the $20 billion revenue shortfall can be directly tied to illegal immigrants.
Nevertheless Obama contends that those in the country illegally are to be given a free pass if they; “Admit that they broke the law.” After the admission, “they should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English.”
“Our laws should respect families following the rules- instead of splitting them apart. We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status,” Obama said. “We should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up. The DREAM Act (this act gives illegal immigrants the right to apply and receive scholarships for college… and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator – and why I continue to support it as president.”
“I’ve spoken with representatives from a growing coalition of labor unions and business groups, immigrant advocates and community organizations, law enforcement, local government – all recognize the importance of immigration reform.”
Further attesting how out of touch the president is with middleclass America is New York Mayor Bloomberg. After the president’s immigration reform speech Mayor Bloomberg made a statement to the media. The twist was Bloomberg spoke in Spanish. Then he went on to say for those of you who do not understand this is the way of the future.
Bloomberg never translated the speech.
Moving forward the president says; “The majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.”
However, for the better part of 18 months the White House held large majorities in the House as well as a Senate and they failed to pass any immigration legislation. Now Obama says the political theater makes passing legislation a “mathematical impossibility.”
The Democrats certainly have a full plate with two wars, the largest environmental disaster in the Gulf and millions of illegal immigrants pushing for amnesty. The midterm elections will certainly set a referendum one way or another.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner
Imagine the possibilities. With the stroke of a pen 15-20 million illegal immigrants could be exempted from deportation.
In an attempt to bypass Congress, the legislative process and our Constitution which guarantees of the people by the people, President Obama has shown signs that he may sign an executive order that will throw sand in the face of the will of the people.
But will the executive order stand judicial scrutiny? If the six-month ban on deep-water oil drilling in the Gulf is any indication, the courts will surely have something to say about the legality of such a bold move by the President on a very divisive issue.
Earlier this week eight U.S. Senators sent a letter querying the President’s intentions regarding the order of a de facto amnesty. The mood of country over the past few months has sent a clear message to those in Congress as well as the White House – secure the borders and no amnesty.
“The whispering has erupted with an open letter to the President from eight U.S. Senators spelling out the details known thus far,” says Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.
“In a nutshell, there is discussion going on within the Administration about stopping nearly all deportations, presumably until ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ can be passed to give illegal aliens full work and residency rights permanently. The point here is to satisfy the open-border bloc of voters who have been threatening to boycott the elections this fall unless President Obama makes an all-out effort to pass an amnesty this year,” Beck said.
Mutterings began to enter the strong no amnesty advocacy groups, like NumbersUSA, last week at the Brookings conference when they indicated they had been talking to the Obama administration about different ways to help illegal immigrants without having to go through Congress.
Beck explains that U.S. Presidents have proven whether Republican or Democrat that they are capable of doing almost anything they please to get re-elected. “Only an incredible outburst of outrage from the public can stop the Administration from doing a de facto amnesty all by itself.”
NumbersUSA has rolled out a new campaign to let all 535 members of Congress how they feel about a possible “executive order” amnesty deal.
“We want Democrats in Congress to begin to tell their leaders and the White House that even the hint that this amnesty could happen will hurt their chances of winning in the fall. We want Republicans to start threatening to use the Plot as a campaign issue. We want the White House to publicly promise that it will not unilaterally proclaim an amnesty,” Beck said.
The following is the letter sent to the White House by eight concerned Senators;
“Dear President Obama;
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a ‘case-by-case’ basis.
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.
We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.”
The letter was signed by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), David Vitter (R-La.)
Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).
A hierarchical undercutting in the decision making process in any work environment lends itself to a severe tongue lashing, however, in the military world it requires one of two things- resignation or firing.
This is exactly the position current Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal finds himself in.
A senior Capitol Hill source says McChrystal will resign, leaving the White House in a pickle as the summer offensive in Afghanistan, already causing heartburn, with no other choice but to regroup with new leadership.
Insiders are also saying Congress is already seeking McChrystal’s replacement and names like General James Mattis of the US Joint Forces Command and Lieutenant General William Caldwell, the current commander of Nato’s Training Mission in Afghanistan are the frontrunners.
However, President Obama hasn’t indicated which way he will go and it is no secret the president’s choice in words calling “Afghanistan the right war,” could come back to haunt him. Americans have lost interest in the Middle East War effort and losing soldiers on the battlefield when the Administration refuses to kill the opium poppy fields is not helping shore up support on the home front.
As word spread yesterday of the Rolling Stone story a universal consensus formed that McChrystal and his entourage crossed the sacred line by criticizing the President and his staff.
“This is clearly a firing offense,” said Peter Feaver, a former official in the Bush White House and strong backer of a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan in a Washington Post story.
But military experts also question relieving McChrystal of his leadership role on the eve of a major offensive in Kandahar, which is the most critical of the war, could hurt the Afghanistan war effort. It has also been said that McChrystal was not onboard with the July 2011 timetable for withdrawal.
The Rolling Stone story reads in part; “According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked ‘uncomfortable and intimidated’ by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. ‘It was a 10-minute photo-op,’ says an adviser to McChrystal. ‘Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f-ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.’”
President Barack Obama said earlier that McChrystal is guilty of “poor judgment” but said he will wait to pass judgment until the two meet at the White House.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan and his aides also made disparaging comments about Vice President Joe Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and others in the story titled “The Runaway General.”
“Gen. McChrystal is on his way here, and I am going to meet with him. Secretary Gates will meet with him as well,” Obama said Tuesday evening. “I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment, but I also want to talk to him directly before I make any final decisions.”
Asked earlier in the day whether McChrystal’s job is on the line, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “everything is on the table.”
McChrystal apologized for the article Tuesday morning.
“It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said in a statement. “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war, and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
Nevertheless McChrystal received harsh words from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. “I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine,” Gates said in a statement. “I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world.”
“Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well,” Gates said. “I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person.”
Cable television pundit Sean Hannity said he did understand General McChrystal’s frustration “with how the Obama administration has mishandled the ‘War on Terror.’ “I don’t think Obama takes his role as commander in chief as seriously as he should.”
“What are we to think of a president who only sends 20-to 30-thousand more soldiers in a war in Afghanistan, but not that amount the generals on the ground ask for?” Hannity questioned. “What about a president who resists using the term ‘war on terrorism?’ I don’t think this president is seeking victory in Afghanistan.”
With a drug war raging in Mexico, a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Gulf oil spill disaster and a trouble economy will President Obama rock the boat in Afghanistan or move forward with more of the status quo?
After a one-on-one meeting with President Obama, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl dropped a bombshell about the White House’s lack of concern for securing the southern borders.
At a town hall meeting in the Senator’s district of Tempe, Arizona on Friday, Kyl explained to the audience that President Obama told him in the oval office the problem with securing the borders the U.S. shares with Mexico is the following; “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” It also must be noted that audible gasps were heard throughout the folks who were in attendance.
On the YouTube video Senator Kyl continues to explain, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
The lip service and gamesmanship the president is playing is confirmed by his hollow promises made more than a month ago by not sending 1,200 National Guard troops or $500 million to secure the southern border. This angers those who live in Arizona and face the incursion on a daily basis.
Senator Kyl said he reminded President Obama, that the President and the Congress have an obligation to secure the border in the name of national security.
It didn’t take long for the White House to hit back at Senator Kyl and claim the President made no such comments to the Arizona Senator. Obama’s spokesperson Bill Burton responded to questions at the daily press briefing and restated the White House’s position on Monday; “The president didn’t say that. Senator Kyl knows the president didn’t say that.”
When pressed further to determine if Mr. Kyl was lying about the political statement, Burton said, “I’ll let other folks make that determination.”
Kyl was having none of this and reiterated that the White House; “Wants to get something in return for doing their duty.”
Senator Kyl’s spokesman Ryan Patmintra said after the back and forth with the White House that the Senator stands by his remarks. He expressly said the White House position “that we must have comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border only confirms Sen. Kyl’s account.”
According to the White House website says President Obama believes “that our broken immigration system can only be fixed by putting politics aside and offering a complete solution that secures our border, enforces our laws, and reaffirms our heritage as a nation of immigrants.”
Meanwhile former Arizona governor and current Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano will travel to Denver, Colo., on Thursday, June 24. While in Denver Secretary Napolitano; “will deliver remarks highlighting the Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to work with Congress on ways to comprehensively reform our nation’s immigration laws to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.”
This battle will surely be front and center for the next few months as Washington DC has really let down the Border States. The states continue to struggle with the financial burdens caused from illegal immigration and the violence that rages unabated along both sides of the southern borders. However after all the polling that has taken place on this topic, one thing is clear, Americans want secure borders first.
Back in February a billboard was placed along side a freeway in Minnesota displaying a picture of former President George W. Bush stating; “Do you miss me yet?” The billboard created an instant internet buzz something President Obama could use right about now.
It’s no secret that Obama’s poll numbers are sliding south to 40 percent and his continued inaction with America’s worst environmental disaster to date has even ardent Obama supporters running for cover. A new poll out today in Louisiana uncovered voters in the state think former President Bush handled Hurricane Katrina better than President Obama is handling the oil spill.
Approximately 50 percent of voters in the state of Louisiana, including 31 percent of Democrats, gave former President Bush higher grades (50 percent) on handling of Katrina compared to 35 percent for President Obama, according to the Public Policy Poll.
Overall only 32 percent of Louisianans approve of how Obama handled the spill while 62 percent disapprove. In contrast 34 percent of those questioned say they approved of how Bush dealt with Katrina and 58 percent disapproved.
There is some good news for President Obama; the folks in Louisiana blame BP the most when it comes to the massive oil spill. About 53 percent of voters say they’re mad at BP Oil Company while 29 percent place their anger with the federal government.
The overwhelming majority, 78 percent believe BP has the greatest responsibility for the clean up and a measly 11 percent think the federal government needs to mop up the oil.
One thing the nation’s largest oil spill has not accomplished is large opposition to off shore drilling. In Louisiana the oil industry is directly tied to the largest number of jobs and revenue stream. As such, 77 percent of Louisianans still support off shore drilling.
If there’s anybody who comes out a winner in this environmental nightmare it’s Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. More than 63 percent of the voters approve of his job performance.
He even has a higher level of support at 65 percent for how he has handled the aftermath of the BP oil spill. It is well known that the Governor hasn’t gone back to his capitol office or home, but has remained in the affected regions listening to the fisherman, collecting ideas on how to solve the oil spill clean up and pitching in with manual labor when it is necessary.
“People are always concerned with their economic livelihood,” said Dean Debnam president of Public Policy Polling. “In Louisiana the economy and jobs are clearly tied to the oil and gas industry. Louisianans seem more concerned about the closure of oil rigs than of beaches.”
President Obama would do well to take his cue from Louisiana’s Governor Jindal and put his heart and soul into cleaning up the nation’s worst environmental disaster.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner
Click here to find out more!