U.S. Code Proves Obama is Breaking the Law

Since the story first broke that Barack Obama has moved to take control of the U.S. Census, placing it under the control of the White House, most commentators have viewed the move from the angle of what it does in terms of gerrymandering, or, configuring Congressional districts to favor Democrats.

My emphasis, however, has been on the law. And Obama is clearly breaking it.

This is the subject of my latest column at Columbia Conservative Examiner.

The U.S. Code, which details the nation's federal laws, clearly shows that Obama is breaking the law by moving the Census from the Commerce Department to the White House.

Take a look, and tell a friend. Thanks!

What Happened to the Rule of Law?

Ignoring the clear rule of law under the U.S. Code, a federal judge ruled on Thursday that the the new illegal alien laws in the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania are unconstitutional. The Judge maintains that the new laws violate due process.

Hazleton had enacted the new regulations to address a growing problem in the city. Illegal aliens came flooding into town in droves and now compose 10% of the population. With the massive increase of illegals, there was a simultaneous increase in crime.

The city overwhelmingly supported laws that prevent businesses from hiring illegal aliens and landlords from renting them housing.

Today's ruling by an activist judge flies in the face of the U.S. Code, which states that the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens is a felony.

How is giving an illegal a job and renting them housing NOT aiding and abetting their committing a crime?

On a related note, a Sheriff in an Arizona county has implemented strict measures in enforcing the laws against illegal aliens. He even set up a hotline so that citizens could report to law enforcement their suspicions about undocumented workers.

Yet on Thursday he was urged to discontinue the hotline by certain persons within government and by certain religious groups who seem to take a rather dim view of their country's security and its laws.

My friends, this is not about playing politics, although it is most assuredly a political issue. Democrats and Republicans both have a vested interest in NOT following this nation's laws on immigration. Democrats buy the loyalty of illegals by catering to their criminal activity in breaking the law entering the country illegally. Republicans buy the loyalty of certain business interests by catering to their criminal activity as well--that of knowingly and willfully committing felonies in order to save a few bucks on cheap labor.

Thus, both Parties have their hands stuck down into this cookie jar. They both have been caught red-handed. Still, nothing is being done about it.

The question is, does the rule of law mean anything at all anymore in the United States of America?

The Demise of the Immigration Compromise Bill

Washington, DC (TLS). As expected, the U.S. Senate failed to garner the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture Thursday morning, and proceed to a vote on the immigration reform bill. This means that the bill is dead.

Six top Republicans defected from the shaky coalition of Democrats and Republican leaders in order to insure the demise of the bill. This was in stark contrast to the vote on Tuesday when the bill's supporters received 64 votes.

However, in the intervening hours between the first vote and today's vote, a massive avalanche of angry citizens inundated Congress with phone calls, faxes, emails, and text messages.

One person who contacted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was so explosive in his derogatory comments that Reid indicated he would be turning over the communication to the government's investigative authorities.

Obviously, the vast majority of the contacts were not violent in nature, and thus, the Senators heard the deep concerns of the people loud and clear.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein commented on the number of complaints from citizens, but stated that she would vote in favor of the bill anyway because 'those who oppose the bill do not understand it.'

Sure, Senator. Only elitists like you can truly understand the intricacies of government and legislation, and we, the misinformed and ignorant commoners, are too dumb to comprehend.

Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, on the other hand, asked, 'What part of ‘no’ don’t we understand? This fight has 'reengaged the American people.'

However, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, one of the bill's staunchest proponents, stated, 'Remember this day if you vote no. The bill will not come back in its present form, and this is as good as it gets.'

Perhaps someone should remind Senator Graham that we don't need another bill. What we need is enforcement of the laws already on the books that deal directly with the problem of illegal aliens and what to do about them.

The problem is not inadequate laws. The problem is the inadequate enforcement of current law.

Some liberal groups are already warning that the opposition to this bill among Republicans will spell defeat for them in 2008. The common reasoning behind this view is that Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly turning to Democrats, and today's vote will only accelerate that process.

Critics point to the fact that George W. Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote but that in 2008 that level of support is expected to drop.

A closer look, however, reveals that Hispanics have never been in the hip-pocket of Republicans to begin with. 40% of the Hispanic vote is not a majority. Democrats have always been the beneficiaries of the influx of Hispanic immigrants, which is the biggest reason they block enforcement of current law and come within a hair's breadth of supporting open borders.

It should not be very difficult, however, to show Hispanic voters that this bill is not about legal immigration. This has NEVER been about legal immigration. The vast millions of Hispanic immigrants who have gained citizenship through legal means are valued and productive citizens. They work hard. They are deeply religious. They support their families.

Republicans, conservatives, independents, and libertarians who opposed the immigration compromise bill have no quarrel at all with these exemplary members of the LEGAL Hispanic immigrant community. Our quarrel has been with illegal aliens, period...and the corrupt government of Mexico that apparently wishes to dump its criminals onto America by supporting their illegal entry into the country.

The bill as it stood did very little to adequately address the problem of illegal aliens. Granting a path to citizenship for illegals would be a slap in the face to every immigrant who followed the law and attained their citizenship the right way.

Americans of every stripe continue to welcome immigrants who are willing to obey the law, learn English, and follow the path to citizenship already laid out in the U.S. Code.

We still support those who obey the law. But we remain vehemently opposed to those who disregard the law.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 6/25/07

Washington, DC (TLS). Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

Traction Control has the definitive word on the meaning of 'militia' in the Constitution, as specified by the U.S. Code:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=478

Traction Control also has some neat pics of Kimber Pro Carry in .45 ACP:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=479

Snowflakesinhell blogs on the definition of a machine gun in light of the ATF's shenanigans of late:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=901

The Jet Pilot reports that Fred Thompson is set to make an announcement this week concerning his national headquarters for his upcoming yet unannounced bid for the White House:
http://ajetpilot.blogspot.com/2007/06/wsmv-tv-thompson-announcement-set-for.html

The McCarville Report blogs that gun-grabber Hillary Clinton came to Oklahoma City and raised over $300,000 for her campaign:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/06/turpen-hillary-raised-305000.html

The Bitch Girls provide a crucial update on the man in Jacksonville, Florida who was fired for using a gun to fight off thugs who robbed his neighbor:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=6997

Armed and Safe posts an update on the continuing story of gun-shop protests in Illinois, involving a priest and 'the Reverend' Jessie Jackson:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/never-dull-moment-with-deacons-for.html

A Keyboard and a .45 reports a disturbing trend in Texas that is cause for great alarm. Big-city State's Attorneys in Texas are refusing to honor laws passed by the Texas legislature, such as the 'Stand Your Ground' bill, the Castle Doctrine, and others, which protect citizens' right to carry:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-wrong-with-this-picture.html

Gun Owners of America has an alert about a pro-gun amendment in the anti-gun immigration bill:
http://www.gunowners.org/a062207.htm

Several bloggers share their thoughts on this disturbing bit of news--Hollis Wayne Fincher, the American patriot and firearms activists, was given 6 and a half years in prison at his sentencing hearing. My friends, this is a travesty of justice, particularly when the prosecuting attorneys and the Judge stated that they did not want to hear about rights in that pesky document called 'the U.S. Constitution!'

Here are a few comments from the gun-rights community:

From Say Uncle:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/06/23/fincher/

From Front Sight, Press:
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/hollis-wayne-fincher-gets-prison-for-machine-gun/

From Snowflakesinhell:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=902

From Armed and Safe:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/wayne-fincher-gets-6-12-years-for.html

Illegal Aliens Commit 90% of Murders in L.A.

Los Angeles, CA (TLS). Here's an eye-opener for you. Statistics from the Los Angeles Police Department and the California Department of Justice show that illegal aliens commit over 90% of the murders in Los Angeles.

This is simply another example of the consequences of a reckless national policy on immigration--a policy that does not even pretend to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Statements have been made by some in the debate over immigration that perhaps the driving force of the opposition to open borders and amnesty programs is that 'we don't want those kinds of people in the republic.'

You bet your sweet bottle of Corona I don't!

Why would I want to open up the country to gangs of thugs who plunder, pillage, pilfer, and perpetrate mayhem? Those who come here to work, learn English, become accustomed to our culture, and support our government and way of life are welcome. Those who come here for the freebies and to fly the Mexican flag are NOT welcome. It is simple as that.

In a city as large as Los Angeles and its near-uncontrollable crime problem, for over 90% of the murders to be committed by illegal aliens is nothing less than horrifying.

The nation's immigration problem is totally out of control, and the bill put forth by Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy and John McCain, and supported by George W. Bush, will NOT reign it in. We need to enforce the laws already on the books, and the main one is that part of the U.S. Code that states the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens is a FELONY.

I want to know when we are going to arrest and throw into jail politicians and business leaders who violate that part of the U.S. Code on a regular basis.

If we cannot even bring ourselves to enforce the laws already on the books, how in the HELL do we think a NEW law is going to clean up the mess any better?

Read the complete story of the murders committed by illegal aliens here:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/01/in-la-illegals-commit-90-of-murders.html

What's Going on with Cities that Defy U.S. Law?

Washington, DC (TLS). First it was San Francisco. Now Oakland. And of course, Virginia Beach has been caught red-handed doing the very same thing.

What do these and other U.S. cities have in common?

They are breaking the law. In fact, they are committing felonies.

The Mayor of San Francisco stated earlier this week that his city would be a 'safe haven' for illegal aliens and would defy any federal order to stop the practice. Today, we received word that Oakland will do the very same thing.

Several weeks ago, Virginia Beach, Virginia was exposed by Bill O'Reilley for being a town that defies U.S. law by granting safe haven to foreign law-breakers.

There are several salient points we need to remember about this practice.

First, if the federal government allows these cities to get away with this, then George Wallace and the cities of Birmingham, Montgomery, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama were correct in defying de-segregation orders from the federal government during the Civil Rights era.

In short, if Constitutional law is not the prevailing law of the land--the entirety of the land--then those towns in Alabama had as much a right to defy the law by continuing segregation as San Francisco has to defy the U.S. Code in aiding and abetting illegal aliens (which is a felony).

Second, if these cities persist in defying federal law, then the rest of the country should demand that Congress immediately withdraw the funding of millions of dollars' worth of projects that benefit those cities, using our tax dollars. I don't want my tax money being used to support a municipality that willfully and openly defies the law of the land. And, to be fair, these cities should not even expect the government to give them any money, since they obviously have no respect for its Constitution and laws.

In addition, we should also make it clear to these towns that they will no longer be afforded the
protection of the U.S. military in the event of a terrorist attack or any other siege upon them.

If they don't play by the same rules that the rest of us are forced to play by, then they don't get the defense of the military I proudly support--particularly a place like San Francisco, which is unabashedly anti-military.

They can fend for themselves if they are attacked.

Third, it is time we began to demand that our elected officials enforce the provisions of the U.S. Code, which clearly states that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a felony that carries with it certain punishments determined by the courts.

City government officials who defy the law and openly encourage others to do so should be immediately arrested and sent to jail. Once they are charged with the felonies they have committed, they can then argue their case in a court of law.

So, what, exactly, is preventing the immediate arrest of the Mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, Virginia Beach, and other so-called 'safe haven' cities? They have openly stated before all of America that they are defying the law and will continue to do so. We have them on tape stating these things. It should be fairly easy to prove in court that they are guilty of felonies.

Why are we not enforcing the rule of law in this country?

As it stands now, these are renegade cities that are run by renegade, out of control Mayors and other city officials. If we let them do this, then how can we with any integrity enforce ANY federal law ANYWHERE?

What if my town down south decides that it is going to be a 'safe haven' city for members of the Klu Klux Klan who are on the run from the FBI?

If San Francisco can pull this shameful, in-your-face defiance of the rule of law, then what is to prevent any town in America from doing the same thing with OTHER issues?

Until this practice is stopped cold by placing city officials under arrest and charged with felonies, then this nation is on the brink of imploding from the lack of the moral authority to govern. Without the rule of law as established by the Constitution and the U.S. Code, then we are stuck in a time-warp prior to the Civil War when some of us thought that local governments could defy federal law.

We already fought one war over that issue. We don't need another one. Put the perpetrators in jail where they belong.

The Gonzalez News Conference

Charlotte, NC (TLS). U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez gave a news conference Tuesday afternoon to answer charges by Democrats that the recent firing of a handful of U.S. Attorneys was politically motivated.

Leading the charge for the Democrats is 'Little Chucky' Schumer, who claims that Gonzalez fired the attorneys because they did not investigate charges of Democrat corruption in Congress.

It seems obvious that Little Chucky is treading on thin ice with these charges, given the present ethically-challenged Democrat leadership in the U.S. Congress. At least a dozen top Democrats are under a cloud of suspicion due to charges of corruption and the breaking of federal law. Some of these very Democrats chair major committees in Congress, such as John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, and even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The fact that the crimes and misdemeanors of these and other Democrats in Congress were never adequately investigated by the Department of Justice, then yes, these U.S. Attorneys were not performing adequately and needed to be fired. In this regard, Gonzalez is 100% correct. Perhaps their replacements will get about the business of investigating the blatant disregard for the law, particularly on the part of those like Conyers, who broke federal campaign laws.

And this is precisely why Democrats are upset with the firings.

The real source of scandal within the U.S. Department of Justice surrounds U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who interestingly was not fired. This is in spite of his vendetta against American law enforcement officials who wish to uphold the U.S. Code in apprehending law-breakers who enter the country illegally. Sutton's modus operandi toward law enforcement at the southern border is that if an officer does his job conscientiously in upholding federal law concerning illegal aliens, he/she can expect to be punished by Sutton by being hauled to court, tried, and found guilty, and then tossed into prison to serve lengthy sentences.

Two border patrol agents and at least four other lawmen in Texas have suffered under the oppressive, heavy hand of a U.S. Attorney who has turned his head to clear federal law in the U.S. Code concerning illegal aliens.

Yet in the Gonzalez massacre of U.S. Attorneys, Sutton was spared.

Remember, Sutton is a Bush crony in Texas. Not only that, but Bush has a tarnished track record when it comes to immigration. He has privately stated that America is not a place but a concept. It is only one small baby-step from there to embracing open borders. Sutton has certainly given the citizens of America and the government of Mexico the impression that open borders are already a reality, in spite of federal law to the contrary.

To be fair, Mr. Bush should have ordered Gonzalez to fire ALL U.S. Attorneys just as Bill Clinton did during the first days of his second term in office. But that is another story in and of itself.

On Tuesday of this week, Bush was in Mexico promising to the Mexican President that he would 'work very hard toward immigration reform legislation.'

That must have been music to the ears of the Mexican government and the thousands of law-breakers who wish to rape and plunder this nation without any risk of prosecution.

Ted Kennedy and John McCain have already sponsored legislation in the Senate that would, in effect, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, just like that, with one swipe of the pen. Mr. Bush's proposals are as close as one can get to an amnesty program without going quite as far as the Kennedy-McCain plan.

If the Democrats were truly smart, they would recognize that there IS a scandal of gargantuan proportions involving Sutton, the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, Alberto Gonzalez, and the President himself. The only problem is that Democrats are co-conspirators in this particular scandal of subverting federal law and allowing the invasion of illegal aliens into this country unhindered. This is the reason you will not hear one peep out of Little Chucky Schumer about it.

Little Chucky and rest of his cohorts are scared to death that the new attorneys Gonzalez will hire will target the corrupt law-breakers who Chair committees in the new Democrat majority in Congress!

As for the Sutton-Homeland Security-Justice Department scandal, Gonzalez continues to pretend it does not exist, treating it as the white elephant sitting on the dining room table that everyone knows is there but no one is willing to acknowledge. The problem is that with the denial, the flesh-eating bacteria that this scandal poses only continues its ooze toward infecting the entirety of the Bush administration.

Enter Fred Thompson

Washington, DC (TLS). On Fox News this Sunday morning, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson stated that he has thought about throwing his hat into the ring for the Republican Presidential nomination. Denying that his entry into the race would be a statement about the quality of Republican candidates, or the lack thereof, Thompson insists that he is considering the possibility of running because his views need a hearing.

And there is no doubt a Thompson candidacy will gain a hearing for his views.

Thompson is a long-time movie actor and television star, currently appearing as a regular cast member of 'Law and Order.' He also served his home state of Tennessee with distinction as a conservative Republican in the U.S. Senate.

Wherever Thompson goes there is an entourage of news media personnel, giving the former Senator a 'star quality' that is on the same par as that of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Thompson insists that he is in no big hurry to make an announcement, in spite of dire warnings from pundits such as Dick Morris that any candidate who announces as late as Labor Day will not have enough time to build the 100-million-dollar war chest he/she will need by Jan. 1, 2008 in order to run a competitive campaign.

In Thompson's case, however, there may be an exception.

He has instant name recognition. He has star quality. He generates excitement and energy wherever he goes and would have no problem raising multi-mega-bucks in short order.

The thing that is different about Thompson's so-called 'star quality,' however, is that he is basically a non-controversial figure. He is a politician in the pure Tennessean tradition. Tennesseans like for their politicians to be low-keyed, solid, consistent, trustworthy. Thompson is all of this and more. He has the ability to create excitement without appearing the least bit shallow or 'camera-hungry.'

Thompson has that cool-as-a-cucumber 'gravitas' that one needs to be taken seriously.

Enough about his persona and on to his views on the issues. Thompson is a solid conservative in the Reagan tradition. He is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage, pro-defense, pro-low taxes. The only thing we do not know for sure is his current stance on the nation's immigration nightmare. If he stands for enforcing the laws against illegal aliens, as prescribed in the United States Code, then conservatives will most definitely have yet another candidate they can support whole-heartedly.

The possibility that Fred Thompson could enter this race changes the entire scenario. If he decides to run, you can throw out all of your pre-conceived notions about 'front-runners' so far. It's a whole new ballgame.

Kennedy the Felon

Washington, DC (TLS). In 1965 Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA--known on The Liberty Sphere as 'Senator Blowhard'--vigorously pushed an immigration reform bill that would become a watershed moment not only in American politics but in American culture. The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 would forever change the face of America, opening the floodgates to unskilled poor laborers from Third World countries and limiting the quotas on skilled workers from the European countries that founded this nation.

To put it succinctly, Kennedy insured that the quotas on immigration would be changed to favor the Third World and to place severe limits on the number of Europeans who could immigrate to the U.S.

At the time Kennedy arrogantly denounced the Bill's detractors, claiming the legislation would most definitely NOT result in our cities being flooded with at least a million immigrants per year, and that the ethnic mix within these cities would NOT change.

Kennedy lied.

Not only did the flood gates open to millions of new immigrants annually but the racial and ethnic makeup of our cities changed drastically as tens of thousands of persons from the Third World, such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia, flooded our metropolitan areas.

By 1986 the problem had become so dire that the citizens pressured their representatives in Washington to act. They acted alright. But what they did was anything but stemming the tide of the onslaught.

Once again it was Senator Blowhard who led the fight, introducing and supporting a measure known as the 'Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.'

When Kennedy heard the outcry of Americans that politicians do something about illegal aliens, he heard in his own head, 'Legalize them and they won't be illegal aliens.'

The legislation amounted to nothing more than a massive granting of amnesty to illegal aliens. 2.9 million illegals were legalized and granted citizenship under Kennedy's leadership. The bill contained a provision that imposed employer sanctions so that such a thing would supposedly never happen again.

Or as Kennedy put it at the time, 'This will be the end of illegal immigration.'

End of story, right? Not so fast.

During the Clinton years of the 1990s, illegal aliens began flooding the country yet again. First, we were told there were 3 million. Then 5 million. But by the time it was all over we had at least 20 million illegal aliens living in this country.

This outrage continues today as the government turns its head to felons who hire illegal aliens, and as that very government encourages the aiding and abetting of law-breakers by telling them not to inquire as to the immigration status of these persons--which makes the government officials themselves felons.

The outcry from the public is reaching a fever pitch. Clearly Americans by overwhelming majorities want to stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country.

But once again guess who is on the forefront of this issue and once again hearing in his own mind the outcry of citizens to be, 'Let's take care of the problem by legalizing them!'? None other than Senator Teddy 'Blowhard' Kennedy.

Kennedy wants to make legal citizens overnight out of over 20 million illegal aliens who broke the law in coming here without due process. 20 MILLION. Thus, in one swipe of the pen in signing such legislation, 20 million people that we know nothing about, whose background is a mystery, would immediately and unequivocally become legal U.S. citizens.

Once again, what does the LAW, the U.S. Code, say about those who aid and abet illegal aliens? It says they are FELONS. That to act in any way as to aid and abet illegals is a felony in the United States of America.

Senator Ted Kennedy is committing a felony, therefore, just as he has twice before, not counting his Chappaquiddick 'dead woman in the car' mystery.

And guess what? President George W. Bush is pushing such legislation as well, thus betraying the very people who put him in office.

20 million illegal aliens becoming legal citizens overnight, without having to do what honorable people have done in going through the naturalization process legally. This is an outrage to any honorable law-abiding American. The citizens should let their voices be heard NOW. We want the flow of illegal aliens into this country STOPPED, NOT by making them legal, but by enforcing U.S. laws that are already on the books.

Immigration Status an Important Question

Washington, DC (TLS). Let me present a hypothetical situation for a moment. In a small town in America a local police officer spots a group of persons of Hispanic descent traveling in a small auto that is seen running a red light. The officer turns on his blue light and pulls over the auto.

He asks to see the driver's license of the driver, but the driver does not understand his question, and says something in Spanish. The officer does not understand Spanish, so he shows the driver an example of what he's looking for. The driver indicates he has no such thing.

Thus, the officer has on his hands a situation where a car-full of Hispanics who do not speak English not only run a red light but do not possess a driver's license. He suspects that they are illegal aliens, but he is forbidden by his department from asking such a question.

What does the officer then do? Write a ticket? Allow them to continue driving after the ticket is issued? Take them in to the police station? Place them under arrest?

So far the charges against them are that they ran a red light and have no license to drive. These are not considered crimes but misdemeanors which are normally handled with much leniency.

Yet the officer knows that since no one in the group has a driver's license he will probably never see or hear from them ever again. Yet if he takes them into the police station for questioning, not only has he done more than one would do under normal conditions such a this, but in order to get at the heart of the matter, the subject of immigration status will come up. But he is not allowed to go there. Thus, his hands are tied.

My friends, this is precisely the predicament in which many law enforcement officials find themselves across America today. In many municipalities, such as New York City, officers are forbidden from inquiring about immigration status. In some school districts across the nation, immigration status cannot be asked of those who apply for jobs within those districts--as a matter of district policy.

Yet the United States Code specifically refers to the aiding and abetting of illegal aliens as a felony. A FELONY.

How on earth can one determine if someone has committed a felony if one cannot even inquire about the immigration status of the person in question?

And this is precisely the root of the problem. If you can't ask, then that lets off the hook any American who hires or otherwise aids and abets illegals. They can claim they did not know. How? Because their government is giving them a way around being charged with a felony.

Yes, their own government is encouraging citizens to engage in behavior that is described as a felony in the U.S. Code.

Any municipality, state, or school district that forbids inquiring about immigration status should be sued. Possible criminal charges should be brought against officials within those entities who proposed and implemented these felonious acts.

So far, the Bush Administration has done just enough window-dressing to claim it is doing something about the problem, such as the border fence, rounding up groups of illegals here and there. But it has failed miserably to attack the problem at its root--the government's own unwillingness to go after municipalities, school districts, and big businesses (and even some small businesses) that engage in aiding and abetting illegal aliens.

It is asinine to disallow law enforcement officers to inquire about the immigration status of persons living within that municipality. It is worse than asinine for a school district to hire persons without any verification of their immigration status. And it is a stinking, rotten travesty for American companies to get away with hiring persons who are known illegals, when federal law clearly prohibits it.

People who commit felonies should be prosecuted.

Why are we not doing it?

Who is encouraging doing nothing about it?

The LAW states these people are committing felonies.

They should be hauled to jail and charged with aiding and abetting illegal aliens under the provisions of the U.S. Code, which refers to their actions as a felony.

The Newt Gingrich Plan

Washington, DC (TLS). Newt Gingrich announced a plan this week that may well be his first step toward seeking the Republican Presidential nomination. Stating that Presidential campaigns have become mindless exercises in 5-second sound bytes, Gingrich has proposed a series of 90-minute discussion forums to take place each week from September through the November election in 2008.

The participants in these discussion forums would be the two Presidential candidates representing the two major Parties, plus a moderator. This is the most reasonable proposal for Presidential campaigns that has been placed on the table in many, many years.

One of the reasons I believe that Newt has put this proposal on the table is that he plans to be the candidate for the Republicans. Very few candidates in either Party would be able to withstand such a rigorous regimen of public debates. Newt is one of the few that could not only withstand it but excel. This is his forte, his arena. Possessing the verbal and rhetorical skills that surpass 99% of politicians in either Party, Newt would drive home his points with a keen intelligence and command of the English language that would put his opponent to shame.

As we have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, we would not be opposed to a draft Newt movement, although at present our support is with Duncan Hunter. Newt has solid conservative credentials and easily grasps the nuances and intricacies of international politics.

Several questions must be answered by Newt, however. Where does he stand on enforcing the nation's immigration laws? Will he force a federal bureaucracy which at present is out of control to enforce the nation's laws against illegal aliens? Will he enforce the notion that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a FELONY, as stated in the United States Code?

Where does he stand on free speech? He once stated that he would be in favor of limiting some of our freedom of speech in order to fight terrorism. This is highly problematic for The Liberty Sphere and millions of others who value human liberty.

How thoroughly would he take up the mantle of 2nd Amendment issues in the face of a renegade Congress that is intent on robbing citizens of the right to keep and bear arms?

Newt will need to clarify these issues before The Liberty Sphere would support his candidacy. But we think his idea about a series of weekly debates from September to November prior to the 2008 election is an excellent proposal.

Johnny Sutton Is At It Again

Washington, DC (TLS). U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso, Texas is at it again. This time he is seeking a seven-year prison term for a Texas law enforcement official who supposedly 'violated the civil rights' of an illegal alien the lawman had apprehended.

It was Sutton who was largely responsible for the lengthy prison terms of the two Border Patrol agents who shot at an illegal alien drug smuggler, hitting him in the buttocks. Agents Ramos and Compean are serving 11 and 12-year sentences.

Sutton is proving himself to be a one-man hit squad, targeting American law enforcement officials who are doing the job they were hired to do--protect the border from illegal aliens. Since illegal aliens are law-breakers, these law enforcement officials are correct in apprehending them, including the use of force if necessary.

But the U.S. Attorney in the area apparently believes that any U.S. law enforcement official who dares enforce our laws against illegal aliens should be severely punished.

Perhaps someone should remind Johnny Sutton that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a FELONY under the U.S. Code.

Thus, it is Sutton who should be serving a lengthy prison term.

Read the latest about Sutton's assault against a Texas lawman here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54533

The McCarthy Vendetta Against Guns

Washington, DC (TLS). Who is Carolyn McCarthy? We know she is a Liberal Democrat who represents the 4th Congressional District of New York in the U.S. House of Representatives. We also know she relentlessly pursues restricting gun rights with a fervor that is unwavering.

Delving into the background of Rep. McCarthy lends insight into the rationale behind the Congresswoman's desire to rewrite the Constitution by essentially removing any practical right to keep and bear firearms by loading up the U.S. Code with laws that render the 2nd Amendment useless. McCarthy's ex-husband was murdered and her son injured by a gunman who randomly opened fire on passengers of a commuter train on Long Island in 1993. No doubt this is a heart-wrenching tragedy that is only understood by those who have suffered through it.

Yet McCarthy responded to the tragedy, not by introducing strict measures that target and punish criminals, but by unleashing an assault on law-abiding citizens. Rather than target perpetrators her strategy has been to target the general public in an attempt to thwart a few criminals in the process. This strategy is tantamount to outlawing automobiles for law-abiding citizens due to the fact that Muslim extremists use vehicles to murder infidels in the name of the Jihad.

Of course, Americans would never stand for such an assault on their freedom to drive autos, no matter how many deaths and injuries are caused by them each year. And yes, a significant number of these deaths are directly attributable to those who use vehicles as weapons of murder, as we have seen all too often recently in the news in Salt Lake City and Nashville, Tennessee.

McCarthy's misplaced desire to avenge the death of her ex-husband and the injury of her son by making law-abiding citizens pay is the height of irresponsibility. The vast majority of gun owners never use their weapons to fire at a human being. It is estimated that there are over 100 million gun owners in America. Many of these citizens own multiple weapons. We can assume that there are upwards of 200 million guns, at the very least, in America today. Only a small fraction of these are used in committing crimes.

Yet McCarthy has introduced legislation that will vastly expand the provisions of the assault weapons ban that was initially passed by Congress in the early 1990s. In addition, McCarthy has further introduced legislation that circumvents due process of law by denying gun ownership to certain groups of citizens, such as those who for one reason or another find themselves on lists used by airlines to prevent certain persons from boarding aircraft. This provision is part of a bill introduced by McCarthy, H.R. 1167, which also contains these words: 'To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to extend the firearm and ammunition prohibitions applicable to convicted felons to those convicted in a foreign court.'

Thus, not only would McCarthy remove your right to keep and bear arms if you happen to get on someone's 'no fly' list, but she would also deny you that right if you are ever convicted of a crime in Libya, or Saudi Arabia, or Somalia.

Liberals have screamed bloody murder for the past six years over the Bush Administration's supposed circumventing of due process of law. Those protests have always had a hollow ring to them, precisely because of proposed legislation such as McCarthy's H.R. 1167.

These people don't give a flying flip about due process of law, except when it can to used to whip one's political opponent.

The bottom line is that this bill is one more example of the attempt by the forces of anti-freedom to gradually remove Constitutional rights from the electorate by targeting specific groups, and then expanding that list of targeted groups to include more and more citizens, such as those convicted of crimes in kangaroo courts overseas.

The day will eventually arrive, therefore, when NO ONE will have the right to keep and bear arms because the list of targeted groups will include just about everyone in the country.

Make no mistake, this IS their ultimate goal.

Americans must not allow an ultra-extremist, rogue representative such as Carolyn McCarthy to dictate firearms laws to the rest of the country because of her inability to deal with grief in an appropriate fashion. Healthy grief involves anger, no doubt. But normally that anger is directed at perpetrators of mayhem and not at innocent, law-abiding citizens. So far, McCarthy has engaged in a haphazard, subtle blaming of innocent citizens by making them pay for what one crazed gunman does.