God Save America

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) just release the following press release. The action detailed is long overdue and is like closing the barn door after the horses escaped form the barn. 

This is a positive start, but time will tell whether this Secure Border Initiative will work. Lets pray for God’s will.

WASHINGTON, DC – Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff announced today the implementation of Expedited Removal (ER) along the entire U.S.-Canadian border and all U.S. coastal areas, as part of the Secure Border Initiative. Today’s announcement reflects the further implementation of ER that was initially implemented along the Southwest border and will now be implemented along all of the United States’ border areas.  ER is an effective border management process that swiftly returns illegal aliens to their countries of origin while maintaining protections for those who fear persecution.  

“With the Secure Border Initiative, we made a commitment to implement new tactics throughout the U.S. in order to gain control of our borders,” said Secretary Chertoff.  “We have seen success in deterring illegal border crossers since Expedited Removal was implemented throughout the Southwest.  Implementing this process along all borders will provide DHS agents and officers with an additional tool to protect our nation’s boundaries and quickly remove those who entered our country illegally.”  

Expedited Removal authority was established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and applied initially at our nation’s ports-of-entry.   Since last September, DHS has successfully implemented ER between the ports-of-entry at all nine U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol Sectors on the Southwest border.  CBP Border Patrol agents have been trained and are now ready to implement ER in all Border Patrol Sectors.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal officers have devoted significant detention space to ER and have removed more than 4,750 aliens under the program since September.  

ER provides DHS the authority to expeditiously return applicable illegal aliens to their country of origin as soon as circumstances will allow.  DHS will be applying ER to aliens who have spent 14 days or less in the United States, and are either apprehended within 100 miles of the border with Mexico or Canada or arrive by sea and are apprehended within 100 miles of a coastal border area.  

Individuals in ER proceedings are generally not released into the United States.  ER disrupts the various human smuggling cycles that occur along the border by substantially reducing the time from arrest to ultimate removal from the United States and foreclosing opportunities for these illegal aliens to reconnect with their smugglers and guides.

Under the Secure Border Initiative, the Expedited Removal process has proven to be a successful tool in rapidly returning illegal aliens to their country of origin, while providing those aliens who have a credible fear of persecution or torture the opportunity to present their case before an immigration judge.  By implementing ER more widely, ICE and CBP personnel in all border sectors will be provided the mechanism to effectively deter future entries and accelerate removals.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The VeriChip is the controversial under-the-skin implant that is designed to carry your personal information, which is accessed by scanning.

VeriChip RFID Implant Is Hacked!

Will Security Problems Quash IPO Plans for Controversial Company?

The VeriChip can be hacked! This revelation along with other worrisome details could put a crimp in VeriChip Corporation’s planned initial public offering (IPO) of its common stock, say Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre.

The anti-RFID activists and authors of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID" make no bones about their objection to VeriChip’s plans to inject glass encapsulated RFID tags into people. But now they’ve discovered information that could call VeriChip’s entire business model into question.

"If you look at the VeriChip purely from the business angle, it’s a ridiculously flawed product," says McIntyre. She notes that security researcher Jonathan Westhues has shown how easy it is to clone a VeriChip implanted in a person’s arm and program a new chip with the same number.

Westhues, known for his prior work cloning RFID-based proximity cards, has posted his VeriChip cloning demo online at http://cq.cx/verichip.pl.

The VeriChip "is not good for anything," says Westhues, has absolutely no security and "solves a number of different non-problems badly."

The chip’s security issues may spell trouble for those who have had one of the microchips embedded in their flesh. These include eighteen employees in the Mexican Attorney General’s office who use an implanted chip to enter a sensitive records room, and a handful bar patrons in Europe who use the injected chips to pay for drinks. "What are these people going to do now that their chips can be cloned?" says McIntyre. "Wear tinfoil shirts or keep everyone at arm’s length?"

Albrecht quips, "A man with a chip in his arm may soon find himself wondering whether that cute gal on the next bar stool likes his smile or wants to clone his VeriChip. It gives new meaning to the burning question, ‘Does she want my number?’"

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Last week’s latest Mexican-standoff between three Texas sheriff’s deputies, at least two Texas state troopers and at least 10 heavily armed men from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande has validated a serious breech of border security, that left unchecked will cause loss of lives. There have been over 216 incursions since the late 1990’s and several Border Patrol agents have been wounded in the confrontations.

Mexican officials have insisted their military is not involved with these incidents. Fox News reports:

The Mexican Foreign Relations Department issued a statement saying that drug traffickers and other organized criminals have used uniforms and vehicles before. "It is possible that these actions were designed to damage the image of our armed forces," it said.

The article continues:

Police stopped and watched as the vehicles began to cross the shallow river into Mexico. Both sides — the Americans and the smugglers — had their weapons drawn.

One SUV got stuck in the river, and another blew a tire on the Texas side. Its driver ran into Mexico.

U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza has called for an investigation by Mexican officials over these incidents. Now the Mexican government are putting the blame on the U.S. World Net Daily reports Mexico’s response:

"Members of the U.S. Army have helped protect people who were processing and transporting drugs," Derbez told a news conference. "And just as that has happened … it is very probable that something like that could have happened, that in reality they (the uniformed men at the border) were members of some of their groups disguised as Mexican soldiers with Humvees."

Texas Governor Rick Perry has ordered an investigation. But will our government do anything that might upset the Mexican government?

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

America and its politicians have their heads in the sand and cannot see the evils brooding within its borders. Islam is being sugar coated by the politicians and news reports, and the failure to expose the truth of Islam and its agenda could forever change the face of America.

The Mich News reports:

There stood New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He was at the Al Khoei Islamic Center, Van Wyck Expressway, Jamaica, New York. He spoke to Islamic leaders and mosque members, assuring them he would not tolerate any anti-Islamic words or acts. He would consider that "hate speech."

Now what does that do henceforth with authors, journalists and Christian and Jewish leaders, particularly clergy, who tell the truth about the Islamic killing cult? Will they now be labeled criminals, having committed "hate speech?"

This is just what the Muslims wanted to hear, to be shielded from the truth and to be able to continue pushing forward with its agenda of destroying America as we know it today.

The Mich News continues:

This is the slippery side of a democracy. We get so used to freedom’s rosy trim that we invite the enemy in. That’s exactly what Bloomberg did. He told his audience that such speech would never be tolerated, according to Northeast Intelligent Network poster Douglas J. Hagmann: "Inside America’s Mosques: The Growing Curriculum of Hatred & ‘Jihad’".

The Koran is a killing cult with its deity being Satan. The Koran has been scribed by hell’s demons. Islam is not a religion among world religions but a murdering scheme by which to make Islam world rule.

Imam Sheik Fadhel al Sahlan is representative of Muslim leadership in the US who agree with the crazed fanatic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel must go—off the map, sliced from the globe.

Al Sahlan instructs his own that what Ahmadinejad enthusiastically exclaims freely on his own turf is a Muslim "dream." It is a dream to slaughter the "Jew-pigs," as the Middle East Muslims gleefully refer to the Jews in Israel? What kind of dream is that? It is not a dream to lay low mortals. It is a devilish nightmare.

In addition, there are training camps for Allah in America. There jihad is taught as killing infidels.

"Evidence of such camps can be found deep within the testimony and legal documents related to Abu Hamza, the Muslim cleric of the Finsbury Park Mosque in Great Britain. Hamza is currently on trial in the United Kingdom for terrorist related activities.

America’s politicians must wake up and admit there is a growing threat with-in its borders. And it needs to be addressed ASAP!

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Department Homeland Security Press Release:

Fact Sheet: Secure Borders and Open Doors in the Information Age

Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has set many changes in motion to improve border security while still welcoming visitors to the United States.  There have been two great challenges:  to harmonize all these changes for maximum effect while maintaining the right balance between stronger security and facilitating travel.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff have been working together to manage these challenges.  The result is a three part vision to guide the current and future development of solutions that ensure the best use of new technologies and the most efficient processes—all of which will ensure that our joint facilitation and security objectives are met.

Part One: Renewing America’s Welcome with Improved Technology and Efficiency

The United States is a welcoming country, encouraging citizens from all over the world to visit, study, and do business.  While security remains paramount, we will ensure that the experience of travelers reflects this welcoming spirit – and shows that the United States is open to business travelers, tourists and students – while ensuring that our homeland is secure.  Actions underway to renew America’s welcome  include:

Click to read more …

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

From Stop the ACLU!

Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU’s former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU’s press release: “We view the jury’s verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion.”

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled “The Nuremberg Files,” after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called “baby butchers.” …

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

None of the anti-abortion group’s intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants’ First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one’s side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

…Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century’s great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That’s why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU’s urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for “breaking the necks” of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

I would argue that the Constitution doesn’t protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn’t the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU’s curious commitment to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU’s absolutist views and of the ACLU’s campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self–a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.” “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

It seems that the many of the ACLU’s greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn’t doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapardy the very liberty they claim to protect.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The infamous 1973 Roe. v. Wade decision was a deadly turn of events in American history. Since that decision, the deaths by abortion has reached 47 million sometime during 2005. That is about one million abortions per year and the total number of abortions is expected to reach over 50 million by 2008.

"Our society needs to put in context the enormous amount of loss that we’ve suffered — the enormous amount of intelligence, the enormous amount of creativity, the enormous amount of productivity," O’Bannon said, referring to the millions of lives lost since Roe.

Polls show that Americans have mixed views about abortion. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from January showed that 53 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-choice, 42 percent pro-life. In addition, a 2005 CBS News poll showed that 60 percent of Americans believe Roe v. Wade was a "good thing."

Most people do not have any conception on what an abortion is or what is involved in an abortion. They do not know what is meant by a partial-abortion. If more are exposed to ways and the results of a completed abortions and let them witness the waste of life, there may be more calling for the end of abortions.

Pro-lifers gained a lot of public relations ground during the debate over partial-birth abortion in the 1990s. They sought to ban a late-term procedure in which the doctor delivers a second or third-term baby, feet first, until only the head is left in the birth canal. The base of the infant’s skull is then pierced with surgical scissors and the brain is suctioned out. One nurse who witnessed the procedure testified as to seeing a "baby’s little fingers … clasping and unclasping, and his little feet … kicking" before it was killed.

For example, my wife explained what partial birth abortions are to some of her very liberal co-workers who are very pro-abortion. They had no idea what it was and felt disgust once it was explained to them. Unfortunately it did not change their stance on abortions. But maybe it will change others to pro-life.

Source: BPNew.net

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

FRC Press Release:

Washington D.C. - Today, Family Research Council welcomed hundreds of thousands of pro-life Americans to our nation’s capital for the annual March for Life. On the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Family Research Council announced the release of a pamphlet, "Partial-Birth Abortion on Trial" by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Legal Studies, and William L. Saunders, FRC’s Human Rights Counsel. This powerful educational tool provides the statements–under oath–of the abortionists themselves.

"The pamphlet presents excerpts from the testimony given by abortionists in one of the federal trials on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. It is nothing less than a collection of admissions by the abortion industry, under oath, about the reality of abortion," said William Saunders, FRC’s Human Rights Counsel.

"Every citizen needs to be armed with the facts on this barbaric procedure and what is happening in our courts today. Never in the years since Roe v. Wade has such extensive evidence about the practice of abortion been placed in the public record from the mouths of the very doctors who perform them," added Cathy Ruse, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Legal Studies.

"We hope this pamphlet will educate the public about the reality of abortion in America and the need for good laws that protect both the health of the unborn and their mothers. I urge Congress to thoroughly review the trial testimony and move quickly to pass the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act which would require that abortionists inform women about the medical evidence of fetal pain during abortions at 20 weeks or later," concluded Cathy Ruse.

To order this publication or download a copy, please visit www.frc.org.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Will America follow Europe’s foot steps down the slippery slope?

When a society becomes more secular then Christianity, it shows degradation of morals, and other aspects of a healthy society. Europe is a good example of a society going more secular. America should take heed of the consequences.

Europe the cradle of modern  Christianity with all of its fine cathedrals is quickly changing into a post-Christian society. Declining church attendance, increase of alcoholism, and beliefs in occult ideas are some of the caused attributed to the decline of Christianity.  USA Today reports:

"Common wisdom has it that alcoholics outnumber practicing Christians and that more Czechs believe in UFOs than believe in God — and common wisdom may be correct," wrote Nate and Leah Seppanen Anderson in a Prague Post commentary; he’s a freelance writer, and she’s a political science professor at Wheaton College in Illinois and a specialist in Czech politics and society. Surveys show a sharp decline in church attendance and religious practice in most European countries. A series of Eurobarometer surveys since 1970 in five key countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy) shows that regular church attendance fell from about 40% of the population to about half that figure. Declines were sharpest in predominantly Catholic nations.

Even the mention of Christianity and its history is taboo.

Any mention of the continent’s religious past or contributions of Christian culture — in a preface citing the sources of Europe’s distinct civilization — would be exclusionary and offensive to non-Christians, many argued. Former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who presided over the process, summed up the dominant view: "Europeans live in a purely secular political system, where religion does not play an important role."

And the demographics are also destroying Europe.

Among the consequences of Europe’s abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend. Europe is "committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself," according to Weigel.

Hence immigration of non-Christians is encouraged to help replenish the dwindling work force and changing the face of Europe for the worse as freedom of religion an other society ills take over..

Is this what is in store for America?

Source article from USAToday.com

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Liberty Legal Institute Press Release

Plano – The U.S. Supreme Court just released a unanimous decision in the Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood case, upholding a parental notification law in New Hampshire. This ruling will now require all doctors and hospitals to notify parents before a child, under the age of 18, has an abortion.

“This is a great victory for judicial restraint,” said Chief Counsel for Liberty Legal Institute Kelly Shackelford. “The U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing by exercising restraint and giving parents the right they deserve.”

This case is one of the first to be heard with Chief Justice Roberts overseeing the Supreme Court.

“Justice Roberts is truly making an impact. This signals an important shift in the U.S. Supreme Court to turn from its practices of judicial activism,” Shackelford said. “The Court’s decision showed that they will now exercise restraint and refuse to strike down an entire statute based on broad, hypothetical situations introduced by opposing counsel. This skepticism is widely applauded.”

Liberty Legal Institute filed a brief in the case, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the New Hampshire law. The brief was written on behalf a father whose mentally challenged daughter was the victim of repeated abuse and coerced abortions. Liberty Legal Institute’s brief gained national attention, as it provided a compelling argument to uphold parental notification.

“This ruling protects children from some of the devastating effects of abortions and moves the nation closer to providing limitations on such a dangerous, controversial procedure,” said Director of Litigation for Liberty Legal Institute Hiram Sasser.

CLICK HERE to read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

The Liberty Legal Institute is a legal organization committed to the defense of religious freedoms and First Amendment rights. For more information, visit our website at http://www.libertylegal.org/. Or to set up an interview, please call Heather at 972-423-3131 x102 or e-mail media@libertylegal.org

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.