Friday, July 9, 2010

A Solution to the U.S.-Mexico Border Problem


By Barry Farber


"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem ... may my right hand lose its cunning."

*

No, this is not another screed about who owns Jerusalem. It's about right hands losing their cunning.

A person losing his cunning to age and Altzheimer's at a certain point is not just expectable, but inevitable. But why should businesses, organizations, countries, and governments suffer the same deterioration?

Don't younger people keep on entering and learning what it was that made that entity successful? And, barring outside market or other forces, can't they keep things the way they are? Or, at least, can't they see the early signs of decay and take bold moves to reverse them?

I almost wept over lunch a week ago when someone familiar with a radio station I knew well when it dominated its area in the 1970s led me through every detail of that station's decline into almost comic-opera ineptitude.

Why do so many jungles re-engulf so many Angkor Wats?

I invite your attention to America's southern border with Mexico. It's somewhat reminiscent of parts of the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to end America's involvement in the Vietnam War. At one point in those accords both sides officially agreed there were no troops from North Vietnam in the south at all.

And in another section there were detailed provisions under which Hanoi would be allowed to resupply those nonexistent troops!

Here we have Mexican infiltrators (Oh! Do you prefer "migrants"?) pouring across into the United States in search of work and a better life. The American government is doing little to stem that tide. The Mexican leadership hails those workers as "heroes" for carrying some kind of abstract isotopes of a borderless Mexico farther into the north.

American employers eager to access a low-cost labor pool choose not to be at all offended by the violation of America's borders. A Texas border town declares Spanish its new official language and makes all city employees pledge never to cooperate with the U.S. agents patrolling the border. The mayor of Laredo (Texas, U.S.A.) declares, "I am loyal to the causes of Mexico" and says she doesn't believe the border will long exist the way it is today.

Meanwhile, Mexicans are dying of heat and thirst in the Arizona desert, and an Arizona county on the border, which is closing health clinics for lack of funds, allocates $25,000 to set up water stations in the desert so Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally might survive.

Meanwhile, those illegal ineligibles are voting. Counterfeit dollars get a lot of attention. Counterfeit votes, nada. (Those still smarting under the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush might seek solace inside the following thought. George Bush won the popular vote in those areas least likely to have illegal voters. Al Gore won the popular vote in those areas MOST like to have illegal voters.)

To say "We can do better than this" is a pep talk.

To say "We PROVED 60 years ago we can do MUCH better than this!" is a more valuable utterance.

Back then America had the "Bracero" program. Mexican workers didn't have to risk their lives and break American law. All they had to do was sign and get on the bus. They were taken to jobs in the great American Southwest and housed in barracks-like facilities wildly better than the illegals inhabit today. They had clean beds, showers, good food, recreation, medical care and a legitimate job.

They were given walk-around money, but the bulk of their earnings was banked for them in Mexico to help their families. At the end of the harvest or the season or whatever, they had a big party and said goodbye and returned to Mexico, the envy of their neighbors who had no comparable rewards to show for that period of time.

Look it up. It was called, again, the "Bracero" program and was hailed as a major success in all the major magazines and newspapers at the time.

"Win" is a joy. When you achieve something that's called a "win-win" it makes you feel like a Nobel Prize-winning diplomat. A reincarnation of the Bracero program would be a "win-win-win-win." The workers aspiring to earn American dollars to improve their lives and the lives of their families win. The Mexican government, which relishes the infusion of American dollars into the Mexican economy, wins. The American employers get their less expensive labor without breaking the law or acting unpatriotically. And the U.S. Border Patrol can concentrate on drug-runners and not diffuse their efforts chasing plain old workers seeking to improve their lives.

Add a fifth "win." The Bracero program was managed in a way that made welfare recipiency and illegal voting unthinkable. I don't recall one word about those Mexicans participating in the Bracero program scamming welfare OR voting illlegally. I don't even remember anything about crime or barroom brawls involving the Bracero Mexicans. They didn't even play their guitars too loudly.

They gave Mexico a good name. Our administration of the program gave America a good name. We even spoke of it as part of our "Good Neighbor Policy" without feeling corny!

Not everybody who used to drive 275 yards off the tee can do it anymore. Not everybody who could punt 60 yards can do it any more. Is it possible America is no longer capable of organizing a Bracero program?

The groups agitating the most loudly against border restrictions won't be any more thrilled by a new Bracero program than a tribe of cannibals would be by a new cold breakfast food reinforced with riboflavin. They bluntly demand return of the entire American Southwest � their name for that territory is "Aztlan" � to Mexico. They'll be neither pleased nor appeased with anything less.

No, a new Bracero plan is strictly for those who favor life, law, fairness, mutual advantage, a cross-border win multiplied by five, and the preservation of America's borders exactly where they are unchanged by even one mili-squidgen of an inch.

Hezbollah on US-Mexico Border


A Hezbollah terror cell may be operating among drugs cartels around the U.S.-Mexican border, announced U.S. Republican National Committee Rep. Sue Myrick, according to a Fox News report.

Myrick requested that U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano create a special team to further investigate the potential problem and threat.

The Republican representative referenced several incidents that show evidence of Hezbollah's efforts to infiltrate the U.S. region with the aid of Mexican drug cartel gangs.

"It is vital we know what is happening on our border, especially as crime and violence continue to rise there and as terrorist plots and threats are increasing inside the U.S.," quoted the Fox News report.

Myrick cited the warming relationship between Iran and Venezuela as proof that Hezbollah members may be collaborating with Latin American drug cartels, who may be utilizing Hezbollah's ability to dig underground tunnels for drug smuggling and in turn, providing funding, document forging, and false identities.

The Fox News report referenced Anthony Placido, assistant administrator for intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration, testifying at a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee in March this year, that some drug smugglers in the U.S.-Mexico region have had relationships with Hezbollah between the 1980s and 1990s.

"There are numerous reports of cocaine proceeds entering the coffers of Islamic Radical Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas," Fox News quoted Placido when he testified to the subcommittee. Placido labeled the proceeds as "easy revenue" that could potentially be used to fund terrorism.

Fox News also cited a 2006 House Homeland Security Committee report which details incidents of Hezbollah operatives who were apprehended when trying to access the U.S. through Mexico. The report mentions Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, a Hezbollah member who pleaded guilty in 2005 for supplying information to the terror organization after he was smuggled in the U.S. through Mexico, and lived in Dearborn, Michigan.

'American Taliban' Counsel Heads Case Against Arizona Law




The Obama administration has assigned the same attorney who defended John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban," to spearhead the immigration lawsuit it filed Tuesday against Arizona and GOP Gov. Jan Brewer.

Tony West is one of nine Justice Department lawyers who previously provided legal representation to suspected terrorists. Conservatives have labeled those attorneys the "Gitmo 9."

Lindh was a California resident who converted to Islam, and was captured by U.S. forces in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. He was later declared an enemy combatant.

Of course, there is an American tradition of providing pro bono counsel to clients accused of heinous acts. But West is drawing attention for reasons beyond the politically charged lawsuit against Arizona.

West, a former litigation partner with the San Francisco firm of Morrison & Foerster, was one of then-candidate Obama's biggest fundraisers. An early supporter of the president's campaign, West served as co-chairman of his fundraising committee. West reportedly raised over $60 million for Obama's presidential bid.

The federal lawsuit that seeks to block the July 29 implementation of the new Arizona statute says it usurps the federal prerogative of border control and immigration. Modeled on federal laws that have largely gone ignored, the Arizona statute directs state law officers to verify legal status whenever probable cause exists to suspect illegal residency. Polls show a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, and oppose amnesty for illegals.

The choice of West to lead the legal battle against the law is sure to be controversial.

FoxNews.com described West's defense of Lindh "perhaps the defining moment of his legal career so far."

West helped negotiate a plea deal for Lindh, who confessed to serving in the Taliban military. In return, authorities dropped more serious charges against Lindh, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

West said at the time he knew there were political risks associated with aiding Lindh's case, but took the case because he was concerned Lindh might have been denied the constitutional right to a fair defense.

West told the San Francisco Chronicle: "I was recommitting myself to those principles of due process, fairness -- things that separate us from most nations in this world and which make us unique."

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

New Yorkers fight three new mosques


Holy wars are breaking out all over New York.

Three separate plans to build Muslim worship centers in New York City have proved more difficult and contentious than expected, igniting protests by local residents and anti-jihad activists and prompting charges of "Islamophobia" and bigotry.

The three projects raise different sets of issues, are set in three different boroughs and are still in the planning stages.

But together, they show that building a mosque in New York is not like building a pizza parlor — whether it's logistical concerns about neighborhood traffic and changing demographics, the sanctity of the World Trade Center site, or backyard politics.

New Yorkers have not been shy about their opposition, and a recent poll on the most contentious of the three projects — involving a Muslim center just two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack — shows residents stoutly opposed.

"This is about radical Islam wanting to colonize the world," said Joan Moriello, a community activist fighting one of the other projects. "They pretend to be tolerant, they pretend to be loving but they aren't. It's just starting to come bubbling up to the surface."

However, those kinds of reactions cause Muslim groups to cry "foul" and say objections about zoning and noise are mere covers for religious intolerance.

The Muslim American Society, a Washington-based nonprofit group, is determined to build mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island. A separate organization called the Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to improve relations between Islam and the West, plans to build an Islamic center just a few minutes' walk from the site of the Sept. 11 attack.

"The Staten Island issue and the Brooklyn issue are kind of bifold," said Lana Safah, a spokeswoman for the Muslim American Society. "On the one side, you have a community that is concerned with logistical issues such as traffic and noise, and those are concerns we absolutely acknowledge. On the other hand, there is a lot of outside influences. There are things that are planting seeds of doubt."

The property of the proposed mosque on Staten Island was owned by St. Margaret Catholic Church until the Rev. Keith Fennessy decided to sell the vacant convent to the Muslim American Society in May. The group wants to use the property on Fridays for a community center and prayer hall.

The sale, however, is in the hands of the parish's board of trustees, which includes the pastor, two lay members of the congregation, the archdiocese’s vicar general and the archbishop.

The decision to sell the convent was met with overwhelming opposition, which led Father Fennessy to write a letter in June to Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan withdrawing the pastor's support of the sale.

The parish's board of trustees has not set a meeting date to discuss the future of the property.

While the community awaits the meeting, Staten Islanders have rallied against the proposed mosque, carrying signs of protest near the property.

"This is all very shocking," said Ms. Moriello, who pointed out that Staten Island already has five mosques. "I really don't know who was thinking this was a positive move. People have been so disenchanted."

The Muslim American Society has been widely accused of having ties to the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood.

Opponents of the Staten Island sale, and critics of the Muslim American Society more generally, have zeroed in on a videotape of the society's president, Mahdi Bray, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood at a 2000 rally outside the White House. Also, the 1993 founding of the Muslim American Society involved Muslim Brotherhood members, including Mohammed Mahdi Akef, now supreme guide for the Brotherhood in Egypt, and Ahmed Elkadi, then the leader of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

Ibrahim Ramey, the human civil rights director for the Muslim American Society, defended his group as a peaceful organization in an open letter to the press.

"We know that we must overcome prejudice and fear, and even racism, just as other religious groups in this nation have confronted the same barriers," he wrote.

Ms. Safah said neighbors were angry and fearful because they know little about the organization.

"We acknowledge that people have fears, especially from an organization they have not heard of much," she said.

Protesters also have rallied against plans for a mosque in Sheepshead Bay, a neighborhood in Brooklyn.

The Muslim American Society also is funding this project, a four-story mosque and community center intended to serve 1,500 people. The site is surrounded by homes, prompting fears among residents that the mosque will cause noise, traffic and a parking shortage.

Although much of the opposition stems from quality-of-life concerns, some people are wary of the reported connections between the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Brotherhood.

"It's about the Muslim American Society," said Pamela Gellar, an author and anti-jihad and pro-Israel blogger.

"It was originally the Muslim Brotherhood and they changed the name to make it more acceptable. I can understand why [the neighborhood] would not want the Muslim Brotherhood building a huge edifice there."

The Muslim Brotherhood is an international entity founded in 1928 as a youth organization. Its primary goal is to make the Koran and associated Muslim traditions the "sole reference point" for family, society and the state. The group's headquarters are in Cairo, though the group is officially banned in Egypt.

According to its official website, the Muslim Brotherhood's objectives include efforts to "inform the masses, Muslim and non-Muslim of Islamic teachings." The organization says it opposes violence as a means of achieving political goals, though it has spawned violent offshoots and the Egyptian government accuses it of numerous killings.

Perhaps the group's most well-known member was Sayyid Qutb, whose book "Milestones" calls for using jihad to overthrow political structures in the Muslim world. His other works criticized Western society for moral and social decadence. Jihadists worldwide, including Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, cite Qutb as a formative influence.

Mr. Ramey called the backlash "religious bigotry" and "hatred."

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Obama mum on Bush's borders for Israel Tension looms over '04 letter


As Israel's prime minister prepares for his fifth official meeting with President Obama this week, the White House has declined to publicly affirm commitments made by President Bush to Israel in 2004 on the final borders of the Jewish state.

The interpretation of a 2004 letter from Mr. Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been a source of tension between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Obama.

Mr. Netanyahu is expected in the meeting on Tuesday to discuss both the prospects for direct talks with the Palestinians and whether he will renew a 10-month freeze of new settlement construction on the West Bank. Both leaders are also looking to improve the negative atmosphere of the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the past year.

The Israelis maintain that Mr. Bush's letter is the foundation for the United States to accept new construction in the Jewish settlements that encircle Jerusalem, areas that make up the vast majority of the Jewish population on the West Bank.

Mr. Obama and his White House team have fought to get Mr. Netanyahu to stop new settlement construction in Jerusalem and are hoping the Israelis will extend a new construction freeze for the West Bank that is set to expire in September.

The April 14, 2004, letter from Mr. Bush to Mr. Sharon said a final peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians should reflect "new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers," and that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Mr. Bush's letter also said Palestinians would have to agree to the final borders, yet at the time the letter was touted as a major concession by Mr. Sharon's top advisers as Israel was preparing to withdraw settlements and Israeli troops from Gaza unilaterally.

During a conference call Friday with reporters, Dan Shapiro, the White House National Security Council's senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, declined to say whether the 2004 letter reflected the Obama administration's understanding of the parameters or borders of a final settlement to the conflict.

"I don't think … we'll have a comment on these kinds of … private discussions that we're having with the parties. We have a very good understanding with our Israeli partners about the foundations of this relationship and this effort to move toward our shared goal of comprehensive peace and two states," he said.

Robert Danin, a Middle East specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Quartet — the diplomatic body that represents the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — does not recognize the commitments from Mr. Bush to Mr. Sharon either.

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

CNN reporter on terrorist: 'I respect him a lot' Mideast editor mourns death of accused mastermind behind 241 American deaths


By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



News media reports claim that in recent years Fadlallah drifted away from radical Islamist politics and has espoused policies of moderation.

However, media watchdog HonestReporting.com points out that he praised the Palestinian shooting massacre of eight Israeli students at a Jerusalem yeshiva on March 6, 2008, and has praised Iran's efforts to build long-range missiles as the "pride of the Islamic world" in 2008.

Just last week, Reuters reported that when asked what he needed by a nurse at the Lebanese hospital in which he was being treated, Fadlallah replied: "For the Zionist entity to cease to exist."

Fadlallah also has engaged in Holocaust denial.

In a March 2008 interview with Al-Manar TV Fadlallah stated, "Zionism has inflated the number of victims in this holocaust beyond imagination. They say there were six million Jews – not six million, not three million, or anything like that. ... But the world accepted this [figure], and it does not allow anyone to discuss this."

Fadlallah survived several assassination attempts, including a 1985 car bombing near his south Beirut home that killed 80 people. During Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon, Fadlallah's residence was bombed and reduced to rubble by Israeli warplanes. Fadlallah was not at home.

Nasr, meanwhile, has a history of controversial remarks on terrorism, WND has learned.

In 2006, while serving as CNN's senior editor for Arab affairs, Nasr stated in an online CNN interview that "terrorism for one person is a freedom fight for another."

"So, you know, if you think about it, 'terrorism' is a subjective term depending on which side you are on," Nasr continued.

Nasr previously worked for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, a brainchild of Lebanon's former President Bashir Gemayel. At the time of the corporation's founding in 1985, the pro-Western Gemayel was leader of the Lebanese Army.

Anti-missile treaty excludes rail-carried ICBMs 'Should Russia again deploy them, they would not be counted'


The anti-missile treaty signed recently by the United States and Russia neither covers Russia's rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles nor can its terms be verified, officials worry, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Robert Joseph, a former undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, explains that rail-mobile ICBMs will not be counted under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, even though the Obama administration regards them as accountable.

"I don't know what the Russian position is, but I do know that new START is silent on rail-mobiles," he said. "All START provisions that captured rail-mobile ICBMs were either deleted or were changed to exclude them. To me, it's inconceivable that should Russia again deploy rail-mobile ICBMs, they would not be counted."

(Story continues below)



Joseph was a leading arms control specialist during the Bush administration. He said the new treaty ends on-site inspection at Votkinsk, where Russia's ICBMs are made, and imposes limits on monitoring telemetry data from Russian missile tests.

This new treaty was to enhance verification to determine U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles.

For the full story on this report, as well as the following reports, please go to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin: