U.S. Worsens Mexican Violence by Returning Criminal Aliens to Border Cities, Mexican Mayors Say

Just so we don't confuse this issue, can this possibly be correct? Mexico wants the US to keep their bad guys because if we return them, they will cause trouble in Mexico?

WAKE UP AMERICA!! If our administration isn't telling Mexico to take a flying leap, we have completely lost our minds (and cojones)!

May 25, 2010: Shackled Mexican immigrants ride in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bus for deportation in Harlingen, Texas.

A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence.

The request was made at a recent San Diego conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues.

Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city's violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records -- including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers.

Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border.

But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement transports a majority of Mexican criminal aliens back to Mexico on buses. Since they're often held in U.S. detention centers near the border prior to deportation, busing them to Mexican border cities is much less expensive than flying them to the interior of the country.

Those convicted of crimes in the U.S. are required first to fulfill "any sentence imposed by the U.S. courts,"  ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice told FoxNews.com. 

She said all of the deportees are then inspected by Mexican immigration authorities when they arrive in Mexico, and if they are wanted for crimes in Mexico, they are also met by representatives from the Mexican Attorney General’s Office. 

But if they don't have charges pending against them in Mexico, they are free men and women once they cross the border regardless of what they have done in the U.S. 

Despite that, ICE says it recognizes the threat posed by Mexico's cartel-related crime and has been working closely with Mexican authorities to address it.

"Earlier this year, ICE suspended the removal of Mexican nationals with criminal records to Ciudad Juarez," Kice said. "…In addition to dedicating unprecedented manpower, technology and infrastructure resources to the border, ICE has also collaborated with Mexico to adapt its removal procedures in response to safety considerations."

And while criminal aliens continue to be repatriated to Mexico at other locations along the border, Kice said, "those removals are coordinated closely with Mexican authorities and advance notification is provided prior to the return of convicted violent offenders."

Juan Hernandez, founder of the Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and former director of Mexico's Presidential Office for Mexicans, says he's spoken to the border city mayors, and they don't believe the U.S. is doing enough.

"Mexico believes that individuals who commit crimes in the United States should be prosecuted in the United States and not sent to Mexico to continue their performing of crimes," he told FoxNews.com.

Critics of the Mexican lawmakers say the U.S. is prosecuting the criminals in question, and if Mexico wants to keep them out of its border towns, then it should be up to Mexico to lock them up or transport them elsewhere.

"It's almost perverse that foreign officials would blame us for sending their criminals back to their country. Sovereignty entails responsibility. This country needs to take responsibility for its own criminals, and other countries -- Mexico included -- need to take responsibility for their own criminals and deal with them," Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told FoxNews.com.

But Hernandez, a dual citizen of both the U.S. and Mexico, says the U.S. can't wash its hands of this issue.

"The border will never totally be shut down because we don't want that to happen in the United States. Mexico is our second most important trading partner, there are close to one million people crossing legally every day between Mexico and the United States," Hernandez told FoxNews.com. "So we can be strict to the letter of the law and say these criminals are Mexico's problem, but it's not just their problem because it will come back to haunt the United States."

Melhman says in some cases it may be worth spending the extra time and money to fly criminals to the Mexican interior to lower the risk of them coming back over the border. But that decision, he says, needs to be made because it's deemed to be in the best interest of the U.S., not because of pressure from Mexico.

"Every day, American citizens are victimized by illegal alien criminals because, for political reasons, our government refuses to enforce immigration laws," he said. "…We need to put resources into protecting our own interests and making sure violence doesn't spread across our border."

Asked whether ICE planned to make any changes to its deportation policy since the conference, Kice simply said, "While ICE has suspended criminal alien removals to Cuidad Juarez, criminal aliens continue to be repatriated to Mexico at other locations along the border and to the interior of the country."

Article by Diane Mecedo, FoxNews

Ron Paul’s Pledge to America (Video)

The Republican Party has a history of using desperate times to call for drastic measures and when bailing out AIG, bolstering Medicare or bombing Iraq, that party has always been willing to go big and bold on some of the largest government expansions in this nation’s history. But what about cutting government? You know, that stuff GOP politicians always talk about during election time?

One might think that in a political environment in which so many are desperate to reverse what they see as unsustainable government growth, Republican rhetoric might at least attempt to reflect that desperation. But when GOP leaders unveiled their “Pledge to America” last week, the only thing revealed is that these Republicans remain what they have always been-pansies. In a nutshell, the old Republican guard now pledges to save America from the excesses of Obama by basically returning to the level of government we experienced under Bush-when these exact same Republicans were doubling the size of government. The pledge reflects little substance, there’s not even anything about a balanced budget amendment or earmarks-two longstanding but fairly tame Republican gripes-and some of it even promotes GOP statism, with promises to repeal and “replace” national healthcare, and of course, to spend even more money on a “defense” budget that already accounts for half the earth’s military spending.

From the Contract with America in 1994 to the Pledge to America last week, the GOP has broken every contract or pledge it has ever made with conservatives. Now these same Republicans have made another empty promise, similar but even less appealing than the lies they’ve told in the past. 

This “pledge” is a joke.

When asked to give his take on the Pledge to America, Congressman Ron Paul stated the obvious on FOX Business, “I don’t hear enough precise things we would cut. I never hear that the military-industrial-complex should be addressed. I don’t ever hear that the discretionary and non-discretionary funding is all the same. I never hear which departments they really want to get rid of, so, it goes on and on and you just can’t have a little tinkering on the edges… as long as we want big government you can’t tinker with the edges.”

Tinkering indeed. 

In a Tea Party environment in which so many are tired of conventional GOP politicians screwing around with the peripheral and irrelevant, why shouldn’t conservatives look to the one Republican who has never screwed around? Instead of wondering if John Boehner is now serious, trying to figure out what Sarah Palin is saying, hoping that Scott Brown turns out to be something special, looking for something worthwhile about Newt Gingrich or wondering which version of Mitt Romney might run for president, why shouldn’t those serious about limiting government get fully behind the one conservative leader who has always been dead serious?

Congressman Ron Paul’s pledge to America is over three decades old and was taken the day he was sworn into office, or as he explained during a 2007 Republican presidential debate: “Hello, my name is Ron Paul. I am a congressman from Texas serving in my tenth term. I am the champion of the Constitution.” Virtually every Republican claims to be for the Constitution, but most with the moral authority of a cheating husband claiming to be a champion of marriage. Paul’s unwavering fidelity to this nation’s founding charter and his peers rampant infidelity can measured by the countless votes in which the Texas congressman stood as the sole opposition to the entire House of Representatives. This distinction is important as so many new Tea Party candidates are now criticized by the mainstream for being “extreme” in suggesting that we should follow the Constitution to the letter of the law, including dismantling the IRS, phasing out Social Security or abolishing the Department of Education. Such constitutionally-minded, nuts-and-bolts suggestions should be included in any serious conservative “pledge” to America-and have all been advocated by Paul his entire career.

To that extent that some conservatives may take issue with aspects of Paul’s constitutional philosophy is more often an invitation for self-examination. For example, many say they like Paul but part ways on foreign policy. Fair enough, but in supporting undeclared wars, the PATRIOT Act and forever empowering the Executive branch, such conservatives shouldn’t delude themselves that they actually stand for the Constitution or limited government in any substantive manner. In fact, they stand with the bulk of the Republican Party, who’ve also long made these constitutional exceptions, along with countless others, and not-so-curiously helped expand government every bit as much as the Democrats. Most Republicans claim to be for the Constitution-”but”-with the biggest “but” typically being a ridiculous and unnecessary foreign policy that costs as much as anything else the Tea Party now targets. Paul has always been for the Constitution, period, no “buts” about it.

So how comprehensively constitutional are conservatives willing to be? Those who wrote the Pledge to America obviously aren’t the least bit serious even as the Tea Party continues to show unprecedented conservative will. If the big government establishment now considers the Tea Party too radical, perhaps conservatives en masse should finally and fully consider the constitutional philosophy of the one man that establishment has also long considered too radical-and for the same reasons. There’s a reason Ron Paul’s influence continues to rise in conjunction with the rise of the Tea Party and to the extent that the movement adopts his philosophy, it will pledge itself to limiting government in a far more serious and comprehensive manner than it would listening to any other figure who now speaks in its name.

Article by The American Conservative

Obama: Born in the USA? NOT! (Video)

Hawaii Dems Button-Lipped on Obama Eligibility Status. Doc Missing Statement Candidate 'Qualified' Under U.S. Constitution

It long has been documented that when Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidential candidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Now a series of blogs reports are heating up the issue again, this time revealing documents that showed it apparently was Hawaii's local Democratic Party that refused to include that certification on its paperwork naming Obama as its candidate.

Even today, the Hawaii Democratic Party was staying mum, declining attempts by WND to obtain a comment on why it handled the 2008 presidential race paperwork as it did. 

The original report came from a commentator at Canada Free Press who revealed the Democrats failed to certify their candidate's eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.

"In most states," writer JB Williams said at the time last year, "it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false."

As WND reported, Williams released copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify  Obama as their nominee for president. One contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility, filed in Hawaii where state law requires the specific language, and another omits the language, filed in the remaining 49 states.

Now a series of reports, including those from blogger JBJD, the butterdezillion blog, Obama Release Your Records blog and the Fellowshipofminds blog, are revealing the local state party's stance in 2008.

The blog reports cite each other, as well as apparent Democratic Party documents posted online from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections.

The images reveal the change in wording that Hawaii Democrats adopted when Obama was their candidate.

In choosing Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000, this was their statement:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held March 7, 2000 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 14-17, 2000 in Los Angeles, California."

Article by Bob Unruh, WND

Town Hall Questioner To Obama: 'I'm Exhausted Of Defending You' (Video)

WELL DEAR....AREN'T WE ALL??

Government Report Cites ACORN Offshoot for 'Ineligible' Payments, Grant Problems

From A Tiny ACORN Does A Mighty Scandal Grow

An official report released this week says an ACORN offshoot group cannot properly account for how it has spent millions of federal dollars and recommends that the group repay the government and be put on standby mode until it cleans up its act.

The report from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development reviewed how ACORN Housing Corporation -- now called Affordable Housing Centers of America -- has spent federal grant money over the past two decades. The report described the group's book-keeping as "problematic and unsupported," and claimed that more than $65,000 in "ineligible" salary expenses were charged to a federal grant last year, including costs for six employees after they were terminated. 

The report said more than $19 million from HUD went to the organization since 1995, and that about 80 percent of the $3.25 million received between 2008 and 2009 went toward salaries. 

"For continued approval as a HUD-approved housing counseling agency and for future awards consideration, AHC must bring its operations into full compliance with applicable laws," the IG report said, recommending that it be placed on "inactive" status by the federal housing department. 

The study is the latest blow to the beleaguered low-income advocacy group ACORN and its offshoots. After Congress voted to cut funding to the main organization following the release of undercover videos that showed its workers appearing to help a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, the organization's affiliates and chapters have been reorganizing under different names. 

ACORN Housing Corporation, which was formed in 1985 by ACORN organizers, changed its name this year to Affordable Housing Centers of America. 

The IG report recommended that the organization reimburse the government for the $65,000 in "ineligible" expenses -- and either provide support for other salary costs or reimburse that money as well. 

A memo released Sept. 7 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed that the group should either "provide documentation" to support its expenses or reimburse the government. 

The department "will evaluate if inactive 'status' is warranted," the memo said. 

In response, a representative for Affordable Housing Centers of America wrote in a Sept. 10 letter to the inspector general's office that "almost all" personnel records unavailable during the audit "have now been located." The response also said the group instituted an "electronic time-keeping system" to record how grant money is applied -- a reform that "satisfies" one of the recommendations in the report. 

The response said the organization "does not dispute" that expenses for terminated employees, as well as expenses for prior-year costs, were "erroneously charged" to the federal government. 

However, Affordable Housing Centers of America argued that it should not have to repay the money because the group "incurred substantial other allowable costs" last year that it did not charge to Washington. 

"Importantly, none of the findings suggest that funds were misused or that counseling work was not performed," the response said, adding that the group will work "constructively" to improve its operation. 

The inspector general study was requested by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

"It doesn't matter if it's $10 or $10,000 -- there is no acceptable amount of abuse or mismanagement that the federal government should tolerate when it comes to the taxpayers' dollars," Issa said in a written statement.

FoxNews

UFOs Visited Nuclear Weapons Sites, Former US Air Force Officers Say (Video)

More Secrets Being Kept From Us By Big Brother??

UFOs have monitored and possibly tampered with American nuclear weapons, according to a group of former Air Force officers who will make their claims public next week at a Washington, D.C., news conference.

"While most of the incidents apparently involved mere surveillance, in a few cases, a significant number of nuclear missiles suddenly and simultaneously malfunctioned, just as USAF security policemen reported seeing disc-shaped craft hovering nearby," says Robert Hastings, author of "UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites."

On Monday, at the National Press Club, Hastings will present six former Air Force personnel who will break their silence and disclose dramatic first-hand experiences with UFOs at nuclear weapons sites.

In a statement, Hastings said, "At long last, all of these witnesses are coming forward to say that, as unbelievable as it may seem to some, UFOs have long monitored and sometimes tampered with our nukes."

Hastings' co-host for the news conference, ICBM launch officer Capt. Robert Salas, was witness to a UFO incident in 1967 that, he says, caused a missile disruption at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, and he was ordered to keep quiet about it.

"The Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases, and we can prove it," Salas said.

  
Disclose.tv - Larry King: UFOs shutting down Military Sites 1/4 Video

Another officer scheduled to appear at Monday's conference, Col. Charles Halt, witnessed a disc-shaped object shooting beams of light onto the joint Anglo/American RAF Bentwaters airbase in England in 1980. The lights were reportedly near the base's nuclear weapons storage area.

"I believe that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted -- both then and now -- to subvert the significance of what occurred at RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."

Along with the other officers who will be on hand to support this remarkable UFO agenda, Hastings says that he and the auspicious military group will discuss the national security implications of these and other UFO incidents, and they will urge the government to come clean about the subject.

In addition to declassified U.S. government documents that will be offered at the event, the group plans to address the following questions:

• Why do UFOs continue to appear at nuclear weapons sites, decade after decade?
• What might these incursions indicate about the intentions and goals of those who presumably pilot these craft?
• Why has the U.S. government chosen to keep the American public, and people everywhere, in the dark about these dramatic developments?

 Article by Lee Speigel, AOLNews

The Forgotten Man (Video)

This painting by artist Jon McNaughton is the epitome of the saying: "A Picture Paints a Thousand Words" 

In this case it also paints the suffering of a nation. 

What has Obama done?

What are YOU willing to do to change things?