Category Archives: Homeland Security

Quick! Who’s Position is This…Bush or Giuliani???

images.jpg images1.jpg


Okay, time for a little fun. Can you guess who said the following regarding various issues??? 

U.S. Policy toward Africa

He said the United States should focus its policy toward Africa on increases in trade. “U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty.”

In May 2007, he was informed that he held between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in companies that work in Sudan.

U.S. Policy toward India

He views India’s rapidly growing economy as a potentially lucrative market, saying the United States should “take advantage” (CNBC) of the “large number of consumers that are emerging in India.” In particular, he said, the U.S. stands to “make a lot of money in India” in new energy technology.

Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay

He said he supports the detention camp at Guantanamo. He said in a June 2007 interview with the Wall Street Journal that he believes the allegations of prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo have “been grossly exaggerated, and many of the reports that I see are that it’s not terribly different from any other prisons.”

Domestic Intelligence

He defended the domestic spying initiatives, saying “he did it to protect our national security and to try to find out information about people that might attack us and might be preparing an attack on us, in order to secure us, in order to protect us.” He said in September 2007 that electronic surveillance should not be “unrealistically” limited.

War on Terror

He responded to John Edwards’ criticism of the war on terror, saying in June 2007, “This is not a bumper sticker; this war is a real war.” He generally refers to “the terrorist war against us,” lately, rather than the “war on terror,” he told TIME.

Democracy Promotion in the Arab World

He believes in a larger goal of a democratic (AFP) Iraq and Middle East. But, he says, stability takes precedence over democracy. “Democracy can’t flourish unless people are safe. You can’t have democracy when people are being killed,” he said in January 2007.

Energy Policy

He has ties to various energy companies, many of which are fossil fuel-oriented including Duke Energy Corp., the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Valero Energy Corp, and FPL Energy. He has supported increased use of nuclear power.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

He has held up Israel as “the only outpost of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the only absolutely reliable friend of the United States.” (Haaretz) In a 2002 speech, he stressed that Jerusalem must “remain the undivided capital” of Israel. He also said at that time that the Palestinian Authority is not a “moral equivalent” to the Israeli government, because “there is a difference between a nation based on law and democracy and one that harbors terrorism.” He called on the Palestinian Authority to create “institutions of political and economic freedom and religious toleration.” More recently, he said that in his view it “makes no difference” whether the Palestinian Authority is run by Hamas or Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. At a March 2007 fundraiser, he also said that the United States should “not push any peace process” until the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel’s right to exist and condemns terrorism.

North Korea Policy

He supports the policy of China placing pressure on Pyongyang. “I think the strategy has produced enough results so far that you have to stick with it,” he said. He indicated it remains unclear whether Iran or North Korea is further along in developing a nuclear weapons program.

Cuba Policy

He is critical of Castro, which he made clear recently in a speech over whether or not to return Cuban child Elian Gonzales to Cuba in 2000 (He was an outspoken voice for keeping the boy in the United States).

He also attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for following Castro’s “model.” (AP) Speaking to a group in Florida, he said the United States must build an alliance with Mexico and Colombia to counteract the shift to the left of Latin American governments.

U.S. Policy toward China

He has not made many public statements on his views of China. However, he said in an CNBC interview that limiting China ’s ownership of U.S. debt is “generally a bad idea and generally self-defeating.” He said that the U.S. should build industries that we can sell” in China.

Defense Policy

He has called for an “offense-as-a-defense” (Journal-Register)strategy towards al-Qaeda, backing the U.S. troop surge and continued presence in Iraq.

He fully advocates the addition of thirty-five thousand troops to the army’s current level of 512,000 (AP).

In September 2007, he said the United States should pursue a nuclear missile defense system, as “America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as ‘mutual assured destruction’ in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes.”


He says we need a plan by which to measure progress but that does not include troop withdrawals. “You need statistics,” (FOX) he said in January 2007. “You need to be able to determine whether or not you’ve brought the violence down. If it doesn’t work, then you got to put more people in.”

He opposes any “artificial timeline” for troop withdrawal from Iraq, which he says would be tantamount to giving America’s enemies “a printed-out list of how it’s going to retreat (ChiTrib) to its enemy.” He is steadfast in his support for the war, which he considers part of the larger global war on terror.


In October 2007 he spoke in support of the pending Free Trade Agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, saying they “would be good deals for the United States.”

Homeland Security

In a September 2006 he stressed the need for a nuclear material detection system in the United States.


He has the United States should proceed diplomatically with Iran, but that “we will use a military option if we have to.” He said a military strike would be “very dangerous”but nuclear arms in the control of “an irrational person” like President Ahmadinejad was more dangerous.

His supporters are vocal advocates for bombing Iran preemptively in order to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. 

Climate Change

He said he believes climate change exists (SFChron) and that something must be done to reduce pollution. However, he has not said outright that he believes climate change is caused by human activity. His statements with regard to policy on the issue have been rather vague.


He supports some type of path (NYT) to citizenship for illegal immigrants. “If you have twelve million people, to thirteen to fourteen to fifteen million that are here illegally, it is much easier for terrorists and drug dealers to hide,” he said recently. He also said that he is in favor of a border fence and a database with which to keep track of all immigrants. 

As mayor of New York City, Giuliani opposed a law (NYT) that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security, food stamps and health care benefits.

United Nations

He has been extremely critical of the United Nations, which, he said, “proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years.” He says the institution’s primary capabilities are in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, but “we should not expect much more of it.”

Specifically, he said the United Nations must hold accountable states that support or condone terrorism. “Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as peacekeeper,” he said. “It must ostracize any nation that supports terrorism. It must isolate any nation that remains neutral in the fight against terrorism.”

U.S. Policy toward Russia

He advocates commercial engagement with Russia, but has also expressed support for the planned missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. In October 2007 he called for an increase in military spending to “send a heck of a signal” to Russia.

Recently he traveled to Moscow to promote U.S.-Russian business relations.

And the answer is [dramatic pause…]

Rudi Giuliani

So if you vote for him, you clearly vote for more of the same neo-con nonsense. 


Fake FEMA Press Conference? What Next – Positive Testimonials at Gun Point?


White House Press Secretary Dana Perino assured reporters that the ‘staged’ news conference organized on Tuesday by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would not happen again, and said the White House would never employ such tactics at its own press briefings.

Isn’t the White House supposed to exercise oversight on FEMA Dana??? They are right? That’s what I always thought? 

Never mind. 

“It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we — we certainly don’t condone it,” said Perino.

According to a report published in the Washington Post, FEMA had instructed its own public relations staff to pose as reporters because no legitimate members of the media arrived in time for a hastily arranged briefing about the California wildfires – at least that’s the official story. 

The deputy director of FEMA gave the reasoning.

“We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute,” a FEMA deputy director of public affairs told the Post. “We pulled questions from those we had been getting from reporters earlier in the day.”

Perino said FEMA alone was responsible for the decision to go ahead with the event.

“FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regard to the wildfires in California,” she said. “It’s not something I would have condoned. And they, I’m sure, will not do it again.”

FEMA Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, who fielded questions from the stand-in “reporters,” issued a statement today admitting an “error in judgment.”

“Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received,” he said. “We are reviewing our press procedures and will make the changes necessary to ensure that all of our communications are straight forward and transparent.”

Hey Harvey…just a heads up for you guys…most competently runs government agencies simply issue a press release. You know – just let folks know what’s up? Did you really think that having fake reporters present was going to make things more convincing? What was the point? Were you guys trying to reinforce to the American people that FEMA is basically not capable of handling anything. If so you succeeded…again.  

Among the questions Johnson answered from FEMA employees was a question about the agency’s performance during the fires:

Here’s the complete list of questions asked during the fake briefing available at MSNBC’s First Read. Given the fact that no one can be sure that the answers weren’t also fake, we took the liberty of translating…

QUESTION 1: What type of commodities are you pledging to California?
“So I think we’re well ahead of the requirement and we’ll be able to make sure that all the shelters that are stood up are, in fact, all sustained and have sufficient materials and quantities of commodities to make sure they meet the demand of the people who might seek shelter.”

Translation: More moldy formaldehyde trailers at once for the homeless serfs! Just rinse that Arkansas farm mud off of them and we’re good to go!
QUESTION 2: Sir, there are a number of reports that people weren’t heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please?
“So I think you’re seeing more compliance and more conformance with expected norms of travel.”

Translation: Wildfire and the imminent threat of roasting to death in your bathtub tends to breed compliance. Fact is, we never assisted in evacuation at all.
QUESTION 3: Can you address a little bit what it means to have the president issue an emergency declaration, as opposed to a major disaster declaration? What does that mean for FEMA?
“As an emergency declaration, it allows us to provide — to open up the Stafford Act and to provide the full range of protective measures and all the things that they need now in order to address the fire, If the governor had asked for a major declaration, that would have talked about individual assistance and public assistance at greater levels. And at this point, the governor has not asked for that.”

Translation: All the shit we didn’t do for black Louisiana victims, we decided to do for white California victims. We learned from our mistakes.   
QUESTION 4: Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective? And is there anyone else traveling with them?
“..all the key leaders who are directing this effort and demonstrating a partnership through their effort will be out there at San Diego this afternoon. So I think it’s a good demonstration of support, recognizing that our role is not to usurp the state but to support the state. And they’ll demonstrate that by their presence.”

Translation: Arnold knows we suck and threatened to break Chertoff’s arms if we pulled a Katrina, so we backed off.

[Off-camera voice asks for another question)

QUESTION 5: Are you happy with FEMA’s response, so far?
“I’m very happy with FEMA’s response so far. This is a FEMA and a federal government that’s leaning forward, not waiting to react. And you have to be pretty pleased to see that.”
Translation: Well, we couldn’t f%#k things up any worse than Katrina now could we?

[Staff voice off camera: Last question.]

QUESTION: What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?
“I think what you’re really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership; none of which were present in Katrina.
“So, I think, as a nation, people should sit up and take notice that you have the worst wildfire season in history in California and look at how well the state and local governments are performing, look at how well we’re working together between state and federal partners.”

Translation: We learned a lot from Katrina. We learned that people need to eat and drink after 10 days, we learned that 50,000 people can’t share 10 bathrooms at the Superdome, we learned that Barbara Bush is out of touch and asked her not to hang around Qualcomm, and we learned not to park trailers in 12 inches of mud. Thank you. 

See Perino’s press conference here. We think it’s real. 

Makes you proud to be an American doesn’t it?

Is Spitzer Politicizing the New York State D.M.V.???


In an unprecedented move, New York governor Eliot Spitzer has issued a decree by executive order that would provide driver licenses to any and all illegal aliens in New York State. The outrage that has ensued was predictable, complete with a county clerk revolt. In fact, thirteen county clerks say  they will not abide by the executive order and five more are rumored to follow pending legal review of the order.

What puzzles me is why? Why would Spitzer do this? The language being used in the proposal conveniently doesn’t contain the word ‘illegal’ when referring to immigrants who would receive these licenses. It uses language like “immigrant workers,” and “foreign workers.” Does someone need to send Spitzer to How to be a Competent Governor 101 class? Whether Spitzer wants to acknowledge the fact or not, these people are breaking the law. They should not be rewarded, their cases should be reviewed or they should be arrested. Let’s spend money on that. Let’s pursue that. Let’s uphold the law for a change instead of caving in to cultural and ideological pressures for wrong-headed pro-immigration groups who believe that foreigners can rule the U.S. roost and impose their will on our culture, even if that means breaking the law. What does Spitzer think makes some of these countries the dysfunctional states that they are – driving people to this country in the first place? A lack of accountability to the law, that’s what!   

The fact of the matter is that these people are breaking immigration law and they are here illegally – end of story. The very idea that Spitzer or any of these other detached and outright arrogant political leaders pursue an agenda that simply looks to wish them and their conscious choice to break those laws away, is simply incomprehensible to me. The governor of one of the largest states in the union, whose civil duty it is to protect the citizenry, with arguably the most secure driver license program in the country, wouldn’t purposefully compromise the safety of New Yorkers by proposing such nonsense – not where 9/11 happened? Not in New York City – a rich target to those who wish to harm us? I believe he would, and for the worst of reasons…politics.

The fact is that immigrants, including many who are here illegally, including Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Eastern Europeans, represent a larger and larger population demographic – especially in New York City. These minorities traditionally vote Democrat, however state Republicans have been making inroads slowly over the past three election cycles. Doesn’t it make perfect sense to give these people the brass ring in exchange for votes? Put yourself in Spitzers shoes. Many of these people work, and those who are here illegally are simply potential votes…only if they have a license to register or better yet, register when they get their license right at the D.M.V.

What Spitzer fails to see in this shortsighted policy, as reflected in the clerk revolt, among whom there are several Democrats, is that his long-term political capital may be greatly eroded by the Democratic base who is largely made up of white middle income voters (who apparently don’t matter to Spitzer). However, they will matter in the next election when they decide to punish him, much like they did to Mario Cuomo, effectively ending his career. If all Spitzer sees here is votes, which is a total slap in the face to New Yorkers on it’s face, and completely disregards the laws within our adversarial legal system that are designed to protect all citizens, then maybe he should be arrested for aiding these criminals in their lawbreaking activities. If he won’t look out for us, we’ll have to look out for ourselves. In the end, the arrogance and destructive ideologically driven policies by people unfit to lead, must be quashed.

I support the New York county clerk revolt. Spitzer is a fool.             

Los Angeles Immigration Sweep is Long Over Due…


The U.S. Border Patrol in conjunction with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), rounded up 1300 illegal immigrants in the greater Los Angeles area and are in the process of arresting and/or deporting them. Over 600 in fact have already been deported.What was the reaction of pro-immigration groups? They claimed this action has separated these people from their families and will force other illegals further underground. This reaction, at least in my eyes, showcases the continued mindless defiance and total lack of respect that these groups harbor for the U.S. justice system. Many groups, in official statements, conveniently omit the fact that over 90% of all those arrested were CRIMINALS – and we’re not talking about parking violations or failure to report to court either! We ‘re talking about people who have committed multiple felonies, robbery, carjacking, assault, theft, even murder! 

Do these pro-immigration groups honestly think that average Americans are just going to swallow this element into our society and stand by while they impose their chaotic and destructive lifestyle on the public at large? I do not oppose immigration. I do oppose criminal activity that works to slowly undo a productive and safe society. These people are not just unfortunate illegals who got caught up in the snare, they are people that we do not want crowding our already dysfunctional jails. Let Mexico, Russia, Ireland, and Lithuania (all among the arrested), house their own degenerates – we’re all stocked up here thanks.    

Here are the numbers…  

Los Angeles: 187 including, 34 fugitive criminals, 56 fugitives,40 criminal non-fugitives, 57 non-fugitives

Orange: 62 including, 8 fugitive criminals, 7 fugitives, 6 criminal, non-fugitives, 41 non-fugitives

Riverside/San Bernardino: 245 including, 96 fugitive criminals, 42 fugitives, 77 criminal non-fugitives, 30 non-fugitives

Ventura: 36 including, 5 fugitive criminals, 10 fugitives,3 fugitives, 18 criminal non fugitives, 36 non-fugitives.

*Total: 530 including 143 fugitive criminals, 115 fugitives, 126 criminal non-fugitives, 146 non-fugitives. * Additionally, 797 illegal immigrants were taken from these counties’ jails. 

A secure border and common sense immigration policy would solve this issue. This action is proof that given the resources, U.S. Border patrol and other agencies can resolve this issue if the power elite really want them to.

Ex-border agents Compean and Ramos appeal Convictions..


A few months back I wrote a piece on the grossly unjust arrest and conviction of U.S. Border patrol Agents Compean and Ramos. We try to track and update past posts from time to time, so here is some new information.

These two former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling degenerate suspect, and have filed for an appeal on September 25th to overturn their convictions. They claimed they were charged with a nonexistent crime and convicted after the jury was given improper instructions by the trial judge. These facts are pretty well documented on this and other blogs.

Houston defense lawyer J. Mark Brewer said two counts of a grand jury indictment against former agents Ramos and Compean charged them under a federal statute with the discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, but the statute does not define a crime and contains only a sentencing factor to be addressed after conviction. Mr. Brewer said in a 20-page motion that the “improperly-crafted indictment” misfocused the agents, counsel and jury on a nonexistent crime of unlawful discharge of a firearm, because the agents were authorized to possess, carry and use a firearm in the normal course of their job. He said that in order to charge a crime under the government’s 10-year mandatory sentence statute, an indictment “must allege that a defendant either has used or carried a firearm…during and in relation to any crime of violence or has possessed a firearm in furtherance of such a crime.” He said the prosecution “misstated” the crime defined by federal statute. Mr. Brewer went on to say that the district court “erroneously told the jury the federal statute made it a crime for anyone to discharge a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.”

A ruling in the case is expected next month.

“This is an outrageous case of prosecutorial abuse,” said Paul Kamenar, senior executive counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, a watchdog group among eight organizations and persons who have filed briefs in support of the agents. “Instead of prosecuting the drug smuggler, the Justice Department filed a dozen felony charges against two agents trying to do their job.”

The pending appeal is being heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and seeks to overturn 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for Ramos and Compean.

These two men defending our border from criminals continue to languish in prison through beatings at the hands of illegals in prison, through solitary confinement, and through separation from family. My question continues to be this – if you can’t use a sidearm in the line of duty, even to defend yourself, then why are they issued to agents. You may as well have them carry plastic swords or something! There is demonstrative evidence in this case that these two agents at most were in danger of being shot by a drug smuggler, and at the very least attempted to stop him from fleeing using techniques learned in training. These techniques involve ‘non-lethal’ shots to the legs or feet. All of the testimony points to these conclusions, however prosecutor Johnny Sutton, through tunnel-visioned and abusive tactics, railroaded these two men into conviction for political and career related reasons. His acts are unconscionable, as is the in-action by the Bush administration regarding a potential pardon in this unfair ruling.

If Ramos and Compean are allowed to rot in a jail cell to full term, we as a nation will have sent a clear message to Mexican scumbag drug runners who pump drugs into our kids – challenge the U.S. Border Patrol because in the end, our legal system is incompetent, unjustly opportunistic, selffish, and ultimately…eats it’s own.

This action by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton and the reciprocal inaction by George Bush, is damaging the fundamental ability of our Border patrol to do it’s job efficiently and keep these types of undesirables at bay. I urge anyone reading this to visit the links below and sign one or all of the petitions to free these two innocent agents. A link to prosecutor Sutton’s contact information is listed as well. This action was wrong on every level and must be reversed. Only through numbers will the voices of reason be heard.

Free Compean and Ramos now!

Contact information for the United States Attorney’s Office – Western District of Texas