My my… more evidence bubbles to the surface that the US-Mexican border war is about more than the civil rights of illegal immigrants… or the anticipated built in voter bloc for desperate Dems. Today brings good news that the Mexican police are actively working to thwart Hezbollah’s attempt to gain a foothold there. A surveillance operation focused on Hezbollah leader, Jameel Nasr, resulted in his arrest at his Tijuana home. Nasr employed Mexican nationals with family ties to Lebanon for his Hezbollah/Mexico network.
According to the report, Mexican police mounted a surveillance operation on the group’s leader, Jameel Nasr, who traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from Hezbollah commanders there.
Police say Nasr also made frequent trips to other countries in Latin America, including a two-month stay in Venezuela in the summer of 2008.
Tijuana… a stone’s throw from southern Cal. ummm, yeah.
Apparently Mexican officials are more astute to the US-Mexico border wars being intrinsically tied to jihad than the POTUS holding down the swivel chair in the Oval Office. As I posted back on June 26th, Obama’s attempts to grant a blanket amnesty to immigrants holding expired visas was most likely going to benefit the terrorists entering this country thru Mexico using falsified documentation…. something your average, poverty stricken, field picking immigrant can’t afford to obtain.
Makes you wonder if California officials shouldn’t be looking at that AZ immigration law a bit more carefully, no?
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Big Sis, “nothing to see here, just move along” we’re too busy suing AZ.
Hmmm…. wonder if any of the Marines at Pendleton know about this guy…
Especialy those who remember MARG 2-83… and October 23, 1983.
What I find interesting is that on the surface, the idea of terrorists using Mexico as a kind of staging ground for entry into the country has been around the net for many years. Opponents of border security(i use that phrase since that is, in essence, what will happen if given their way) will hearken back to the years of Bush following 9/11 and their “knowledge” of no border security measures being undertaken. What they seem to forget is that entry into the country using the legal methods was made more difficult by increased checks on vehicles and persons. The illegal entry, those crossing the border without using the legal checkpoints on the main thoroughfares into the country, was basically left alone due to weakness of the GOP and heavy opposition of the liberals to any sort of actual actions taken to prevent it. Does Bush and the GOP share the blame for the porous border? Absolutely, but the democrats shoulder most of the blame by their continual opposition to securing the borders, specifically the southern one we share with Mexico.
Today the Obama DOJ is expected to file it’s lawsuit against AZ for it’s newly enacted state law. Coincidentally, both the federal law and, as I understand it, CA law are similar in wording to the AZ law, and if, by chance and stupidity, the AZ law is found unconstitutional and struck down, would those in CA and the federal government move to rescind their laws as well?
Can’t resist the snark …
Oh, Mata, yer misunderstandin’ Hez-boll-ah’s work, like, um … arms smugglin’, IED buildin’, teachin’ another language, etc. You know, they’re community organizin’ just like Obama.
If this terrorist is in Tijuana, it can be reasonably concluded, Hezbollah terror cells are scattered about, particularly in SoCal, awaiting their orders.
I don’t know how Big Sis can stand to look at herself in the mirror every morning when she shaves.
She is in default of her oath of office and should be held in contempt of congress for not enforcing the laws they passed.
I think he wants an event that would give him an opportunity to clamp down further.
Surprise, surprise, the DOJ has filed suit against AZ’s law, although it argues on the pretext of federal preemption and that AZ’s law usurps the federal authority in the case of immigration instead of the prevailing liberal rhetoric of discrimination.
The Obama argument being put forth now does not hold much water in several respects. For me, the biggest one is that the AZ law, as written, does not in any way take actual enforcement of federal immigration law away from ICE, but rather, allows the state to essentially force the federal government into enforcing it’s own law.
As Americans, I would hope that we, as a country, would stand behind AZ and it’s law to prevent any such cases of armed terrorists entering the country to willfully commit acts of terrorism on our home soil, let alone the illegal immigrants and all of the associated problems they entail, such as moving American wealth out of country and adding massive economic loads on state and local budgets through use of services. The terrorist angle, though, is one that not even the staunchest pro-illegal immigration defender can dismiss easily and now with an example as Mata has highlighted, it is more than just a scare tactic as many would want us to believe.
Go read the filing, its online. Its basic premise is that the President has the inherent authority and discretion about HOW or IF to enforce laws… because of how that law may impact Foreign relations.
So… it argues that Federal Law may be ignored as a matter of Policy… by the President or his Administration… and that therfore Arizona’s law, which forced the enforcement of Federal Law, infringes on the Supremacy of the Federal Government…
/grabs head to make it stop spinning…
So much for equal enforcment of the Law… and the Rule of Law (policy now trumps law)…
And thus dies the Republic… to thunderous Legal briefs…
Heads should also be spinning at the Supreme Court and even on Capitol Hill (if anyone there has any self respect left…)
Will do a post on this when I get time, but here’s the DOJ filing from SCOTUS blog, plus here’s the supporting brief, laying out their requested oral arguments.
Personally, I think this is going to leap frog right to the High Court…. Right now it’s filed in US District Court for the District of Arizona.
I just finished reading a very scary story in BigJournalism.com concerning a report on the state of border security from the House Committee on Homeland Security. The report describes the high level of sophistication achieved by the drug cartels and Mexican mafia to effectively control the border of south Texas. Not only drugs and Mexican workers are smuggled through Texas to the rest of the country. The report states that 650 potential terrorists from “special interest” countries were captured that year. Estimating that only about 10% of illegals are captured, the number of possible terrorists entering the country each year number in the thousands. The scary part (if you aren’t terrified already) is that the report was written in 2006. The border situation has deteriorated significantly since then.
On a positive note NASA administrator Charlie Bolden will not have to travel half way around the world to get terrorists to like us.
I recall reading something about how Germany used Mexico as a staging area for spies during WWI and WWII. The article made mention that Mexico as our neighbor to our south, is not really our friend, and this seems to prove it. But then any enemy of ours is a friend to this administration. NASA sure isn’t flying very high under Obama, he has given them a traitors mission. Heaven help us!
No worries – hasn’t our Glorious Leader told us that the border is secure?
What the heck…for all they know maybe Bin Laden is there too.
Always had a great time in Tijuana. Did the Hizbalah leader get caught with little boys or little girls? Any rockets land in Chuela Vista or San Diego this 4th of July?
Unfortunately, amnesty is going to happen. Even the current republicans will let it happen as soon as it is politically advantageous.
My added requirement would be that anyone receiving amnesty not be allowed to vote for 5 years. That would remove them from at least one presidential election and take at least some of the politics out of it.
The greatest threat to America is the southern threat.
I still find it hard to believe that a lot of you are still surprised when King Obama does what he does. Think backwards. He wants to tear the USA down. Look at it that way and what he does makes sense and it shouldn’t surprise us any more.
Now Smorgasbord… you don’t really mean to be insulting to the FA group when you “think” we are surprised, do you? Perhaps what you don’t get is we aren’t surprised he’s doing it. We are merely surprised he is getting away with what he does.
Following a cursory reading of the complaint and the supporting pdf, I admit, most of the legalese is over my head. But I have never known any two lawyers to be able to agree on what time of day it is, much less to agree on such a document as the complaint.
I note that the entire complaint includes the word “shall” only 3 times, only 2 times referring to the constitution. The “shall” is definitive. The statement “…a balanced, federally-directed immigration enforcement scheme” is ambiguous. I would think that courts tend to rely on the definitive and do not put much credence in the ambiguous. I pray that common sense will prevail. (Wishful thinking?)
Another salient point in the complaint is “The Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”. How can any reasonable person conclude that our executive is in compliance with that charter, not only in regard to immigration, but most of the U.S. code?
Congress should be outraged at the executive. However, the principled therein are few.
@MataHarley: No insult intended. I guess I figure I would word the stories more in the context of, “Here he goes again,” or “In typical Obama fashion,” or “No surprise, but….” I guess it is one of my pet peeves I will have to live with.
How about having a contest for what Obama will do next?
An impossibility, if you ask me. Who saw it coming that Obama would, in effect, change the mission of NASA to one of apologetic groveling at the feet of the Muslim world?
Will Edwards: You may be right – each party has its own reasons for wanting open immigration, and they both have a similar reason:
“Immigration and Usurpation”
The writer may be way off base, but his arguments seem pretty sound.
As far as what the effects of unlimited immigration are, here’s a good recent example:
“SOUTHEAST of Los Angeles city limits, along the 710 Freeway, is Maywood, a relatively tiny city of 45,000. This 1.2-square-mile city offers some hard lessons for its municipal neighbors as it is dismantled due to poor management.
Half of Maywood’s residents are illegal immigrants, …”
Here’s the Cit Council:
Mayor Ana Rosa Rizo
Vice-Mayor Veronica Guardado
Councilmember Felipe Aguirre
Councilmember Thomas Martin
Councilmember Edward Varela
“Many Americans today understand the perspective of Maywood CA. “How can you deport so many unlawful residents? It is better to allow them to wait for amnesty than it is to deal with the logistics and expense of deportation.” This is true until you reach the pinnacle of all economic realities; bankruptcy. Most detrimentally impacted are not those in the country unlawfully, but those legal residents that have had the pursuit of the American Dream derailed by the justification that “unlawful” is somehow right and just.
A marriage of the NRA and NASCAR, without interference from the Fed, will solve the border problem nicely.
@johngalt: That would just make the contest more interesting. Just how far will this guy go to show that he doesn’t care about the USA.
For example, who would have thought that he is shying away from the honorary position of “President Of The Boy Scouts?” That would be worth a lot of points if someone got it right.
@billyjoebob: The NRA has joined the democrats. They want to shut down other gun organizations and the democrats struck a deal with them that will help them do it.
Yes Smorg, the NRA thinks they can catually play footsies with the dems and that it will help them later. They are sadly mistaken. The dems will vote to ban guns the first chance they get when they think they can get away with it.
As for the lawsuit against SB 1070, here’s my prediction.
The AZ judge will toss it. Clinton would not have approved her for the spot if she wasn’t on their team. It will go to the appeals court. If it’s the 9th, they will agree with the fed govt. It will go to the SCOTUS and AZ will win.
Kind of makes this video of a Kuwaiti Professor’s speech a little more relevant: