by Justin Kapacinskas

The “illegal” immigration debate, especially over Arizona’s SB1070, is a contentious and emotional one. Many people are rightfully concerned that an extra-constitutional “North American Union” — in which our country’s “sovereignty” is compromised — is taking form, while the living standard of Americans in general falls to a third-world threshold. It is a widely held, albeit misguided belief that this is largely because of a perceived mass-influx of undocumented and largely unskilled and under-educated Mexican immigrants into the territory of the continental United State [sic]. However, the facts do not necessarily bear this out.

Here’s the thing: If you haven’t noticed, the “Federal” government ruling us is already a kleptocratic, unitary thug-state like its bailout-buddy, the government ruling Mexico. No “illegals” were required to cross the border for the supra-national government ruling us to “bailout” the Mexican peso in 1994. The corporate-managed communist regime ostensibly headquartered in Washington, D.C. didn’t need any “illegals”  to enable its costly, immoral, counterproductive, and unconstitutional “war on drugs” south of the border.

Hmmm, now how could the government ruling us just shell out billions in dinero to the corrupt Mexican government? Oh yea, through the IMF, the International Bank of Settlements, and the prime enabler of corrupt, lawless, Big Government politicians in Washington, DC — the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve System: not staffed by "illegals"

You’ll please note that the Fed fiat-money-sovereign is not ostensibly run by “illegals”, the punitive-populist term used for human beings with God-given, unalienable Rights (such as the presumption of innocence) who are “undocumented” by the government ruling us (read: not bearing an indexed tax-slave ID). Although English isn’t the “official language” spoken at the 12 regional branches of the Federal Reserve; inflation (also known as “theft”) is. Are you listening?

Many, if not most of the actions undertaken on our behalf by the central planners at the Federal Reserve are undocumented — that is, not published for consumption by hapless tax-victims — and secretively carried out behind closed doors, such as transfer payments to undisclosed corporations and banks — in the form of perhaps more than $23.7 trillion in taxpayer-subsidized “loans” and bailouts — and, of course, its undisclosed agreements with FOREIGN governments and FOREIGN central banks.

If you haven’t figured it out, the “illegals” cannot and will not impose a welfare state, a nanny state,  a police state, a surveillance state, a warfare state, and a worldwide empire. Only the bloated and grotesque government ruling us can manage to do all of those things.

For the cost of one MP3 download you can make a difference in the life of a patriot in need.

Also, check out:

ACTION UPDATE: Waking up 600,000 Americans- http://blip.tv/file/3906161

ACTION ALERT: Time To Go On The Offensive- http://blip.tv/file/3882575

“The cargo finally being processed for delivery this week consists of supplies prevented by Israel from entering Gaza for the last three years. On the MV Rachel Corrie, the cargo ship of the Free Gaza Movement, we were carrying 20 tons of paper, plus pens & books for schools & universities, over 50 tons of medical supplies & 550 tons of cement for Al Shifa Hospital.  Instead of docking in Gaza & distributing the supplies to the intended recipients, Israel impounded cargo, searched, then handed over to an overburdened UN, who can give no guarantees that it will get to the intended schools or NGO’s.”  said Niamh Moloughney, coordinator of the Free Gaza Movement – Ireland.

The Rebuilding Alliance, one of the U.S. organizations to place humanitarian cargo on the Rachel Corrie is none-the-less hopeful that the backpacks, sports equipment, and building materials donated by hundreds of Americans will be delivered to the designated Gaza non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).

“When we first learned of the Freedom Flotilla, we asked our partner NGO’s in Gaza what we could send that would matter most to them, given the 3 year-long blockade,” said Donna Baranski-Walker, Executive Director of the Rebuidling Alliance, a San Mateo CA-based nonprofit. “They asked Americans to send messages to children, along with backpacks, sports equipment, and cement to build a kindergarten.”

Added Ms. Moloughney, “Israel has insisted that cargo be brought into Ashdod for delivery, but this ignores the overall illegitimacy of Israel’s closure policy. It also means that once more Israel profits from its illegal acts.  The ‘easing’ of the blockade means nothing to families whose homes and businesses are still in ruins and allows them only to be consumers of Israeli goods.”

The Free Gaza Movement repeats that only a complete end to Israel’s punitive closure policy will suffice in starting to repair the economy of this decimated slice of the Mediterranean, the only territory in the world that does not have access to its own sea.

“We ask people throughout the world to press their governments to open Gaza, not just for aid but for movement and trade as well, to truly end the collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population,” said Huwaida Arraf, chair of the Free Gaza Movement. “That’s why we will continue to send ships to Gaza loaded with civilian supplies Israel refuses to allow into Gaza – and on return, fill our ships with goods from Gaza for export.  We look forward to international cooperation in developing a sea route certification system to assure aid, fair trade and the safety of all.”

Israel continues to hold all of the vessels that it illegally commandeered, including the seven ships of the Freedom Flotilla, as well as the Spirit of Humanity, which Israel hijacked in June 2009.

Prison Planet

The Wikileaks revelations about murderous collusion between Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and the Afghan Taliban have underlined the central role that country plays in the sponsorship of terrorism. This is despite the US disbursing $1 billion a year to enable the Pakistanis to fight it. In this respect, it would seem that enemies like Iran or Syria are a secondary problem.

Let’s not forget, too, that Pakistani weddings seem to be the preferred excuse for British jihadists – as well as for the likes of would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad – to visit the many terrorist training camps there.

Although Pakistani collusion with terrorists is a deplorable fact of life for Western forces fighting the Afghan Taliban, we have a simultaneous dependence on Pakistan’s tacit collusion in aerial drone strikes on al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. This has ensured that it was David Cameron, speaking in Bangalore on his trip to India, who criticised Pakistan’s “export of terror”, rather than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was right to do so.

Pakistan is the world’s most dangerous source of international terrorism, responsible for 70 per cent of conspiracies to bring murder and mayhem to Britain, not forgetting serial atrocities perpetrated in India. Whereas Saudi Arabia has finally got a grip on its indigenous jihadists (after blithely allowing them to slaughter people elsewhere), Pakistan’s weak democracy and powerful military – within which the ISI nestles like a parasite – seem powerless to grip a problem which threatens not only its neighbours, but through a large diaspora, Western domestic security, too.

The conventional wisdom is that this problem only dates back to the 1980s, when the ISI was co‑opted into a broader Western (and Saudi) campaign to encourage Islamic resistance against the atheist Soviets in Afghanistan. That idea enables many Leftists to spout cheap theories that the CIA was responsible for creating al‑Qaeda, a movement whose origins in fact lie in the domestic politics of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Others, such as the Indian journalist Sadand Dhume, argue that the problem stems from Pakistan having Islam inscribed in its identity, from the green crescent flag to former prime minister Zulfikar Bhutto’s advertisement of “an Islamic Bomb”. Pan-Islamism is in the country’s DNA, they argue, in ways that are simply not true of other Muslim states such as Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia or Turkey. Without Islam, the self-styled “Land of the Pure” is an unjustifiable congeries of regions cobbled from the wreckage Mountbatten left in British India.

Whatever the truth, Pakistan is host to a bewildering array of terrorist movements. They include Baluchi and Punjabi separatists, Kashmiri irredentists (who would like to annex Indian Kashmir); the Afghan Taliban, whose leadership around Mullah Omar is believed to be in Quetta; remnant al-Qaeda, presumed to be in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; and the Pakistani Taliban, whose intention is to convert Pakistan into a strictly Islamist state.

The Pakistani state has consistently indulged those groups which ostensibly conform to its strategic interests, notably in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The familiar excuse is that these are “freedom fighters” rather than terrorists. That is why although Lashkar-e-Taiba is widely known to have been responsible for the atrocity in Mumbai, it continues to operate inside Pakistan, allegedly as a religious charitable organisation, while sundry terrorists have either escaped from custody or dodged the executioner after being convicted. The perceived closeness to India of the Karzai regime in Kabul explains the favour Pakistan shows towards the Afghan Taliban. This is partly a reflection of Pashtun solidarity, but also of a longer-term aim of strengthening its defences for any major confrontation with India.

One imagines that the spooks of the ISI thought they were being outrageously Machiavellian in their multiple dealings with terrorists they construed as freedom fighters. They would not be alone. Of course, terrorism has had a baleful impact on Pakistan itself. While from 2003 to 2008, some 13,185 Pakistanis were killed by terrorists, the figure for 2009 was 11,585, victims of 723 major incidents. The state itself has come under direct attack, including the murder of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 and an assault on the army headquarters in Rawalpindi after the military belatedly acted against indigenous Taliban with selective rigour.

Two questions present themselves. Are enough conditions being attached to that $1 billion a year that the West disburses on Islamabad? And what contingency planning is there should the feeble, nuclear-armed, Pakistani state succumb to the incubuses its own elites have played such a deplorable role in creating?

Telegraph U.K.

The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ’s alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers’ ballots will arrive too late to be counted.

“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.”

Adams, a conservative blogger (www.electionlawcenter.com) who gained national attention when he testified against his former employer after it dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, called the DOJ’s handling of the MOVE Act akin to “keystone cops enforcement.”

“I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”

The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific “undue hardship” in enforcing it.

Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law. Click here to read the letter.

“Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted,” Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. ”But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.

“For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience.”

In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ’s voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.

According to the meeting’s minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”

Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”

He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states’ eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements.

“If a state is not in compliance with the statute, there is little room for “dialogue” or negotiation, and the Voting Section should take immediate steps to enforce the law and safeguard military and overseas voting rights, including pursuing litigation whenever necessary,” Cornyn wrote. “The comments by the DOJ official, as reported in the NASS minutes, appear to ignore Congress’ clear legislative language and could facilitate the disenfranchisement of our men and women in uniform.”

Cornyn, who discussed Eversole’s allegations at a meeting with Defense Department officials last week, called for Holder to immediately provide guidelines to state election officials; to ensure that states are required to abide by the law; and to provide Cornyn himself with a state-by-state breakdown of which states have already applied for waivers and which are expected to be in noncompliance with MOVE in the November midterm election. He also called for full transparency in the waiver process.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Xochitl Hinojosa, declined to comment, other than to say Cornyn’s letter is being reviewed.

FoxNews.com obtained waiver applications submitted by Washington and Hawaii.

Defense Department spokeswoman Major April Cunningham told FoxNews.com that New York, Delaware, Maryland, Alaska and Virgin Islands had also applied for waivers. (Cornyn’s co-sponsor for the MOVE Act was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.)

“All waivers are currently under review. The Defense Department must respond, under the law, after consultation with the Department of Justice, no later than 65 days before the election, which is August 29, 2010,” said Robert Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

“The voting section has taken this haphazard approach to enforcing military voting law,” said Eversole. “The voting section is asserting itself into statute to make a statute that’s not ambiguous, ambiguous. Can you imagine any other agency giving prospective defendants advice like this?”

“Everybody in Washington knows it doesn’t matter how good the law is; it comes down to who’s enforcing it,” said Adams. “This stuff should be transparent and online for the citizens of these states to comment on, the fact that it’s being done behind closed doors tells you everything you need to know about how it will affect the voters.”

Adams and Eversole separately pointed out that the DOJ’s website lacks any mention of the MOVE Act. In fact, the section on military voting includes the outdated and nonbinding 30-day recommendation for sending out ballots. There is no mention of the the current 45-day mandate.

But the DOJ’s online voting section includes a detailed section devoted to helping felons learn how get their voting rights back.

“It is just offensive to most Americans that we can send soldiers to the front lines but they can’t vote,” said Eversole. “This is an issue that tugs at the heartstrings of America and people can’t understand why we can’t get that right. This is something we have to get right.  We should be fighting as hard for their rights as they’re fighting for ours.”

FOX News

According to the Denver Post, Buck was caught on tape saying in June, “Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I’m on camera.” He added, laughing: “God, what am I supposed to do?”

Buck was speaking to a Democratic operative who had secretly recorded the conversation.

Buck, who enjoys strong support from the Tea Party movement, has since somewhat walked back the remarks, though he focused on language, not content.

“I’m not suggesting the language was appropriate,” Buck told the Post today. “But after 16 months of being on the campaign trail, I was tired and frustrated that I can’t get that message through that we are going to go off a cliff if we don’t start dealing with this debt.”

In separate comments on Sunday, Buck said the so-called “Birthers” have been distracting his campaign from more important issues like the economy. Earlier this year, he suggested that he may support legislation that would ensure presidential candidates are U.S. citizens, but he has since shied away from the issue.

Jane Norton, Buck’s chief rival in the state’s Republican primary, quickly jumped on his remarks. In a statement, she said, “My opponent has given more profanity-laced tirades than he has specifics on reforming our unaffordable system of entitlement.” She added: “Ken Buck’s childish insults about tea partiers once more raise the question: exactly who is Ken Buck, and can we really trust him? And just as pointedly, does Ken Buck have the temperament and character to be a United States Senator?”

But Lu Busse, who runs the 9/12 Project Colorado Coalition, told an NBC affiliate in Denver that while she wishes Buck had used better language, she understands that he misspoke.

“He could have not called us a name,” said Busse. “It would have been better to say, ‘Why do these people’ and he shouldn’t have used a bad name, but I don’t see it as he meant anything personal to me or to the other people in the Tea Party movement. It was just an unguarded moment and he was frustrated.”

This is not the first time Buck has caused a stir for making questionable comments. Buck found himself in the midst of controversy last week after Norton released a campaign spotlighting Buck’s comment that voters should vote for him because he doesn’t “wear high heels.”

A week earlier, Buck was criticized after saying the following about former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who said that the biggest threat to the country was Mr. Obama: “[I] can’t believe that guy [Tancredo] opens his mouth.”

CBS News

Giant life-insurance companies have figured out a way to hold onto death benefits owed to bereaved families, including parents and spouses of U.S. soldiers killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a six-month investigation appearing in the September issue of Bloomberg Markets magazine.

“MetLife and Prudential lead the way in making hundreds of millions of dollars in secret profits every year on money that belongs to relatives of those who die,” a Bloomberg news release says.

“Survivors of service men and women are told they’ll get a $400,000 life insurance payout. They don’t. Instead, Prudential keeps their money. Families are surprised when they receive what looks like a checkbook. Prudential promises to hold the money in safekeeping for as long as families would like, saying it will pay them 0.5 percent interest.”

Bloomberg continues: “What Prudential doesn’t say is that it’s keeping survivors’ money in Prudential’s corporate investment account. … Nor are families told that they could earn more than twice as much interest by opening FDIC-insured money market accounts at banks across the country.”

In a response to Bloomberg, Prudential spokesman Bob DeFillippo said: “For some families, the account is the difference between earning interest on a large amount of money and letting it sit idle.”

MetLife spokesman Joseph Madden told magazine: “The feedback from customers has been overwhelmingly positive. … We afford beneficiaries security, peace of mind and time to make an informed decision — while earning interest in the interim.”