Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

At the end of the Bush administration and for the first few months of the Obama administration, illegal immigration from Mexico was on a downward spiral. It was a combination of better border enforcement and the calamitous downturn in the American economy. Those illegals who came here for work began to realize jobs were few and far between. Fewer illegals came, many returned home.

Yet with little change in the economy, the numbers are creeping back up. If jobs aren’t the reason for the increases, something else must be. The biggest reason is the illegal-friendly Obama administration and the Democratic Party’s pandering to Hispanic voters. The administration has dodged or reinterpreted Congressional action to set up a lengthy series of rules which make crossing the border illegally easier and staying less uncomfortable. What it couldn’t get in Congress with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform (aka “amnesty”) and the Dream Act it is accomplishing administratively and bureaucratically.

The administration talks about its achievements in deporting illegals, but the record hardly supports the claim. While talking deportation numbers with one side of his mouth, President Obama talks “prosecutorial discretion” out of the other side. Under current law, deported illegal immigrants must remain outside of the United States for a minimum of three years before returning under some legal plan. The administration has acted to change that rule using a “hardship” exception. If the illegal already has legal relatives living in the United States, he can claim his absence would pose a hardship for the family. It’s an Alice in Wonderland kind of reasoning, but you can bet that immigration authorities will find the exception nearly every time as long as this administration remains in power.

Another new rule imposed is that once caught, a large majority of illegals who have not run up a criminal record will go to the end of the deportation line. And while remaining in the country they can build up “longevity credits” putting them closer to the magic legalization goal. In major cities, where most illegals end up, this will mean a large number of very dangerous people being allowed to stay. Most of America’s big city immigration magnets are “sanctuary cities,” or cities so overwhelmed by crime that they simply can’t keep up. In sanctuary cities, criminal activity is not reported to the federal authorities unless there has been a conviction. In San Francisco, youthful offenders are rarely reported at all, and adults are reported only after being convicted of major violent felonies.

And then there’s the simple issue that if you can’t get in through the door, sneak in through the window. The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2011 only 15% of the border with Mexico was under full Border Patrol control. Another 44% is not under full control, but is counted as being under “operational” control. That means that 41% of the border is under minimal or no control. That’s about 800 miles of unprotected border. That would be bad enough. But when individual states have attempted to assist the federal government in enforcing border control, the feds have either ignored their efforts or sued the states for interfering in a federal prerogative.

Arizona has been a primary target of administration ire. While the state is losing $2.7 billion in enforcement and public services losses during the period from 2009 to the present, it has been the whipping boy for the Obama administration for simply passing legislation which is designed to do the job the feds either can’t or won’t do. Yet the Arizona statutes take no power from nor do they create parallel immigration power with the federal government. They simply create the mechanism by which the state can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

Still, the Obama administration felt it wasn’t doing enough to support illegal immigration and fast-track legalization. It remedied that lack by appointing immigration enthusiast Andrew Lorenz-Strait to the post of public advocate for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Another czar. And it’s the first time ever that an administration of either party has created a position which essentially advocates for illegals. The very agency charged with the enforcement of immigration law will effectively have a man who will act as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for illegals.

Lorenz-Strait previously advocated for cuts to the ICE budget of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which helps states cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. The President’s crazed budget announced just after his State of the Union address includes this cut—to the tune of $170 million. Lorenz-Strait is off to a good start.

The pandering appears to be paying off. Obama won about 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and his reelection campaign committee is predicting that number could increase to 73% in 2012. I think that’s an exercise in radical optimism, but surely the pandering isn’t hurting his popularity among Hispanic voters.

Immigration will not be the big issue of the 2012 campaign, but it can’t be ignored. Any Republican presidential candidate is going to need good answers to questions about immigration. A “get ‘em out now” approach may appeal to many nativists, but it could be utter disaster in the general election. Comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue, but the Obama administration will try to paint anything short of amnesty as racism and jingoism. It must be addressed, but in realistic and humane terms. It is quite possible to reassure Hispanic voters without caving in to the open borders crowd.

At the end of the Bush administration and for the first few months of the Obama administration, illegal immigration from Mexico was on a downward spiral. It was a combination of better border enforcement and the calamitous downturn in the American economy. Those illegals who came here for work began to realize jobs were few and far between. Fewer illegals came, many returned home.

Yet with little change in the economy, the numbers are creeping back up. If jobs aren’t the reason for the increases, something else must be. The biggest reason is the illegal-friendly Obama administration and the Democratic Party’s pandering to Hispanic voters. The administration has dodged or reinterpreted Congressional action to set up a lengthy series of rules which make crossing the border illegally easier and staying less uncomfortable. What it couldn’t get in Congress with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform (aka “amnesty”) and the Dream Act it is accomplishing administratively and bureaucratically.

The administration talks about its achievements in deporting illegals, but the record hardly supports the claim. While talking deportation numbers with one side of his mouth, President Obama talks “prosecutorial discretion” out of the other side. Under current law, deported illegal immigrants must remain outside of the United States for a minimum of three years before returning under some legal plan. The administration has acted to change that rule using a “hardship” exception. If the illegal already has legal relatives living in the United States, he can claim his absence would pose a hardship for the family. It’s an Alice in Wonderland kind of reasoning, but you can bet that immigration authorities will find the exception nearly every time as long as this administration remains in power.

Another new rule imposed is that once caught, a large majority of illegals who have not run up a criminal record will go to the end of the deportation line. And while remaining in the country they can build up “longevity credits” putting them closer to the magic legalization goal. In major cities, where most illegals end up, this will mean a large number of very dangerous people being allowed to stay. Most of America’s big city immigration magnets are “sanctuary cities,” or cities so overwhelmed by crime that they simply can’t keep up. In sanctuary cities, criminal activity is not reported to the federal authorities unless there has been a conviction. In San Francisco, youthful offenders are rarely reported at all, and adults are reported only after being convicted of major violent felonies.

And then there’s the simple issue that if you can’t get in through the door, sneak in through the window. The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2011 only 15% of the border with Mexico was under full Border Patrol control. Another 44% is not under full control, but is counted as being under “operational” control. That means that 41% of the border is under minimal or no control. That’s about 800 miles of unprotected border. That would be bad enough. But when individual states have attempted to assist the federal government in enforcing border control, the feds have either ignored their efforts or sued the states for interfering in a federal prerogative.

Arizona has been a primary target of administration ire. While the state is losing $2.7 billion in enforcement and public services losses during the period from 2009 to the present, it has been the whipping boy for the Obama administration for simply passing legislation which is designed to do the job the feds either can’t or won’t do. Yet the Arizona statutes take no power from nor do they create parallel immigration power with the federal government. They simply create the mechanism by which the state can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

Still, the Obama administration felt it wasn’t doing enough to support illegal immigration and fast-track legalization. It remedied that lack by appointing immigration enthusiast Andrew Lorenz-Strait to the post of public advocate for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Another czar. And it’s the first time ever that an administration of either party has created a position which essentially advocates for illegals. The very agency charged with the enforcement of immigration law will effectively have a man who will act as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for illegals.

Lorenz-Strait previously advocated for cuts to the ICE budget of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which helps states cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. The President’s crazed budget announced just after his State of the Union address includes this cut—to the tune of $170 million. Lorenz-Strait is off to a good start.

The pandering appears to be paying off. Obama won about 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and his reelection campaign committee is predicting that number could increase to 73% in 2012. I think that’s an exercise in radical optimism, but surely the pandering isn’t hurting his popularity among Hispanic voters.

Immigration will not be the big issue of the 2012 campaign, but it can’t be ignored. Any Republican presidential candidate is going to need good answers to questions about immigration. A “get ‘em out now” approach may appeal to many nativists, but it could be utter disaster in the general election. Comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue, but the Obama administration will try to paint anything short of amnesty as racism and jingoism. It must be addressed, but in realistic and humane terms. It is quite possible to reassure Hispanic voters without caving in to the open borders crowd.

Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

View Detail

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

I figured you might like a primer on the new Iranian issue, as it’s all over the headlines and it’s an issue which could actually lead to war if mishandled -- although that’s extremely unlikely. Here’s what’s up:

● What Happened: On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DEA and FBI had foiled a plot to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. This plot was supposedly masterminded by Iran’s “elite” Quds military unit. The Quds are a special unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard whose job it is to “export” Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.

According to Holder, Manssor Arbabsiar (a Corpus Christi, Texas car salesman) was tasked by the Iranian government with finding someone to carry out the killing and the bombings. Arbabsiar turned to the nastiest of the Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas, a group of former special forces soldiers who started their own cartel. I wrote about Los Zetas here: LINK. Arbabsiar wanted Los Zetas to do both the killing and the bombings and he wanted them to agree to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East into Mexico.

However, the person Arbabsiar contacted turned out to be a DEA informant. Whoops.

● Team Obama’s Response: The administration accuses Iran and describes this as: “a dangerous escalation of Iran's long-scale use of violence.” The reason they claim Iran did this was “the Iranians watch the Saudis roll tanks in Bahrain, and they see a key ally in Syria going down, so they step up the Quds Force.”

Joe Biden has been sent forth from the Idiotorium to take the lead on this. He described this as “really over the top” and said it was “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises on which nations deal with one another.” He also said that “no options have been taken off the table” for dealing with this, though the administration has already ruled out military action. Instead, they are considering sanctions, the standard response by liberals when they don’t know what to do.

● The Saudi Response: Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals largely because their versions of Islam consider the other to be heretics. The Saudi embassy said this was “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions,” and their former head of intelligence said Iran will have to “pay the price.” They have not been more specific yet. However, Saudi Arabia does not have a military capable of defeating Iran.

● The Iranian Response: For its part, Iran denies involvement. They told the UN they are “outraged” and “strongly and categorically reject these fabricated and baseless allegations, based on the suspicious claims by an individual.” Tehran claims Obama has fabricated this to “divert attention from the Wall Street uprising.” Ha ha! They also repeated claims the US has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years.

For the record, the only link so far to Iran is that the car dealer apparently is a cousin of someone in the Qud and he visited Iran right before $100,000 was wired into the informant’s account by the car dealer. The FBI claims this was wired from a Qud bank account.

● The World Reaction: The world reaction has been skeptical. Iranian experts say that Arbabsiar does not fit the profile of the typical Iranian agent, who tend to be professionals. And they say it’s unlikely Iran would be behind such a plot. Similarly, an Iranian expert in Berlin said these claims would be viewed with skepticism as “everyone is extremely skeptical about US intelligence revelations” and added, “I don’t regard it as impossible but rather improbable, even if the details of the story presented by the attorney general are essentially true.”

One western diplomat said: “I don't believe Iran's regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran's plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It's impossible.”

Even a senior American law enforcement official said (on condition of anonymity) that the US isn’t quite sure what this was and it was likely a “rogue plan. . . so outside their normal track of activity.”

● Some Questions: This all leaves us with some odd questions. If we assume Holder is correct, then what will Obama do about it? Even Clinton dropped a few cruise missiles on Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa. So Obama can’t just pretend this didn’t happen.

But if Holder is wrong, then is he simply wrong or is there more to this?

I never like conspiracies as an answer, especially when there are more likely answers -- such as this guy just being a nut job. But it is extremely coincidental that the day after Darrell Issa starts talking about subpoenaing Holder to answer for what are likely criminal acts related to Fast and Furious, that Holder manages to unveil a huge distraction involving the very elements of Fast and Furious -- DEA, drugs, Mexican cartels and cross border crime. This is one of those coincidences you can’t put in films or people will lose their suspension of disbelief.

My normal response would be to trust professional law enforcement. BUT we’ve already seen how compromised they’ve been by Democratic Justice bosses, such as when Janet Reno ordered the Branch Davidian attack to show that she was tough or the Elian Gonzalez deportation to show Castro goodwill or Holder’s actions in Fast and Furious itself, where potentially hundreds of lives have been taken or destroyed by Holder’s attempt to use the ATF for political purposes. Trust is in short supply here.

So I think we should keep an open mind at this point and not assume anything unless and until strong, verifiable, independent proof is provided.

I figured you might like a primer on the new Iranian issue, as it’s all over the headlines and it’s an issue which could actually lead to war if mishandled -- although that’s extremely unlikely. Here’s what’s up:

● What Happened: On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DEA and FBI had foiled a plot to murder the Saudi Arabian ambassador and blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies. This plot was supposedly masterminded by Iran’s “elite” Quds military unit. The Quds are a special unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard whose job it is to “export” Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.

According to Holder, Manssor Arbabsiar (a Corpus Christi, Texas car salesman) was tasked by the Iranian government with finding someone to carry out the killing and the bombings. Arbabsiar turned to the nastiest of the Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas, a group of former special forces soldiers who started their own cartel. I wrote about Los Zetas here: LINK. Arbabsiar wanted Los Zetas to do both the killing and the bombings and he wanted them to agree to funnel tons of opium from the Middle East into Mexico.

However, the person Arbabsiar contacted turned out to be a DEA informant. Whoops.

● Team Obama’s Response: The administration accuses Iran and describes this as: “a dangerous escalation of Iran's long-scale use of violence.” The reason they claim Iran did this was “the Iranians watch the Saudis roll tanks in Bahrain, and they see a key ally in Syria going down, so they step up the Quds Force.”

Joe Biden has been sent forth from the Idiotorium to take the lead on this. He described this as “really over the top” and said it was “an outrage that violates one of the fundamental premises on which nations deal with one another.” He also said that “no options have been taken off the table” for dealing with this, though the administration has already ruled out military action. Instead, they are considering sanctions, the standard response by liberals when they don’t know what to do.

● The Saudi Response: Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals largely because their versions of Islam consider the other to be heretics. The Saudi embassy said this was “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions,” and their former head of intelligence said Iran will have to “pay the price.” They have not been more specific yet. However, Saudi Arabia does not have a military capable of defeating Iran.

● The Iranian Response: For its part, Iran denies involvement. They told the UN they are “outraged” and “strongly and categorically reject these fabricated and baseless allegations, based on the suspicious claims by an individual.” Tehran claims Obama has fabricated this to “divert attention from the Wall Street uprising.” Ha ha! They also repeated claims the US has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years.

For the record, the only link so far to Iran is that the car dealer apparently is a cousin of someone in the Qud and he visited Iran right before $100,000 was wired into the informant’s account by the car dealer. The FBI claims this was wired from a Qud bank account.

● The World Reaction: The world reaction has been skeptical. Iranian experts say that Arbabsiar does not fit the profile of the typical Iranian agent, who tend to be professionals. And they say it’s unlikely Iran would be behind such a plot. Similarly, an Iranian expert in Berlin said these claims would be viewed with skepticism as “everyone is extremely skeptical about US intelligence revelations” and added, “I don’t regard it as impossible but rather improbable, even if the details of the story presented by the attorney general are essentially true.”

One western diplomat said: “I don't believe Iran's regime was behind the plot. If we assume it was Iran's plot, it would seem like a group of professional gangsters hiring a careless agent for their most important project. It's impossible.”

Even a senior American law enforcement official said (on condition of anonymity) that the US isn’t quite sure what this was and it was likely a “rogue plan. . . so outside their normal track of activity.”

● Some Questions: This all leaves us with some odd questions. If we assume Holder is correct, then what will Obama do about it? Even Clinton dropped a few cruise missiles on Sudan after the embassy bombings in Africa. So Obama can’t just pretend this didn’t happen.

But if Holder is wrong, then is he simply wrong or is there more to this?

I never like conspiracies as an answer, especially when there are more likely answers -- such as this guy just being a nut job. But it is extremely coincidental that the day after Darrell Issa starts talking about subpoenaing Holder to answer for what are likely criminal acts related to Fast and Furious, that Holder manages to unveil a huge distraction involving the very elements of Fast and Furious -- DEA, drugs, Mexican cartels and cross border crime. This is one of those coincidences you can’t put in films or people will lose their suspension of disbelief.

My normal response would be to trust professional law enforcement. BUT we’ve already seen how compromised they’ve been by Democratic Justice bosses, such as when Janet Reno ordered the Branch Davidian attack to show that she was tough or the Elian Gonzalez deportation to show Castro goodwill or Holder’s actions in Fast and Furious itself, where potentially hundreds of lives have been taken or destroyed by Holder’s attempt to use the ATF for political purposes. Trust is in short supply here.

So I think we should keep an open mind at this point and not assume anything unless and until strong, verifiable, independent proof is provided.

Primer: Obama/Holder v. Iran

View Detail

DOJ: "Cartels Control Border Access"

DOJ: "Cartels Control Border Access"

In a stunning admission, the Department of Justice last Wednesday released the following announcement: "Mexican drug-trafficking organizations control access to the United State-Mexico border as well as the smuggling routes across the border, resulting in unprecedented levels of violence in Mexico."

Anyone who opens a newspaper or watches TV news already had a good idea that this was true, but the announcement of reality was a bit of a surprise. The statement goes on to say: "The organizations control, simultaneously use, or are competing for control of various smuggling corridors that they use to regulate drug flow across the border. The value they attach to controlling border access is demonstrated by the ferocity with which several rival transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) fight for control over control of key corridors, or 'plazas'."

And as a near-throwaway line, the statement reports that the Mexican drug cartels "dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States." So much for what we may have thought about domestic gangs, the Mafia and those pesky Jamaicans. The next big drug-trafficking movie won't be called The French Connection. In fact, drug-trafficking back in that era seems almost quaint by comparison with today's border wars.

While controlling access for drug trafficking is the main purpose of cartel violence along the border, having complete control of access to entry points into the United States also enhances their ability to traffic in human bodies, both kidnap victims for ransom and women for forced prostitution. What we need to focus on is not just the violence, but the fact that the Mexican army and police have essentially ceded control of near-border access to the cartels. Having gotten control of the north, the cartels are now gaining control of main highways and travel routes throughout the entirety of Mexico.

Most frightening of all, having gained control of the access routes into the United States, the cartels are quickly gaining control of routes on our side of the border. We have an immense border with Mexico, and many of the access roads lead to sparsely-populated desert and rural areas, unfenced and unguarded. Where there are border guards, they are there in grossly insufficient numbers, inadequately armed, and subject to rules of engagement that make them targets for murderous thugs who play by no civilized rules.

Rather than tell us that Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security is nuts, and we're going to beef up the border patrol, use army units freshly back from Iraq or Afghanistan, arm them with state-of-the-art equipment and give them "shoot on sight" orders, the DOJ instead produces assessments which are largely self-fulfilling prophecies. "Collaboration between US gangs and Mexican-based TCOs will continue to increase, facilitating wholesale drug trafficking into and within the United States."

Before anyone starts thinking that I'm suggesting illegal or unconstitutional use of our armed forces on American soil, I need to point out that it is a perfectly legitimate use of the armed forces to repel an invasion. Make no mistake, this is an invasion, and the posse comitatus act simply doesn't apply. Our armies were used within America's borders during the War of 1812, and those weren't the local police who fought the Indian wars of the 1800s. The act was passed after Civil War Reconstruction to avoid having to use the army indefinitely to enforce law in the states formerly in rebellion.

The posse comitatus act was designed to prevent the army from having too much power within American borders, but more specifically it was designed to prevent the armed forces from acting in a law-enforcement capacity. And therein lies the problem with the liberals and the Obama administration. Not only is the administration overly-sympathetic with illegal immigrants, but in regard to the narco-wars the administration once again prefers the metaphorical "war on crime" model rather than the real war model which allows the military to repel armed invaders.

It should also be noted that the posse comitatus act applies solely to the Army and the Air Force. The Marines and the Navy are restricted by Department of Defense directives, not by the act. The Coast Guard is entirely exempted from the act, as is any entity under the aegis of or created by Homeland Security. And to further complicate matters, the restrictions of the act can be lifted by any new act of Congress which does not conflict with the Constitution. So citing the posse comitatus act as a barrier to fending off an armed invasion of American soil is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

A side benefit of mounting an all-out attack against armed narco cartel invaders is that it would also tend to reduce the entry of non-violent but still illegal immigrants. The same routes that the drug cartels have gained control of are the ones being used by the "coyotes" bringing in illegal immigrants.

In the meantime, the DOJ is very concerned with covering its behind in the wake of the Fast and Furious/Gunrunner scandal in which narco-terrorists obtained thousands of deadly weapons with the full approval and assistance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It can't be bothered with protecting our southwestern border from an invasion. Those weapons are being used to kill Mexican citizens on their side of the border, but they have also spilled over into the United States resulting in both civilian and Border Patrol deaths.

Unlike the takeover of Chicago by Al Capone in the twenties, this is not a domestic crime syndicate, the local police are helpless to do anything, Eliot Ness is long dead, and the cartels are not amenable to being arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion. What needs to be done is to increase the number of Border Patrol agents armed with the best equipment by a factor of ten or twenty, use the military if necessary, and fight this invasion as if the British are coming to burn the capital.

That will not happen as long as Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano remain in charge. They are too afraid we might offend the hapless Mexican government or a large demographic of future Democratic voters already inside our borders.

In a stunning admission, the Department of Justice last Wednesday released the following announcement: "Mexican drug-trafficking organizations control access to the United State-Mexico border as well as the smuggling routes across the border, resulting in unprecedented levels of violence in Mexico."

Anyone who opens a newspaper or watches TV news already had a good idea that this was true, but the announcement of reality was a bit of a surprise. The statement goes on to say: "The organizations control, simultaneously use, or are competing for control of various smuggling corridors that they use to regulate drug flow across the border. The value they attach to controlling border access is demonstrated by the ferocity with which several rival transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) fight for control over control of key corridors, or 'plazas'."

And as a near-throwaway line, the statement reports that the Mexican drug cartels "dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States." So much for what we may have thought about domestic gangs, the Mafia and those pesky Jamaicans. The next big drug-trafficking movie won't be called The French Connection. In fact, drug-trafficking back in that era seems almost quaint by comparison with today's border wars.

While controlling access for drug trafficking is the main purpose of cartel violence along the border, having complete control of access to entry points into the United States also enhances their ability to traffic in human bodies, both kidnap victims for ransom and women for forced prostitution. What we need to focus on is not just the violence, but the fact that the Mexican army and police have essentially ceded control of near-border access to the cartels. Having gotten control of the north, the cartels are now gaining control of main highways and travel routes throughout the entirety of Mexico.

Most frightening of all, having gained control of the access routes into the United States, the cartels are quickly gaining control of routes on our side of the border. We have an immense border with Mexico, and many of the access roads lead to sparsely-populated desert and rural areas, unfenced and unguarded. Where there are border guards, they are there in grossly insufficient numbers, inadequately armed, and subject to rules of engagement that make them targets for murderous thugs who play by no civilized rules.

Rather than tell us that Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security is nuts, and we're going to beef up the border patrol, use army units freshly back from Iraq or Afghanistan, arm them with state-of-the-art equipment and give them "shoot on sight" orders, the DOJ instead produces assessments which are largely self-fulfilling prophecies. "Collaboration between US gangs and Mexican-based TCOs will continue to increase, facilitating wholesale drug trafficking into and within the United States."

Before anyone starts thinking that I'm suggesting illegal or unconstitutional use of our armed forces on American soil, I need to point out that it is a perfectly legitimate use of the armed forces to repel an invasion. Make no mistake, this is an invasion, and the posse comitatus act simply doesn't apply. Our armies were used within America's borders during the War of 1812, and those weren't the local police who fought the Indian wars of the 1800s. The act was passed after Civil War Reconstruction to avoid having to use the army indefinitely to enforce law in the states formerly in rebellion.

The posse comitatus act was designed to prevent the army from having too much power within American borders, but more specifically it was designed to prevent the armed forces from acting in a law-enforcement capacity. And therein lies the problem with the liberals and the Obama administration. Not only is the administration overly-sympathetic with illegal immigrants, but in regard to the narco-wars the administration once again prefers the metaphorical "war on crime" model rather than the real war model which allows the military to repel armed invaders.

It should also be noted that the posse comitatus act applies solely to the Army and the Air Force. The Marines and the Navy are restricted by Department of Defense directives, not by the act. The Coast Guard is entirely exempted from the act, as is any entity under the aegis of or created by Homeland Security. And to further complicate matters, the restrictions of the act can be lifted by any new act of Congress which does not conflict with the Constitution. So citing the posse comitatus act as a barrier to fending off an armed invasion of American soil is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

A side benefit of mounting an all-out attack against armed narco cartel invaders is that it would also tend to reduce the entry of non-violent but still illegal immigrants. The same routes that the drug cartels have gained control of are the ones being used by the "coyotes" bringing in illegal immigrants.

In the meantime, the DOJ is very concerned with covering its behind in the wake of the Fast and Furious/Gunrunner scandal in which narco-terrorists obtained thousands of deadly weapons with the full approval and assistance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It can't be bothered with protecting our southwestern border from an invasion. Those weapons are being used to kill Mexican citizens on their side of the border, but they have also spilled over into the United States resulting in both civilian and Border Patrol deaths.

Unlike the takeover of Chicago by Al Capone in the twenties, this is not a domestic crime syndicate, the local police are helpless to do anything, Eliot Ness is long dead, and the cartels are not amenable to being arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion. What needs to be done is to increase the number of Border Patrol agents armed with the best equipment by a factor of ten or twenty, use the military if necessary, and fight this invasion as if the British are coming to burn the capital.

That will not happen as long as Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano remain in charge. They are too afraid we might offend the hapless Mexican government or a large demographic of future Democratic voters already inside our borders.

DOJ: "Cartels Control Border Access"

View Detail