Defense Personnel Transport Uranium Ore Out of Iraq
Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:16:00 -0500

Yahoo Answers  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070712155615AAzYLj7

This question on Yahoo Answers was asked and answered one year ago.  The links don't work on their site, but if anyone cares to dig a little, all the information for where to find the evidence is listed in the answer.  Learn this information and commit it to memory.  The next time you see Code Pinko nuts dissing our President and our country, drive a stake of truth through the heart of their whacked out message.

Let's do it again: When will Bush stop lying about the link between Iraq and 9-11?

• 1 year ago

Additional Details

1 year ago

by LAVADOG

Member since:

April 17, 2006

Total points:

8786 (Level 5)

• Add to My Contacts
• Block User

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

• 1 year ago

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

You get the nod, even though in your very detailed links between AQ and Saddam, you have links that have been discounted by Bush, the 9-11 Commission and Michael Moore. And that's enough evidence to ignore bin Laden and attack Saddam? Wow.

.

Do you think we should make Nancy Pelosi step down from
Speaker of the House?

Read this report from Gateway Pundit:


SWAMP POLITICS---

New information reveals that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was indirectly sending messages to the FARC. The Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is designated as a terrorist group by the US government. Speaker Pelosi was doing this while at the same time she refused to bring a free trade agreement with Colombia up for a vote in the US House. In fact, Pelosi took extraordinary steps to block this trade agreement with America's closest ally in South America.

Cordoba-Pelosi-McGovern
Colombian Sen. Piedad Cordoba (left) is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. Cordoba claims that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was sending messages to the FARC terrorists. Cordoba also claimed during FARC negotiations that Pelosi had assigned Rep. Jim McGovern, as the point man. Captured FARC documents confirmed in March that Mr. McGovern had been working with an American go-between, who had been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia's elected and popular government.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the confiscated FARC documents that implicated Rep. McGovern back in March:

The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia's elected and popular government.

Mr. McGovern's press office says the Congressman is merely working at the behest of families whose relatives are held as FARC kidnap hostages. However, his go-between's letters reveal more than routine intervention.

Now, today we find out who was directing Rep. McGovern--
Speaker Pelosi!
Mary Anastasia O'Grady at The Wall Street Journal reported:

Last fall, Mr. Chávez and the FARC hatched an audacious plan whereby the Venezuelan would take "proof of life" of Ms. Betancourt to French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, where the plight of Ms. Betancourt was a cause célèbre. The rebels wrote that Mr. Chávez was sure French pressure for negotiations would cause President Bush to "order Uribe to allow the meeting" between Mr. Chávez and the rebels on Colombian soil, something Mr. Uribe had refused to do. The rebels reported that Mr. Chávez was "super-motivated," because he viewed the rendezvous as a public-relations coup that would give him and the FARC "continental and world renown."

That plan flopped, but Mr. Chavez had other cards up his sleeve. One involved Colombian Sen. Piedad Cordoba, who is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. She figures prominently in the captured rebel documents, and is notoriously close to Mr. Chávez.

She met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that "Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn't know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this."

If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, "It doesn't matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid." In short, why give up such a useful pawn?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (C), senior FARC rebel commander Ivan Marquez (L) of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba walk at Miraflores Palace in Caracas November 8, 2007. (Reuters)

Don Surber believes it is time someone reined the Queen Bee in.
Karl at Protein Wisdom notes that this is far from the first time that democrats have cozied up to the communists.

Previously:
Captured FARC Documents Link Democrats to Terror Group
Busted!... Democratic Point Man on Colombia Caught Dealing With FARC
Interpol Confirms Authenticity Of Raul Reyes's Computer Files
Interpol Confirms: US Democrat Was Secretly Working With FARC
MEDIA IGNORES Rep. McGovern Was Secretly Communicating With FARC
FARC Connections to German Leftists & US Democrats Exposed
Will the Colombian Hostage Rescue Expose the Democrat's Links to FARC?


Again, do you think we should remove Nancy Pelosi
from her position of Speaker of the House?


FARK = "Terrorist Organization"
not a "revolutionary" force
.
.
.

Cross Posted - Pat Dollard - Young Americans  H/T to Lftbhndagn

Washington Post
Sunday, July 6, 2008

In the six-and-a-half years that the U.S. government has been fingerprinting insurgents, detainees and ordinary people in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa, hundreds have turned out to share an unexpected background, FBI and military officials said. They have criminal arrest records in the United States.

There was the suspected militant fleeing Somalia who had been arrested on a drug charge in New Jersey. And the man stopped at a checkpoint in Tikrit who claimed to be a dirt farmer but had 11 felony charges in the United States, including assault with a deadly weapon.

The records suggest that potential enemies abroad know a great deal about the United States because many of them have lived here, officials said. The matches also reflect the power of sharing data across agencies and even countries, data that links an identity to a distinguishing human characteristic such as a fingerprint.

“I found the number stunning,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, a security consultant and former assistant to the president for homeland security. “It suggested to me that this was going to give us far greater insight into the relationships between individuals fighting against U.S. forces in the theater and potential U.S. cells or support networks here in the United States.”

The fingerprinting of detainees overseas began as ad-hoc FBI and U.S. military efforts shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It has since grown into a government-wide push to build the world’s largest database of known or suspected terrorist fingerprints. The effort is being boosted by a presidential directive signed June 5, which gave the U.S. attorney general and other cabinet officials 90 days to come up with a plan to expand the use of biometrics by, among other things, recommending categories of people to be screened beyond “known or suspected” terrorists.

Fingerprints are being beamed in via satellite from places as far-flung as the jungles of Zamboanga in the southern Philippines; Bogota, Colombia; Iraq; and Afghanistan. Other allies, such as Sweden, have contributed prints. The database can be queried by U.S. government agencies and by other countries through Interpol, the international police agency.

Civil libertarians have raised concerns about whether people on the watch lists have been appropriately determined to be terrorists, a process that senior government officials acknowledge is an art, not a science.

Large-scale identity systems “can raise serious privacy concerns, if not singly, then jointly and severally,” said a 2007 study by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Biometrics. The ability “to cross reference and draw new, previously unimagined, inferences,” is a boon for the government and the bane of privacy advocates, it said.

An FBI Mission

The effort, officials say, is bearing fruit.

“The bottom line is we’re locking people up,” said Thomas E. Bush III, FBI assistant director of the Criminal Justice Information Services division. “Stopping people coming into this country. Identifying IED-makers in a way never done before. That’s the beauty of this whole data-sharing effort. We’re pushing our borders back.”

In December 2001, an FBI team was sent on an unusual mission to Afghanistan. The U.S. military had launched a wave of airstrikes aimed at killing or capturing al Qaeda fighters and their Taliban hosts. The FBI team was to fingerprint and interview foreign fighters as if they were being booked at a police station.

The team, led by Paul Shannon, a veteran FBI agent embedded with U.S. special forces, traveled to the combat zone toting briefcases outfitted with printer’s ink, hand rollers and paper cards. The agents worked in Kandahar and Kabul. They traversed the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. They hand-carried the fingerprint records from Afghanistan to Clarksburg, W.Va., home to the FBI’s criminal biometric database.

As they analyzed the results, they were surprised to learn that one out of every 100 detainees was already in the FBI’s database for arrests. Many arrests were for drunken driving, passing bad checks and traffic violations, FBI officials said.

“Frankly I was surprised that we were getting those kind of hits at all,” recalled Townsend, who left government in January. They identified “a potential vulnerability” to national security the government had not fully appreciated, she said.

The people being fingerprinted had come from the Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan. They were mostly in their 20s, Shannon recalled. “One of the things we learned is we were dealing with relatively young guys who were very committed and what they would openly tell you is that when they got out they were going back to jihad,” he said. “They’d already made this commitment.”

One of the first men fingerprinted by the FBI team was a fighter who claimed he was in Afghanistan to learn the ancient art of falconry. But a fingerprint check showed that in August 2001 he had been turned away from Orlando International Airport by an immigration official who thought he might overstay his visa. Mohamed al Kahtani would later be named by the Sept. 11 Commission as someone who allegedly had sought to participate in hijackings. He currently is in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Similarly, in 2004, an FBI team choppered to a remote desert camp on the Iraq-Iran border, home to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), whose aim is to overthrow the Iranian government. The MEK lead an austere lifestyle in which men are segregated from women and material goods are renounced. The U.S. State Department considers the organization to be a terrorist group.

The FBI team fingerprinted 3,800 fighters. More than 40, Shannon said, had previous criminal records in the agency’s database.

While the FBI was busy collecting fingerprints, the military was setting up its own biometrics database, adding in iris and facial data as well. By October, the two organizations agreed to collaborate, running queries through both systems. The very first match was on the man who claimed to be a poor dirt farmer. Among his many charges were misdemeanors for theft and public drunkenness in Chicago and Utah, a criminal record that ran from 1993 to 2001, said Herb Richardson, who serves as operations manager for the military’s Automated Biometric Identification System under a contract with Ideal Innovations of Arlington.

Many of those with U.S. arrest records had come to the United States to study, said former Criminal Justice Information Services head Michael Kirkpatrick, who led the FBI effort to use biometrics in counterterrorism after Sept. 11. “It suggests there was some familiarity with Western culture, the United States specifically, and for whatever reason they did not agree with that culture,” he said. “Either they became disaffected or put up with it, and then they went overseas.”

Errors in matching, though rare, have occurred. In a noted 2004 case, Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield was erroneously named as a suspect in the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people. FBI lab analysts matched a print lifted from a plastic bag at the crime scene to his fingerprints that were stored in the FBI’s criminal database because of a 1985 arrest for auto burglary when he was a teenager. The charge had been dismissed. After a critical Justice Department Inspector General audit, the FBI made fixes in its system. A recent inspector general report found the FBI fingerprint matching to be generally accurate.

Worries About Watch List

Civil libertarians, however, worry that the systems are not transparent enough for outsiders to tell how the government decides who belongs on a watch list and how that information is handled.

“The day when the federal government can tell people the basis they’ve been put on the watch list is the day we can have more confidence in biometric identification,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Vetting the data is the job of analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center, an office park-like complex in McLean run by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Analysts there scour intelligence reports to create the master international terrorist watch list.

“You cannot draw a bright red line and say that’s a terrorist, this person isn’t,” said Russ Travers, an NCTC deputy director. “If somebody swears allegiance to Bin Laden, that’s an easy case. If somebody goes to a terrorist training camp, that’s probably an easy case. What if a person goes to a camp and decides, ‘I don’t want to go to a camp, I want to go home.’ Where do you draw the line?”

Investigators are working on ever more sophisticated ways to evaluate the data. Analysts at the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, for instance, use software to scrutinize intelligence reports from sources such as electronic surveillance and informants. They then link the information to a person’s biographic and biometric data, and look for relationships that might detect terrorists and plots.

For example, a roadside bomb may explode and a patrol may fingerprint bystanders because insurgents have been known to remain at the scene to observe the results of their work. Prints also can be lifted off tiny fragments of exploded bombs, said military officials and contractors involved in the work.

Analysts are not just trying to identify the prints on the bomb. They want to find out who the bomb-carrier associates with. Who he calls. Who calls him. That could lead to the higher-level operatives who planned and financed attacks.

Already, fingerprints lifted off a bomb fragment have been linked to people trying to enter the United States, they said.

In a separate data-sharing program, 365 Iraqis who have applied to the Department of Homeland Security for refugee status have been denied because their fingerprints turned up in the Defense Department’s database of known or suspected terrorists, Richardson said.

If Iraq and Afghanistan were a proving ground of sorts for biometric watch-listing, the U.S. government is moving quickly to try to build a domestic version. Since September 2006, Homeland Security and the FBI have been operating a pilot program in which police officers in Boston, Dallas and Houston run prints of arrestees against a Homeland Security database of immigration law violators and a State Department database of people refused visas. Federal job applicants’ prints also are run against the databases. To date, some 500 people have been found in the database and thus are of interest to Homeland Security officials.

Steve Nixon, a director at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said the effort is key to national security.

“When we look at the road and the challenges, globalization and the spread of technology has empowered small groups of individuals, bad guys, to be more powerful than at any other time in history,” he said. “We have to know who these people are when we encounter them. A lot of what we’re doing in intelligence now is trying to identify a person. Biometrics is a key element of that.”

On Friday, I saw a video of popular court TV Judge Judy making clear to a thug where she stands on private citizens and personal weapons.  It is a rare bit of wisdom expressed from the bench, even a TV bench which bears no impact in the real courts.  Judge Judy has been and still holds accreditation through the BAR association, but the TV courtroom is a show and as such, the participants sign documents before entering this court which holds them to a binding contract of the Judge's judgments.  It is a great representation of why the Supreme Court did the right thing upholding citizens' right to keep and bear arms as laid out in the Constitution.

.
.

.

Declaration of Independence

[Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776]

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

.

Ever been on the road when another driver is making erratic moves and false signals?  You don't know whether to pass him or hang way back and wait for the inevitable accident to occur and all you can do is pray he gets off the road before he hurts himself or worse, somebody else.  Have you ever been the one others are looking at as if you got your license from a Cracker Jack box?  If we compare these kinds of road experience to the nations of the world, you can look around and see other nations swerving all over the pavement bumping into one another vying for more prominent positions in world economy and military might.  Little neighboring countries in Africa are like the cars behind us, they matter because we hate to see others hurt, but we are out of the danger zone.  Others are nearer to us and most of them seem to have a steady hand at the wheel.  One by one, others are coming up from behind and absolutely have no concern for their own welfare or anyone else's.  It used to be that the drivers would take it upon themselves to scare the nuttiness out of those passing carelessly, it used to be that the other passengers in the car being driven so dangerously would take that driver away from the wheel and put in somebody much more careful.  Nowadays, the passengers are divided, half cheering him on and the other half sitting quietly and grumbling.  Nowadays, the other cars don't want to deal with the nut, so he is zipping by them and making sure everybody on the road is intimidated by him. Often times, there are fights in the front seat over the wheel.

Lately, even though we have been way out front, the rest of the field is watching us wander from right side to left side occasionally jerking onto the left shoulder and skidding back onto the pavement.  Now, if you think of years as being minutes, its easy to see how that could be.  Every four minutes we are changing drivers and there is always a huge discussion over who the next driver will be.  The other drivers had grown accustomed to this and most would hang back whenever it was time to make the switch.  Just lately we have the governmental powers fighting over the wheel.  The president is supposed to be the one at the wheel.  But Congress has been doing its best to usurp the authority of the president to steer the bus in defensive action and aggressive action.  Add to that the Supreme court jumping in and pulling the wheel hard to the left working to take the authority to imprison battlefield combatants until war's end.  Nobody else on the road wants to work with us to ensure security because they don't know if we'll be a friend or a backstabber in the next few minutes.

So, now its time to choose a new driver again and we need to consider all that this driver is going to have to face.  Nobody in the other cars are willing to step up and do something about the gang of cars known as Islamic jihad.  This president and this congress will have to make decisions about powers commandeering the wheel and if they don't or won't, we passengers are going to have to hit the brakes and decide for the three powers, who is supposed to drive.  Wait!  Where did the brake pedal go.  Didn't we have one installed when we built this vehicle known as the union of states?  The steering wheel is being fought over and we don't have brake pedal?  Is anybody in the front seat doing something about this?  Is anybody on the bus even concerned enough to sound an alarm?

Okay, so the analogy isn't perfect, but the concern should come through loud and clear.  If we don't settle down and work out a clear plan of operation, we very likely will become the former world power.  Those who think that would be a good thing are by definition anti-American.  Who would step up to ensure the good things America does?  Would China act as the world councilor and police for human rights?  Do you think the United Nations could do it?  Maybe you could place your trust in Islam?  Which entity around the world has the muscle or the will to influence the world's drivers to serve their own well and work within the constraints of the rules of the road?  No other country or world power has both the power and the will for the job and if we allow Islam or the UN or anybody with enough might to make the rules of the road, this will be a far different world.  Islam would create a far more dangerous road by taking other vehicles and using them to their own ends.  China would probably do something similar.  The UN is basically a subset of Islam.  Every other entity is either too weak or has already succumbed to the influence of radical Islam.

Once you put a light on the responsibility of the lead position, you begin to see how tenuous is the role we play in world politics and the consequences of dropping that responsibility begin to look more ominous than the 2nd amendment or a marriage certificate for homosexuals.  This election will literally decide whether we place more judges who will fight for the wheel or more judges who will take the roll the builders and planners designed for them, whether we have a Congress who help and back the driver or are also pulling and fighting for the wheel.  The parties have drawn clear lines on who will take the wheel from the assigned driver and who will support the decision making structure as designed by the original driver and navigators.  I suggest you vote for a conservative veteran this election, whether for president or for Congress.

The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Conservative leader and writer Michael Johns, a former White House speechwriter and Heritage Foundation foreign policy analyst, said last night that the United States needs to act with great urgency to secure its southern border with Mexico if it hopes to protect the nation's security interests and begin reversing the many economic and other crises spurred by the nation's apparent unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws by fully securing its southern border.

Replays of Johns' interview with the Grizzly Groundswell Network on Blog Talk Radio are available globally for replay from the 61.30 to 120 minute mark of the network's June 30, 2008 show, available at:

http://grizzlygroundswell.com/archives/2849

In the interview, Johns challenges the conventional wisdom that Mexico's illegal aliens in the U.S. are only filling jobs that Americans do not want, stating that nearly half of them--10.5 million of the 21.6 million illegal Mexicans in this nation--are illegally filling skilled jobs that almost certainly would be appealing to Americans at a time when unemployment is standing at 5.5 percent nationally. Johns stated further that the failure of the U.S. to seal its southern border from illegals represents one of the greatest ongoing security threats to the nation at a time when the U.S. continues to be embroiled in a global conflict against al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism.

Johns stated that the 21.6 million illegal Mexican aliens in the U.S. are ill-serving the U.S. economy, costing the nation approximately $397 billion annually in education, health care and other social services. Meanwhile, Johns says, Mexican illegals are returning large sums of their earnings--approximately $33 billion annually to Mexico and $283 billion annually to all of Latin America. He also said that the U.S. has spent approximately $1.5 billion since 2001 in costs associated with the incarceration of approximately 370,000 illegal aliens in the U.S.

As President of Phoenix's Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM), Johns and his organization are actively supporting two Arizona ballot initiatives that would strengthen the state's illegal immigration enforcement capabilities by empowering Arizona's law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws and make the state's criminal trespass statutes applicable to illegal aliens in the state. The deadline for the submission of signatures for these two ballot initiatives is this Thursday, July 3, 2008.