Plugging Holes

Washington Times

By Terence P. Jeffrey

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency in the Department of Homeland Security that is responsible for securing the nation's land borders, says it will increase its goal for the number of border miles it will have under "effective control" in fiscal 2010, CBP Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling told me this week.

The goal will be increased from the previously set mark of 815 to at least 894, the number of miles the Border Patrol says are under "effective control" as of now.

At the same time, the Border Patrol will carry out a plan to reduce the number of agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border by 384.

According to DHS, its measure of "border miles under effective control" applies to the entire 8,607 miles for which the Border Patrol is responsible. This includes almost 2,000 miles on the U.S.-Mexico border, about 4,000 miles on the U.S.-Canada border (not counting the Alaska-Canada border) and sectors of coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

"Border miles under effective control" is defined by CBP as meaning "when the appropriate mix of personnel, equipment, technology and tactical infrastructure has been deployed to reasonably ensure that when an attempted illegal entry is detected, the Border Patrol has the ability to identify, classify and respond to bring the attempted illegal entry to a satisfactory law enforcement resolution."

DHS's annual performance report as updated on May 7 said that the department's goal was to have 815 miles of border under "effective control" in fiscal 2009 and to maintain that same number in fiscal 2010, which begins in October.

In other words, DHS did not intend to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year.

The report attributed this lack of progress in part to "plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements."

Despite publishing a goal on May 7 of having 815 miles of border under effective control in both fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010, Acting Deputy Assistant Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Todd Owen told Congress in July that the Border Patrol already had more miles than that under effective control as of May 31.

"As of May 31, 2009, we have determined that 894 miles of border are under effective control," Mr. Owen testified in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "This includes 697 miles along the southwest border, 32 along the northern border and 165 in the coastal regions."

Mr. Easterling said this week that as of now the Border Patrol still has the same 894 miles of border under effective control that it had under effective control on May 31. He said the agency will not surrender a single one of these miles in the coming year.

"The intention is to take back the border incrementally and make gains that we can keep," Mr. Easterling told me. "We do not intend, nor will we give back, miles that we have gained control over."

Mr. Easterling said that when the new fiscal year starts next month, the Border Patrol will review its data and re-evaluate its goal. At a minimum, he said, the agency will set a goal for border miles secured that equals the 894 miles secured now. If possible, it will set a higher goal. But it will not decrease the number of border miles that are secured.

It will maintain at least the current level even while decreasing the number of agents deployed on the Mexico border.

In fiscal 2009, Mr. Easterling said, there have been 17,399 Border Patrol agents deployed on the Mexican border. In fiscal 2010, he said, the plan is to deploy 17,015, a decline of 384 agents. Meanwhile, the Border Patrol agents assigned to the Canadian border will climb from 1,798 to 2,212, an increase of 414.

Mr. Easterling said that even with 384 fewer agents deployed on the Mexican border, the Border Patrol will be able to maintain at least the current number of border miles under effective control because of "force multipliers." These include "tactical infrastructure" such as new roads and fencing that have been built as well as assistance from local police and sheriffs departments and community watch organizations.

If the 697 miles of U.S.-Mexico border now under effective control are maintained in the coming year, that will leave about 1,300 miles of U.S-Mexico border that are not under effective control.

The Three R's

by Michelle Malkin

When the White House announced plans for the president's nationwide address to schoolchildren two weeks ago, worried parents were dismissed as "kooks." We pointed to the subtext of "social justice" activism rampant in American classrooms. It's time for a big fat Told You So.

Out of the spotlight, politicized lessons continue to supplant core academics.

Earlier this year, at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, N.J., schoolchildren were instructed to memorize a paean to Barack Obama. A video uploaded to the YouTube account of Charisse Carney-Nunes, author of the children's book "I Am Barack Obama" and a self-described Harvard Law "schoolmate" of the president's, showed students lined up in the auditorium snapping their fingers and chanting in unison:

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said all should lend a hand to make the country strong again.

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay.

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said take a stand, make sure everyone gets a chance.

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight.

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.

Yeah! Barack Hussein Obama.

…Hello, Mr. President, we honor you today

For all your great accomplishments, we all do say hooray.

Hooray, Mr. President, you are No. 1

The first black American to lead this nation.

Acknowledging the historic nature of Obama's presidency ("the first black American") is one thing. Deifying him with creepy spiritual references ("red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight" is cribbed from the famous hymn "Jesus Loves the Little Children"; cheering "you are No. 1") is quite another. Burlington Township school officials said Thursday the recording and dissemination of the video was "unauthorized," but acknowledged that the Obama praise session was part of the students' official curriculum.

Carney-Nunes' Obama book was on prominent display during the students' performance. It is a tool, she says, that "allows children to see themselves through the inspirational story of President Obama growing up as an ordinary child, asking, 'Who will change the world?' Ultimately, he realizes that he will." Seeing everything through the lens of Obama, as his incessantly self-referential United Nations speech demonstrated, is a trademark of the perpetual Obama campaign.

This O-cult lesson is exactly the kind of junior campaign lobbying activity that White House officials planned around the president's education speech. Alert parents and administrators called out the Department of Education's activist, Obama-centric education manuals before the event. Federal officials altered the language. Obama delivered an innocuous speech. But on cue, education radicals goaded students to engage in political activism.

White House and Hollywood moguls launched a "Get Schooled" initiative this month with Obama that urges students to lobby for higher teacher pay and to embrace the rallying cries "Know Your Rights" and "Change the System."

At the New Trier High School in Northfield, Ill., educators followed up on Obama's address with a 45-minute "extended adviser" discussion last week to explore "the significant messages inherent in his speech." Illinois writer/blogger Tom Blumer reports that "parents were not informed on a timely basis as to what was going to happen, and were given no specific instructions on how to have their child opt out of the 'discussions.'" The school's principal and assistant principal sent out suggestive questions focused on Dear Leader's Do Something missives:

-- Why do you think President Obama listed the responsibilities of teachers, parents and the government before discussing your responsibility for your education?

-- What are you "good at," and what do you have "to offer" your family, friends and community?

-- In the speech, President Obama spoke of some of the steps of Effective Effort. Identify them, using direct quotations from the text to support your assertions.

-- Respond to President Obama's final questions for you: "What's your contribution going to be? …"

In addition to radical White House Teaching Fellows like Chicago high-school educator Xian Barrett (an outspoken charter school foe who founded a "Social Justice Club" and bussed students to protest) and Michelle Bissonnette, a Los Altos, Calif., teacher who is "focused on developing my leadership as a more culturally and racially conscious educator," the White House has embraced controversial homosexual rights advocate Kevin Jennings as "Safe Schools czar." Jennings founded the controversial GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), which aggressively pushes sexually explicit, age-inappropriate books and lesson plans on alternative lifestyles.

Lost in all the chanting for change is the core commitment to impart actual knowledge. For progressives in the Age of Obama, setting high academic standards is secondary to the self-improvement of the "whole child" and "service" to the cause of social justice.

Out: readin', writin' and 'rithmetic. In: rappin', revolution and radicalism. Mmm, mmm, mmm.

Afghanistan RX: Courage Pills

The American Spectator

It was the "good" war -- at least that's what Afghanistan came to be called in last year's Obama campaign. We had diverted resources to Iraq, the "bad" war, Barack Obama said, when we should have been concentrating on getting Osama bin Laden.

Obama's left-wing base, always skittish about being thought of as unpatriotic, was thus given a comfy rationale for supporting a war. Once in office, the new president came up with a new Afghanistan strategy in March. We would add more troops, press our NATO allies to do the same and try a version of the Iraq surge to win over the inhabitants of towns and villages freed of the Taliban. He later replaced the commander there with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the special ops chief, who would tell the administration just what was needed to win.

The president's enthusiasm dimmed in August when polls began showing that a slight majority of Americans had decided the war wasn't worth the money. Now, that small majority opposes sending more troops. Support has held among conservatives, Republicans and some independents, but has been dropping among Democrats.

Secretary of Defense Gates, who through several administrations has always cut his suit to fit the cloth, began to waffle about Afghanistan. In August, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs went to Afghanistan to try to persuade Gen. McChrystal not to send in a request for more troops.

Early this week, the McChrystal request for 40,000 troops was leaked. Confusion reigned and still does. Gates and the White House said the whole strategy was under review. That leading military strategist George Will had earlier suggested in a column that we pull out entirely and win the war with aerial drone attacks on Taliban strongholds. This appealed to more than a few in the administration and on the left, for no-risk wars are the only kind they like.

Then Vice President Biden weighed in with a version of the cut-run-and-bomb-with-drones approach. He thinks we should target enemy leaders and financiers via drone, à la Pakistan. This is easier said than done. This tactic has succeeded once we began to get the necessary on-the-ground intelligence from the Pakistan military to pinpoint the targets. We do not have the same resources in Afghanistan and would have to build them. This takes time. These facts don't deter Joe Biden who, you will recall, proposed to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion by dividing that country in three (perhaps he'd spent a sleepless night reading Caesar's Gallic Wars).

One nameless senior White House aide opined this week that Gen. McChrystal's job was to concentrate on the situation in Afghanistan, but there were larger considerations beyond his ken, such as Pakistan, oil sources, Iran, North Korea, sun spots and fallen arches.

The leak of the McChrystal troop request forced the issue. Now, the Pentagon says it will not sit on the formal request after all, although it did deny bipartisan Congressional requests to have Gen. McChrystal testify. This prohibition no doubt came from the White House, which is unsure of what to do and fears that McChrystal's testimony, like Gen. Petraeus's about the Iraq surge, will remove Congressional doubts about sending the troops required to win the war.

"Pacifying" Afghanistan is a quantitatively tougher job than cleaning out dense neighborhoods in large cities, which was the situation in Iraq. Afghanistan consists largely of hundreds of towns and villages dispersed over a large, rugged terrain. To train an enlarged Afghan army will take many more U.S. and NATO troops than are now there. And, going from village to village to clean out Taliban and al Qaeda will take time and many troops of both armies.

The alternative is withdrawal. Anyone who thinks this will be seen in the Middle East and South Asia as anything other than a victory for al Qaeda and the Taliban has not been paying attention.

The time has come for Mr. Obama to stop dithering, take down that bottle of courage pills from the shelf and swallow some of them.

Use Our Healthcare, or Go To Jail?!?

From Fox News

Under the health care bill being considered in the Senate Finance Committee, Americans who fail to pay a penalty for not buying insurance could be charged up to $25,000 by the Internal Revenue Service or face up to a year in jail, according to congressional analysts.

That's just one of the concerns Republicans say the Democratic-run Congress is ignoring in the rush to pass legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system.

"The American people expect us to get this right and to do it in an open, honest and bipartisan debate. That's what they deserve," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., in his party's radio and Internet address Saturday. "But that's not what they're getting from the Democrats on Capitol Hill."

The Senate Finance Committee is the last of five committees to take up health care legislation, which tops President Obama's domestic agenda.

The committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., negotiated with top Republicans for weeks before talks broke down. Baucus' bill leaves out a primary demand of many Democrats -- a government insurance option -- and it has a lower price tag than other Democratic proposals.

But the legislation includes an individual mandate penalty that could go as high as $1,900. Thomas Barthold, chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, told senators that the IRS could take legal action against those who fail to pay the mandate penalty.

In a handwritten note to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., Barthold said violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty.

Isakson and other Republicans say the Baucus bill is too costly and would require too much government intrusion into the health care system. Only one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, appears to be considering supporting it.

At its core, the bill is designed to expand health insurance coverage to millions of people who lack it, employing a new system of federal subsidies for lower-income individuals and families and establishing an insurance exchange in which coverage would have federally guaranteed benefits.

Insurance companies would be prohibited from refusing to sell insurance based on a person's health history, and limits would be imposed on higher premiums based on age.

ACORN On Uncertain Ground

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Five hidden-camera videos recorded in ACORN offices nationwide showing staffers giving advice to two filmmakers posing as a pimp and a prostitute have led to widespread fallout at the grassroots organization -- and the "biggest challenge" in its 39-year history, critics say.

The Treasury Department's inspector general agreed on Thursday to conduct a review of community organizer ACORN and IRS oversight of nonprofit organizations as a whole, the latest fallout over the release of five hidden camera recordings of ACORN staffers giving advice to two filmmakers posing as a pimp and a prostitute.

The decision brings to nearly a half dozen the number of investigations into the group since the videos were released earlier this month. The probes have also forced the giant advocacy group to face the "biggest challenge" of its 39-year history, though critics say they still doubt ACORN will drown in the current storm.

"[ACORN is] wounded, but they're not mortally wounded," said Matthew Vadum, senior editor at the Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank.

In the latest consequence of the growing scandal, Treasury Department Inspector General J. Russell George told House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Thursday that his office will take up their request to investigate ACORN's relationship to federal agencies.

"Cutting ties with ACORN is a good first step for the federal government, but since they have been the recipients of taxpayer dollars, we have an obligation to investigate to discover whether or not those dollars were misused in anyway," Issa said.

Click here for more FOXNews.com coverage on ACORN.

The videos -- first obtained by BigGovernment.com -- depicted ACORN employees offering advice to filmmakers James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles on how to skirt tax laws and avoid detection by authorities while operating a brothel. That footage captured in ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Brooklyn, San Diego and San Bernadino, Calif., led to the firing of four employees and the suspension of two others.

The undercover operation also prompted the IRS and the Census Bureau to sever all ties to the organization that bills itself as the nation's largest grassroots organization of low- and moderate-income families. A criminal probe was also launched by the Kings County District Attorney's Office to investigate activities at ACORN's Brooklyn office.

Bertha Lewis, ACORN's chief organizer, announced on Sept. 16 that the organization would stop taking "new intakes" immediately, essentially freezing its service programs. Scott Harshbarger, a Boston attorney and former attorney general of Massachusetts, was hired this week to conduct an "independent and comprehensive" investigation into the liberal activist group.

Vadum doubted the authenticity of that probe, describing it as a "phony panel of inquiry."

"It's probably the biggest challenge ACORN has ever faced, but they hope to weather the storm through a number of means, including a phony panel of inquiry," Vadum said.

But ACORN, while bent, is not broken.

As a nonprofit, non-tax-exempt organization, ACORN is not required to disclose its tax filings to the public. As such, it publishes an annual report without disclosing budget figures. According to reports, the budget for ACORN-affiliated organizations exceeded $37 million in 2006, including roughly $8 million for ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC), one of its largest 501(c)(3) tax-exempt wings. According to 2000 tax returns, AHC received private donations of more than $4 million from major banks.

Although the House and Senate voted earlier this month to cut federal funding to ACORN, the organization will continue to fund itself largely through membership dues from its 500,000 member families at 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 75 cities nationwide.

"There's a massive network of ACORN chapters and subsidiaries out there and they have a lot of sources of revenue," said Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "I don't think this is the end of ACORN by any means."

Malanga said residents in low- and middle-income areas likely will continue to utilize ACORN's services, including free tax preparation and screening for eligibility for federal and state benefit programs.

"If a business did these kinds of things, there would probably be protests but I don't think there will be this kind of an impact on them," Malanga said. "I'm not sure they won't continue [providing services]."

Politically, however, Malanga said ACORN's power has undoubtedly been weakened.

"Their advocacy voice has now been compromised," he said. "I don't think people will take them seriously now."

Vadum, meanwhile, said ACORN will still be supported by the "activist left" and the progressive movement.

"The left-wing establishment is doing a full-court press to save them -- whether they can is unclear," he said. "ACORN has never faced this kind of intense microscopic scrutiny before. They're on the ropes right now."

Vadum said the videos did far more damage to ACORN's image than a "thousand op-eds" or prior scandals involving widespread voter registration. ACORN has announced it is suing the filmmakers in Maryland for alleged violations of the state's laws regarding consent to make sound recordings.

"This has been building for a while," Vadum said. "But ACORN is not dead, ACORN is wounded. It still has a source of funds and gets big money from liberal donors and they're still an extremely active player in left-wing grassroots politics."

Other critics say they see a much bleaker future for the organization.

"I'm puzzled to see what's left of ACORN," said Rory Cooper, strategic communications director at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "All organizations have a sliver of good in them, but ACORN's gross incompetence outweighs any good that they've ever accomplished."

According to its Web site, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 citizens register to vote since 2004 and its ballot-initiative campaigns in 2006 helped raise the minimum wage in four states.

The organization has also worked to eliminate predatory leading practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders and tax preparation companies, as well as to help rebuild New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Still, despite those achievements, critics of ACORN say its latest scandal should mark the beginning of the end for the organization.

"Every effort should be made to challenge the supposition of this organization and its activities," said Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute. "American people are finally realizing this organization has to be stopped in its tracks."

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain records related to federal grants provided to ACORN. The request was filed on July 17 and seeks all documents concerning money given to ACORN and its affiliates since January 2000.

Robocop's Comment:

The last time I printed an anti-ACORN piece, I got invaded by trolls. Let's see if they have the balls to visit again.

UP DATE

Sorry I have disappeared for awhile. I am in the process of a job change. Now the good news:

GOODBYE CCA!!!!

I start a real job with the county Monday.

That's all for now. God Bless!!

Revolt of the Congress

by Tom Donnelly & Gary Schmitt

One of Barack Obama's most politically adept decisions upon winning the White House was to ask Robert Gates to remain in place as the nation's secretary of defense. By choosing Gates--who had served with distinction at the CIA, the National Security Council, and most recently at the Pentagon under George W. Bush--Obama added credibility to his administration in the area of national security where his own résumé was lacking. Perhaps inspired by Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln--a book candidate Obama said he had read and been taken with--the new president hoped the choice would help him sell his decisions on national security and the military to moderates in his own party and members of the GOP since his front man had been the successful, war-winning Pentagon chief under the previous president.

And for a while, it worked. In early April, Gates announced a series of cuts in defense programs and spending that, with few exceptions, generated only isolated criticism on the Hill. The ostensible justifications for the cuts were two: the current fiscal crisis and the need to focus the military on today's wars, not speculative future contingencies. For many, these rationales seemed reasonable enough, especially coming from Secretary Gates.

But in fact they're not reasonable. If the fiscal crisis was the driving force behind the cuts, then someone forgot to notify the rest of the administration. While the Pentagon was being told to shut down programs, the Obama team was encouraging the rest of government to spend like drunken sailors. As the stimulus package was being cobbled together, military projects best fit the Keynesian profile of "shovel-ready," yet the Pentagon received just one half of one percent of the $787 billion in additional funding.

If Gates, moreover, had truly been concerned about today's wars, he would have taken the savings that came from his program cuts in April and used them to increase the size of the Army. But he didn't. Instead, he's capped ground forces and appears satisfied to live with an Army and Marine Corps that are severely stretched and will remain so as we build up in Afghanistan.

The first sign that there might be a crack in the wall of the Gates-Obama defense plan was the mid-June decision by the House Armed Services Committee to begin buying parts for 12 more F-22s, the stealthy air-dominance fighter that Secretary Gates has wanted to limit to 187 planes. As one Democrat on the committee put it, "It's not a Democrat or Republican thing at all, but rather a Congress versus the executive in terms of who's in charge."

Then, in late June, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the acquisition of seven more F-22s as well, even as the White House was announcing a possible veto of the defense bill if it contained money for keeping the jet fighter's production line open. In addition, the committee's version of the bill authorized a 30,000-soldier expansion of the active Army--in other words, it made a more substantive commitment to winning "the war we're in" than Gates himself. As Senator Joseph Lieberman, who sponsored the provision, observed, "The number of deployed soldiers will increase into next year because we will be sending more troops to win the war in Afghanistan before a large number of soldiers begin to return from Iraq."

Less reported on but no less significant a sign that Congress may have a different vision of the country's defense priorities came when the House version of the annual defense authorization bill called for the revival of an independent "National Defense Panel" to assess the administration's Quadrennial Defense Review. If there is to be a larger revolt against the Gates cuts and defense vision, this will be the central bureaucratic battleground.

Here's why: The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is the process by which a new administration determines whether U.S. military forces are adequate to meet America's strategic needs. There have been three previous QDRs--indeed five counting the first Bush administration's "Base Force" and the Clinton administration's "Bottom-Up" reviews. In the post-Cold War environment, answering the traditional question of force-planning--"How much is enough?"--has proved difficult.

When the Republican Congress wrote the law mandating the 1997 QDR, it specified that an outside National Defense Panel should evaluate the Pentagon's work; congressional defense leaders did not trust the Clinton administration to do an honest review. The House Armed Services Committee has revived the panel for exactly the same reason and has done so with the explicit backing of both the committee chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, and the ranking Republican, Howard "Buck" McKeon. When the House and Senate versions of the defense bill go to conference to be reconciled, there is a good chance that Senate Republicans and key Democrats like Lieberman will accede to the House's call for an oversight body.

And so the National Defense Panel will be a natural rallying point for the disparate forces on Capitol Hill and throughout Washington seeking to derail the Gates train. It will provide a vehicle not just for reviewing the termination of the F-22 and other major procurements but also for advocating a more meaningful commitment to irregular warfare by increasing the numbers of U.S. land forces. It would offset the twin Gates strategies of divide-and-conquer--playing off one procurement program against another--and pitting concerns about irregular and high-tech conventional warfare against each other in a zero-sum budget game.

As of today, the QDR is an exercise in putting strategic lipstick on a budget-cutting pig; it is part and parcel of the administration's larger goal of fundamentally reordering federal priorities. At the end of eight years, if the White House has its way, the U.S. budget will ape those of most European countries: huge domestic entitlements, with a defense burden shrinking to or below 3 percent of GDP.

The proposed National Defense Panel could be a small but significant sign that some Democrats and Republicans are having second thoughts about this direction and are willing to challenge Gates's aura of infallibility. If the Senate adds the National Defense Panel provision to the final defense bill, the stage will be set, if not for a battle royal, then at least for an honest debate about the country's future defenses.

Tom Donnelly is resident fellow in defense studies and Gary Schmitt is resident scholar in strategic studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Section 287(g) Revisions: Tearing Down State and Local Immigration Enforcement One Change at a Time

The Heritage Foundation

On Friday, July 9, the Obama Administration announced plans to revise the Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) that are negotiated under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). The section 287(g) program is designed to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws. For participating cities and states, this program is a critical tool for enforcing America's immigration laws, because it has become a force multiplier for the under-resourced Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The MOA changes, however, undercut the motivation of jurisdictions to participate in the program by forcing prosecutors and law enforcement to prosecute illegal immigrants for the underlying crime instead of simply processing them for removal. Furthermore, they limit the ability of law enforcement officers to check immigration status to that of only minor offenses. Essentially, without saying so, they gut the force-multiplier purpose of 287(g). These changes are driven entirely by political special interests and are not representative of the positive contribution section 287(g) makes toward enforcing immigration laws. The Obama Administration should not move forward with these changes, and it should instead promote the expansion of section 287(g) and similar programs.

Section 287(g)

In 1996, Congress created section 287(g) programs as an amendment to the INA. For six years, ICE failed to use the powers authorized in section 287(g). Starting in 2002, ICE started allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into MOAs.

Under section 287(g), law enforcement entities entered into agreements with ICE in order to "act in the stead of ICE agents by processing illegal aliens for removal." Before officers could participate, state and local law enforcement would sign MOAs with ICE and undergo a five-week training course, background check, and mandatory certifications.

Section 287(g) was a solid improvement in terms of enforcing immigration laws. Before it was created, a state and local law enforcement officer who apprehended an individual who could not demonstrate legal presence in the U.S. would simply notify ICE and wait for them to come and get the individual. In practice, this meant most illegal immigrants went free and immigration laws were not enforced.

In the seven years since ICE started using section 287(g), roughly 66 state and local agencies have entered into MOAs resulting in roughly 1,000 law enforcement officers being "deputized" to enforce federal immigration law. Even more importantly, over 120,000 individuals have been identified as illegal immigrants under the program.

Changes to the MOAs

Section 287(g) has experienced great success. This program and other ICE ACCESS programs help fight crime, getting gang leaders and other serious criminals off of the streets and, if they are illegal, removed from the United States.

But in the last year, groups such as the ACLU and other pro-illegal immigration groups, as well as a U.S. Government Accountability Office report, have claimed that section 287(g) programs encourage racial profiling and have other undesirable consequences. Their accusations, however, are not supported by real data or proof that such actions were occurring. In reality, opponents of section 287(g) have often been groups that are in favor of less immigration enforcement.

On July 9, the Obama Administration caved to these demands. It announced plans to make the MOAs "more uniform." The changes announced go to the heart of the program and will disrupt any real attempt to enforce the law, including:

Forcing local law enforcement agencies to pursue all criminal charges. The new MOAs would require law enforcement to prosecute an offender found to be illegal for all initial offenses for which he/she was taken into custody. In practice, and for good reason, law enforcement would often start removal proceedings if they found someone to be illegal instead of going through a costly and lengthy criminal process that would end in the same result. Requiring criminal prosecution will be a severe drain on the resources of the local jurisdictions--and for no legitimate reason. In accordance with America's long-standing commitment to federalism, the Obama Administration should respect the decisions of state and local governments and cease any attempt to micromanage them.
Limiting actions to minor offenses. The new MOAs would attempt to limit the use of immigration checks to those arrested for "major" offenses. But most illegal immigrants who commit crimes commit misdemeanors, not felonies. Given that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammad Atta, was pulled over in a traffic stop (a minor offense) two days before the 9/11 attacks, there is a significant benefit to checking the immigration status of all individuals who are arrested. Had the officer inquired about Atta, he may have found that Atta was in the country illegally and may well have prevented his participation in the attacks.
Questioning the credibility of state and local law enforcement. The announced changes insinuate that ICE should do more to prescribe how section 287(g) participants should use their authority. But Americans trust law enforcement officers to enforce U.S. criminal laws--trust that should be granted to those enforcing U.S. immigration laws as well. Making law enforcement feel like their decisions are questioned will only dissuade them from participating. In light of the new MOAs, a pattern seems to be emerging that indicates the Obama Administration does not trust the professionalism and legality of state and local law enforcement agencies.
The Wrong Approach

American simply cannot afford to lose section 287(g). Although not a panacea in itself to America's illegal immigration problem, it is one of the most useful and efficient tools that can be used to curtail illegal immigration. Any workable section 287(g) program must be flexible and implemented in a way that respects the Constitution and existing laws; recognizes the professionalism, experience, and know-how of state and local law enforcements; and preserves this highly valuable program. A better way forward would include the following:

Allocate more money. Officials have cited a shortage of resources as a reason behind the perceived lack of oversight. And ICE has taken strides to align its resources in a way that saves money. For example, it has reduced a backlog of applications and addressed equipment delays and problems. But given the tremendous benefits, Congress should allocate more funding to these programs in order to address these resource shortages and expand the program.
Institute flexible performance measures. While it is important to have metrics to gauge program success, doing so should not involve a one-size-fits-all approach--and uniformity is not necessary as long as the jurisdictions are acting within the Constitution. One of the easiest ways to track progress is to better define the data reporting process. This data will help ICE to see progress of section 287(g)--progress that should be reported to Congress annually.
It seems illogical to begin dismantling ICE on the same day 11 new jurisdictions are being added to the program. The only viable outcome that will result from the changes to the MOAs is that few, if any, state and local law enforcement agencies will participate in the program. This is death by stealth and too-clever-by-half inside the Beltway tradecraft. If the Obama Administration wants to end the section 287(g) program, it should make its case--in an open and transparent fashion--to Congress and the American taxpayers. Otherwise, the Obama Administration should rethink its choice to revise the MOAs and ensure that state and local law enforcement retain the flexibility needed to make decisions without federal mandates and second-guessing.

Jena Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Matt A. Mayer is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, President and Chief Executive Officer of Provisum Strategies LLC and an Adjunct Professor at Ohio State University. He has served as Counselor to the Deputy Secretary and Acting Executive Director for the Office of Grants and Training in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Borking of Frank Ricci

By The American Spectator

If I were a betting man, I would wager that the person who will face the toughest scrutiny at Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee won't be the nominee but rather a private citizen. Frank Ricci, the New Haven firefighter whose discrimination lawsuit Sotomayor tried to bury she was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court, is due to testify in front of the committee either Thursday or Friday. Ever since Senate Republicans announced last week they had called Ricci to testify, liberal activists have been chomping at the bit. If the appetites of liberal activists are any indication, then Senate Democrats will be chewing Ricci's flesh to the bone.

One might ask why Senate Republicans would put Ricci in such a position. Let us remember that President Obama appointed Sotomayor to the nation's highest court as much for her supposed empathy as for whatever judicial qualifications she might possess. Upon the announcement of David Souter's retirement on May 1, President Obama said:

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

Well, Sotomayor's ruling against Ricci certainly affects the daily realities of Ricci and the other New Haven firefighters. Her ruling certainly affects whether Ricci and the other New Haven firefighters can make a living. When it came to the struggles of Ricci and company, where was the quality of empathy from Sotomayor about which President Obama waxed so eloquently? Ricci's presence before the Senate Judiciary Committee puts the empathy question to the test.

Clearly Ricci's presence perturbs liberal activists, who see him as a threat to Sotomayor's coronation. Leading the charge against Ricci is the liberal activist group People for the American Way (PFAW). Co-founded in 1981 by television producer Norman Lear, PFAW proudly boasts that it "helped lead the coalition that kept Robert Bork off of the U.S. Supreme Court" in 1987.

Shortly after learning Ricci would testify, PFAW circulated an e-mail concerning Ricci's "troubled and litigious work history." PFAW was referring to a lawsuit filed by Ricci in 1995 against the New Haven Fire Department. Ricci contended he had not been hired because of his disclosure of his dyslexia. Eventually, the New Haven Fire Department would hire Ricci in exchange for dropping the lawsuit and payment of Ricci's legal fees.

Brian Beutler wrote on the liberal blog Talking Points Memo:

If you were Frank Ricci, you might say something like, "Frank Ricci got a job and somebody who wasn't dyslexic didn't." Remember, this is the same Frank Ricci who took his reverse discrimination suit all the way to the Supreme Court, where lower court rulings against him--including one by Sotomayor's Second Circuit--were overturned.

Ricci will testify against Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week--this despite the fact that his views on jurisprudence seem to begin and end with the proposition that legal protections against discrimination are great when they work in his favor, and unconscionable when they don't.

Beutler misses the point. Ricci is being remarkably consistent in that he is arguing that discrimination is discrimination. The term reverse discrimination seems to imply that some groups are supposed to be discriminated against -- namely white males. Is Beutler suggesting Mr. Ricci ought to be prohibited from filing more than one discrimination lawsuit in his lifetime? Isn't it possible both lawsuits had merit? If a person genuinely believes they have been discriminated against on more than one occasion why should they prohibited from seeking a legal remedy? Somehow I don't think Beutler would object to an African-American filing multiple discrimination lawsuits unless, of course, that African-American happened to be a conservative.

The fact is that in preparing for these promotional tests, Ricci paid a friend $1,000 to read textbooks onto audio tapes as well as made flash cards, took practice tests, participated in mock interviews and in a study group. Liberals might choose to see Frank Ricci as a malingerer and a malcontent. Conservatives, however, choose to see Frank Ricci as a person who worked diligently for his dream and earned it only to have it unjustly taken from him.

For its part PFAW feigns innocence. Marge Baker, PFAW's Executive Vice-President, said her organization had "simply pointed out the fact that Frank Ricci, on his own behalf, has used employment discrimination laws to help him."

If only it were that simple. Indeed, PFAW also noted Ricci had once been terminated by the fire department in Middletown, Connecticut. Ricci contended he was fired for raising safety concerns. It is worth noting the Middletown Fire Department would later be fined due to safety violations.

Of course, if Ricci were an obstacle for a Supreme Court nominee picked by George W. Bush and Republicans, PFAW would hail Ricci's service as a firefighter and his courage as a whistleblower. But since Ricci is a thorn in the side of the "wise Latina" and by extension President Obama, PFAW instead portrays Ricci as a troubled, litigious malcontent, not as a patriotic, courageous whistleblower. But when Republican Lindsey Graham tells Sotomayor at the outset of the hearings, "you're gonna get confirmed," one must wonder why PFAW even bothers?

Yet it won't get any easier once Ricci testifies. He will be in the awkward position of sitting in between Chuck Schumer and a camera, not to mention be subjected to the comedy styling of newly minted Senator Al Franken. I can imagine Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chair, saying, "Let this committee now come to order. The Borking will now resume."

Sotomayor Displays a Lack of Deep Thinking

By Ilya Shapiro

It strikes me that Sotomayor has been fairly forthright in her responses to questioning, not hiding too much behind the tired clich? that she can’t answer a question because it could lead to prejudging a case—certainly far less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg and even John Roberts. Still, on several important issues, such as property rights, national security law, abortion, and even her overall judicial philosophy, she has appeared disingenuous in saying that she has no firm views on the subject—hiding behind precedent again and again as if first principles didn’t exist. In other words, she says a lot—displaying a broad knowledge of cases and legal doctrine—without answering larger questions. She answers questions about what the law should be with what the law is, questions about what the Constitution says with what the Supreme Court has said about the Constitution.

This would be barely appropriate for a nominee to a lower court, who is, of course, bound by precedent. But senators rightly want to know a Supreme Court nominee’s preferred legal theories, what her view of the Constitution is unencumbered by others’ attempts to interpret that document.

The more Sotomayor speaks, the more it becomes clear that these types of nonanswers, this inability to see (or lack of desire to express) a big picture view, is her own essence. It continues a pattern that is evident from her judicial opinions, which are mostly unremarkable and, in the neutral sense of that term, unimpressive. For all her career success and a personal story we should all celebrate, she is an average judge who apparently gives little thought to the broad swath of law and where her rulings fit into that.

That is, Sonia Sotomayor is not a Cass Sunstein or Larry Tribe or Elana Kagan or (fellow circuit judge) Diane Wood. She is not a scholar or an ideologue. Her liberality is reflexive and warmed-over, a product of the post-modern educational environment that formed her in the 1970s—complete with ethnic activism—but not an intellectual edifice. This does not mean she isn’t a danger to liberty and the rule of law, or that her votes and opinions won’t harm the Constitution. But it does indicate that, for all her bluster about being a “wise Latina,” she is little more than a left-leaning empty robe.

Ilya Shapiro is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and Editor-in-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review

Sotomayor, Civil Rights and Guns

From Fox News

Over the next two weeks, one of the critical issues will be your civil rights on guns. Senators could benefit from context to understand the importance of this civil right to protect families, especially racial minorities. Given Judge Sotomayor's long record, her confirmation must be more than "transparent," it must be penetrating and the Senators must dig deep.



When slavery ended in America after the Civil War, no civil right was more important for black Americans than the right to keep and bear arms. We passed an amendment to the Constitution to make that possible.



Now the Supreme Court will decide this issue. And Sonia Sotomayor has already come down against this civil right, relying on a discredited precedent from a dark chapter in our nation's past.



The next big gun-rights case to go to the Supreme Court will be whether the right to bear arms applies to the states. When the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was ratified in 1791, it only applied to federal laws and the federal government.



But after the Civil War, Congress and the states passed the Fourteenth Amendment, empowering all Americans with those fundamental rights in the Constitution that had protected them against federal oppression. For example, most people know that the First Amendment rights of free speech, religious freedom and peaceful assembly are rights they have against their states. This is true only because of the Fourteenth Amendment.



History makes clear that our post-Civil War leaders considered no civil right more important in 1868, when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, than the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.



In the Southern slave states, it had become illegal for blacks -- whether slave or free -- to own firearms. Under the "Black Codes," people of color were defenseless against racial violence.



And the Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment knew that this was the greatest need of black Americans. They needed to be able to protect themselves against criminals. But more than that, they needed to protect themselves against their state or local governments, which rarely protected them and were often the source of deadly danger facing these former slave families.



In Congress, as they crafted the Fourteenth Amendment, they referred over and over again to the right to bear arms for defending yourself and your family as an essential right of American citizens, which every American needed to be able to assert against his state or city. Many of their lives depended on it.



But shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, and did so twice again just a few years later. Judge Sotomayor relied on one of these cases when she said that people have no gun rights when it comes to state or city laws. Her supporters laud this opinion, saying that it proves she upholds precedent.



But not all precedents should be upheld. The cases that Judge Sotomayor relied on also state that our revered First Amendment doesn't apply to the states, either. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has long since rejected that idea. None of Judge Sotomayor's boosters seem willing to discuss the fact that these precedents she relied on denied free speech and religious liberty against cities and states.



Those precedents also came down during the same time as another infamous decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the standard of "separate but equal" among the races. This terrible decision was precedent in our country for half a century, until the Supreme Court overruled it in Brown v. Board of Education. -- Clearly, sometimes precedent must be overruled.



Specifically, precedent should be overruled when doing so fulfills the original intentions of the Founding Fathers to make people free, as those intentions are found in the Constitution's text.



The Second Amendment deserves to be on equal footing with the First Amendment. The precedent Sonia Sotomayor followed stated that neither of these amendments applied to the states. Even if she were bound to follow it, she should have noted these facts and recommended that the Supreme Court overrule it. She did no such thing.



The right to bear arms is one civil right that must apply to the states. This week the Senate Judiciary Committee has an obligation to find out where Judge Sotomayor truly stands on this right.

Diplomacy: The Art of Saying "Nice Doggie" Until You Find a Rock

by Nick Nichols

Just when I thought that those in Congress responsible for the collapse of the housing market had diverted their attention to the destruction of other sectors of our free market economy (health care and energy), up pops Barney Frank and his trusty sidekick, Anthony Weiner. Turns out, they are once again pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relax recently tightened standards on loans for new condominiums.

That is right folks, socialist hot dogs, Frank and Weiner, are at it again. According to the Wall Street Journal (a publication that can still be called a newspaper), the two democrat lawmakers have sent a letter to Fannie and Freddie claiming that the government sponsored enterprises should “make appropriate adjustments,” because the new, tighter standards for condo loans “may be too onerous.”

Frank is chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, so when a lender, bank or government bureaucrat receives a Barney-gram, those folks pay attention. Apparently, Freddie and Fannie are preparing a response.

I am waiting for the second dog to bite. Specifically, I am concerned that private sector lenders (those who are still in business) might once again pose for “Corporate Social Responsibility” holy pictures and start making junk loans that will cause yet another housing market crash down the road.

Now this may shock the reader, however, my recommendation to Freddie, Fannie and the private sector moneylenders is that they respond to Frank and Weiner with diplomacy. My favorite definition of diplomacy is from Wynn Catlin who wrote that, “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ till you can find a rock.”

I am not suggesting that we start stoning the socialist dim-wits on Capitol Hill—yet. I am suggesting that any response that goes beyond a simple “nice doggie,” deserves the condemnation of everyone who has been harmed by the absolute disaster that Barney and his buddies in Congress perpetrated on those of us who pay our mortgages and our taxes, and don’t expect the government to bail us out.

The public opinion research firm, Rasmussen Reports, just released a new survey showing that 74% of Americans “trust their own judgment more than that of the average member of Congress when it comes to economic issues facing the nation.” According to the research, only 13% trust the likes of Weiner and Frank, and I can only assume that the other 13% were sleep walking during the interview.

Pastor Welcomes Gun Owners to Bring Their Handguns to Church

Fox News

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Louisville pastor is welcoming gun owners into his church's sanctuary Saturday for what he says is a show of support for the right to bear arms.

Ken Pagano is asking visitors to bring their unloaded handguns in a holster at a late afternoon event at New Bethel Church in southwest Louisville.

Pagano says he got the idea after some members at the Pentecostal church expressed concern over the Obama administration's views on gun control. He says the gathering is meant to promote safe gun ownership.

The "Open Carry Celebration" will include a handgun raffle.

It has prompted a coalition of peace and church groups to stage a peaceful, gun-free event across town at the same time on Saturday.

Behind the scene...

Michelle Malkin

If you believe the White House, there are 30 million Americans who support a government health care takeover. But if you look at the funding behind the Obamacare campaign, it's the same few leftist billionaires, union bosses and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda. Let's connect the dots.

On Thursday, a national grass-roots coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) marched on Capitol Hill to demand universal health care. The ground troops didn't have to march very far. HCAN, you see, is no heartland network. It is headquartered at 1825 K St. NW in Washington - smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.

In fact, 1825 K St. is Ground Zero for a plethora of progressive groups subsidized by antiwar, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests. Around Washington, the office complex is known as "The Other K Street." The Washington Post noted in 2007 that "its most prominent tenants form an abbreviated who's who of well-funded allies of the Democratic Party. ... Big money from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn, has provided groups like those at 1825 K St. the wherewithal to mount huge campaigns."

MoveOn, of course, is the recreational political vehicle of radical liberal sugar daddy George Soros. The magnate's financial fingerprints are all over the HCAN coalition, which includes MoveOn, the action fund of the Center for American Progress (a Soros think tank) and the Campaign for America's Future (a pro-welfare state lobbying outfit).

HCAN has a $40 million budget, with $10 million pitched in by the Atlantic Philanthropies - a Bermuda-based organization fronted by Soros acolyte Gara LaMarche. Also in the money mix: notorious Democratic donors Herb and Marion Sandler, the left-wing moguls who made billions selling subprime mortgages and helped Mr. Soros fund his vast network of left-wing activist satellites. By their side is billionaire Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, whose Progressive Future youth group has dispatched clueless volunteers armed with clipboards and literature bashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to scare up support for Obamacare.

And two more left-wing heavyweights joining the HCAN parade: the corruption-plagued SEIU (which has battled numerous embezzlement scandals among its chapters across the country while crusading for consumer and patients' rights) and President Obama's old chums at fraud-riddled ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN and HCAN are linked by left-wing philanthropist Drummond Pike, who heads the nonprofit Tides Foundation/Tides Center. As the tax disclaimer for HCAN discloses, "HCAN is related to Health Care for America Education Fund, a project of The Tides Center, a section 501(c)(3) public charity." For decades, the Tides Center and its parent organization, the Tides Foundation, have seeded some of the country's most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice, the jihadist-friendly National Lawyers Guild and the grievance-mongering Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Mr. Pike is the same philanthropist who assisted ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his brother, Dale, was caught embezzling nearly $1 million from the group. Wade Rathke sits on the Tides Foundation board of directors. In a conspiracy to cover up Dale Rathke's massive theft of funds, Mr. Pike volunteered to buy a promissory note worth $800,000 to cover the debt. These are the populist do-gooders supposedly looking out for you and your health.

Why do they want Obamacare? An internal ACORN memo I obtained from August 2008 makes the motives clear: "Over our 38 years, health care organizing has never been a major focus either nationally or locally for ACORN," wrote ACORN Philadelphia regional director Craig Robbins. "But increasingly, ACORN offices around the country are doing work on health care." The goal: "Building ACORN Power."

The memo outlines the ACORN/HCAN partnership and their strategy of opposing any programs that rely on "unregulated private insurance" - and then parlaying political victory on government-run health care "to move our ACORN agenda (or at least part of it) with key electeds that we might otherwise not be able to pull off."

The objective, in other words, is to piggyback and exploit Obamacare to improve and protect their political health. The grass-roots movement is not about representing Main Street. It's about peddling influence and power at 1825 K St.