Thursday, January 12, 2012

Battle in Brooks County - Part 1 of 2

Battle in Brooks County - Part 2 of 2


World Magazine

Issue: "Border bandits" December 03, 2011

Border bandits

Illegal immigration may be down, but ranchers and farmers in south Texas say the influx continues and it's becoming more violent and criminal
Jamie Dean

FALFURRIAS, Texas—When Linda Vickers leaves home to feed the horses on her Texas ranch each morning, she takes three things: her dog, her cell phone, and her pistol.

For Vickers, these aren't just the trappings of a typical rural rancher: They're a way to guard against the potential danger of illegal aliens and to call U.S. Border Patrol agents if trouble erupts.
Though she hasn't used the gun, the dogs have warned her more than once: A few months ago, Vickers says the dogs "went ballistic" when she walked into the tack room. She discovered two illegal aliens sleeping on the floor.

On another morning, a large man with a pencil-thin mustache followed Vickers from the barn to her home. She called Border Patrol agents, and they apprehended the Brazilian who had split from a group of 40 other illegal aliens. From her back porch, Vickers has watched groups of 10 or more illegal immigrants tromp through her land, and she admits: "It does feel like an invasion."

Vickers' experience isn't unusual among Texas ranchers, but it is notable for at least one reason: She lives nearly 70 miles north of the U.S-Mexico border. The ranch she shares with her husband, Mike Vickers, sits just outside the rural town of Falfurrias in south Texas, and a few miles from the final U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint heading north on Highway 281.

To clear that checkpoint, illegal immigrants have two options: Try to pass through it or try to go around it. Many try to skirt the checkpoint by fanning into the hundreds of thousands of acres of surrounding farmland—including the Vickers' ranch. Human smugglers—known as coyotes—often drop illegal immigrants south of the checkpoint. Another coyote meets them in the brush for an often-treacherous journey to a waiting car north of the station.

Remarkably, thousands try to pass through the checkpoint, often hidden in trucks and cargo. By late October, agents at the Falfurrias checkpoint had apprehended 9,106 undocumented aliens since January. A sign outside the five-lane checkpoint offered another disturbing statistic that underscores a disturbing reality about some of the traffic moving through these rural areas: Since January, agents at the Falfurrias station had also seized 291,829 pounds of narcotics.
The U.S. Border Patrol reports a sharp drop in illegal immigration, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says the border has never been more secure—but local officials and residents in rural Texas tell a different story: Even if some numbers have dropped, illegal immigration remains a consistent problem, and cartel-related drug smuggling poses serious threats.

Indeed, better border security in some areas may be funneling illegal immigrants and drug smugglers to rural lands where the defenses are weaker. A February report from the Government Accountability Office found that the U.S. Border Patrol has achieved operational control of just 44 percent of the southern border. That reality leaves some locals in rural areas fending for themselves and creates national security concerns that extend far beyond border areas.

Examining problems with border security first requires acknowledging progress: The U.S. Border Patrol reported in July that the number of apprehensions of illegal aliens declined by 61 percent over a five-year period. The numbers dropped from 1,189,000 in 2005 to 463,000 in 2010.

The agency acknowledged that a struggling U.S. economy and a weak job market could be factors in the apparent drop in illegal immigration. But agency officials also touted better enforcement efforts, including nearly 700 miles of border fence along the southwestern border. (Many Texans question the effectiveness of the border fence and point to large gaps in many parts of the wall.)

In an El Paso speech in May, President Barack Obama touted the federal government's doubling of Border Patrol agents since 2004, an effort that began under President George W. Bush. Some 20,000 agents now patrol the southwest border. Two months earlier, Napolitano highlighted the low violent crime rates in Texas border towns. She declared: "The border is better now than it has ever been."

Don't tell that to Mike Vickers. On a hot afternoon in late October, the Falfurrias rancher and veterinarian pointed to a fresh set of footprints in the sandy ground on his 1,000-acre ranch. Boot prints followed sneaker prints and revealed last night's chase: Border Patrol agents pursued and apprehended 15 illegal immigrants crossing Vickers' ranch.

The agents had help: Volunteers from Vickers' group—Texas Border Volunteers (TBV)—spotted the illegal aliens during a night watch and called Border Patrol to respond. They gave agents a GPS location for the group and tracked their movements until the agents arrived.

For Vickers, it was a familiar scene. The native Texan has lived in Falfurrias for 37 years and started TBV five years ago to respond to increasing immigrant traffic across the ranches in the area. (The cattle ranches are vast: Vickers' neighbor owns 100,000 acres.) Aside from the trespassing, Vickers says he's suffered costly property damage from immigrants cutting fences and breaking wells.

The rancher runs two-week operations about once a month, and volunteers from all over the country come to patrol for illegal crossings across two counties. On a recent night, volunteers gathered under a shelter on Vickers' ranch ahead of a night patrol. Night vision equipment and binoculars covered folding tables where three men sat, decked in camouflage. Deer trophies hung on an outside wall near a sign with John Wayne's picture and a quote: "Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway."

These guys don't look scared. Rich David—a paramedic from Wisconsin—comes twice a year sporting a handlebar mustache and bringing Wisconsin cheese and beer. He volunteers for two-week stints during his vacation time and says he's provoked to help private landowners protect their property: "Everybody's got to do something." In the last three years, Vickers says the group has reported more than 1,400 illegal immigrants to authorities.

On a pre-dusk patrol the same evening, Vickers pointed to signs of some of those illegal immigrants under a sparse bush: Empty food and drink cans littered the patch of land where a group of illegal aliens had stopped to camp and snack on Vienna Sausages, canned fruit, and five-hour energy drinks.

Sadly, the journey usually takes far longer than five hours, and some immigrants don't make it: Vickers has found dead bodies of immigrants who likely succumbed to soaring temperatures and dehydration. The local sheriff's department has recovered 55 bodies on ranches around the area since January.

Those who do make it follow paths that coyotes and immigrants have created during years of illegal crossings on the ranches. Vickers and his volunteers have given the paths names like "Smuggler's Row" and "Thorny Pipeline." They call another path "Bulls-Eye Crawl" after an elusive immigrant smuggler who wore cowboy boots emblazoned with a bulls-eye. (After years of trying, volunteers helped agents catch the coyote.)

Another path—"The Welcome Center"—got its name after a volunteer patrolman encountered a smuggler and 33 Chinese immigrants passing through the area. Vickers says that's not unusual: Though most of the immigrants are Mexicans, he says he's encountered Sudanese, Somalis, and Indians on his land. Authorities refer to these immigrants as OTMs, an acronym for "Other than Mexicans."

The U.S. Border Patrol reports that 87 percent of apprehended illegal immigrants come from Mexico. Another 11 percent come from South America. While a small percentage are from other countries, it's enough to alarm security hawks. The Border Patrol reported that OTMs apprehended in 2010 included illegal immigrants from four countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba (712), Iran (14), Syria (5), and Sudan (5). Illegal immigrants came from other countries associated with terrorism, including Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

Meanwhile, reports of Mexican cartel activity abound: The Texas Department of Public Safety reports that six Mexican drug cartels have set up operational command centers in cities across the state.

On the same October day that agents caught 15 immigrants on Vickers' ranch, federal authorities revealed a thwarted Iraqi plot with a disturbing twist: The plan to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States in a crowded D.C. restaurant hinged on an Iraqi national seeking help from a Mexican cartel based in Houston.

That didn't surprise Vickers. "The disposition of the traffic has changed," he says. "They're more violent and they're more combative. ... And there seems to be more and more coming from all over the world."

Danny Davila has similar worries. The lone investigator for the Brooks County Sheriff's Department in Falfurrias works with just six deputies covering 950 square miles of territory. Though much of that territory is sparsely populated, the small force is facing big challenges: Davila estimates that immigrant-related issues absorb about 65 percent of the force's time.

Sometimes that means apprehending illegal immigrants coming to the United States to join families or look for work. Other times it means intercepting drug smugglers carting loads of narcotics from Mexico. Sometimes, it's both: Davila says cartels often run both human and drug smuggling operations. A smuggler might surprise an illegal immigrant who's paying for passage to the United States by requiring that he carry a load of drugs.

In a tiny office that Davila shares with his assistant, photos covering the wood-paneled walls show the results of a two-year effort to crack down on drug smuggling: In one photo, officers stand next to a stash of 2,280 pounds of marijuana. Another picture shows piles of drug money that officers seized with smugglers on the way back to Mexico: The bundles of cash came about $30 short of $900,000.

The department won a federal grant to establish a brush crew in 2009: The two-man team spent the year combing nearby ranches to learn the paths the smugglers most often use and begin tracking routes. The progress of the small force in two years points to hard work and heavy drug traffic.

In a lot behind the office, Davila walks through rows of dozens of impounded cars. Some still bear the marks of smuggling: a small, square hole cut behind the front panel of a black sedan shows a spot where smugglers hid tens of thousands of dollars in cash. Davila opens a nearby trailer, revealing another stash: It's filled with seized marijuana, including a common smuggling device—bundles of marijuana taped together and fastened with homemade straps. Smugglers carry the 90-pound loads on their backs through the brush.

It didn't take long for the deputies to interrupt a major smuggling operation: Authorities say that Jose Maria Carbajal smuggled thousands of pounds of marijuana through local ranches for years. When Brooks County deputies identified the routes and started intercepting substantial loads of the drugs, federal authorities say Carbajal plotted revenge with the notorious Zetas drug cartel in Mexico.

In a 19-page criminal complaint, federal officials say Carbajal told an informant that members of the Zetas cartel traveled to Falfurrias after deputies intercepted 1,100 pounds of the Zetas' marijuana. Carbajal said he showed cartel members where two of the Brooks County deputies lived, and that the cartel planned to kidnap at least one of them. Federal authorities arrested Carbajal during a February raid.

On a recent morning, Mo Saavedra headed out for brush patrol. The two-year veteran was one of the deputies threatened by Carbajal. He says he changed some of his routines for safety, but he kept working just as hard. In an unmarked pickup truck, the deputy lumbers through the brush of a nearby ranch with a semi-automatic rifle next to him in the front seat.

When the federal grant for the brush crew expired, Saavedra began making patrols alone. (His partner patrols during other shifts.) Since the department receives very little outside funding, the deputy depends on instincts and a good memory—the truck doesn't have GPS technology or a digital radio for secure communication. He says he's learned most of the territory by spending hours in the brush: "It's all hands on."

On this morning, Saavedra looks for signs of immigrants hiding in bushes, and slows when he sees a vulture circling. This time it's a dead animal, but the deputy has found dead bodies of immigrants who died in the extreme heat.

That's what bothers Davila most. Back in his office, the investigator has two three-ring binders filled with photos of the 55 bodies the department has found this year. One photo shows a woman with a bloated face, but many are unidentifiable remains like skulls and teeth. One photo shows an intact skeleton lying face-up, still clothed in a blue jacket and brown pants.

If an illegal immigrant grows too sick or weak to stay with the group, the smuggler typically leaves him behind. "They don't care if you're the 28-year-old mother of two," says Davila. "They've got your money, and if you can't keep up you die."

Another binder holds pictures and descriptions of 23 people reported missing this year. If family members in Mexico don't hear from a loved one who attempted to cross the border, sometimes they call the sheriff's office.

They might fax or email a photo and send identifying information. One photo showed a pretty young woman leaning under an arched doorway. Another showed a man holding a young child. The description said he was born in 1973 and offered this tip: "Male was left behind three miles outside of Falfurrias as he was unable to walk."

Dying from the elements isn't the only consequence met by some immigrants: Women and girls face the threat of kidnapping for a thriving underground sex trade in the United States. Others are sometimes raped or murdered. It's a reality that disturbs Davila: "That's no way for anyone to die. I don't care where you're from."

The investigator wonders what his small team isn't catching in the brush, and says more resources would help them apprehend more smugglers and protect the surrounding community: "If you just ignore it, it's not going to go away."

While federal authorities insist they aren't ignoring border issues, Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Todd Staples says they're at a minimum denying the severity of the problem. Staples' department released an independent study in September that included testimony from Texas ranchers afraid of the traffic crossing their property. One rancher said he's watched smugglers carry drugs across his property right in front of him. Another said immigrants have come to his door in the middle of the night asking to borrow his phone and his truck.

From his office in Austin, Staples said that ranchers have pleaded with him to ask for more protection of rural farmland. The commissioner says he's been met by "denial and rebuff" from federal officials. While he applauds the Border Patrol's work, and says he's thankful the president has continued to send more agents, he says the pace needs to accelerate, not slow down. That's especially true, he says, in rural areas with far less protection than border crossings.

He warns that without securing these rural areas, and committing more resources to fighting cartels in Texas, drugs and drug-related violence will continue showing up across the country: "It's not the tooth fairy dropping off these drugs in Los Angeles and New Jersey and Dallas and cities across the country."

If protecting rural areas means preventing illegal immigrants from ever crossing the border, some Texans agree that a border fence alone won't do the job. The federal government has completed about 110 miles of fence in the state. Vickers says he's against the fence, calling it a waste of time and money. Others say some barrier is better than no barrier, but that a wall won't keep out illegal immigrants willing to climb over or dig under.

At the border fence in places like Brownsville, illegal immigrants have another option: Walk right through. The 18-foot-high fence has gaps at points large enough to walk or drive through. Officials say that the gaps allow Border Patrol agents to travel through if needed and may have gates in the future. On a recent sunny afternoon, I walked through one gap in Brownsville that had a Border Patrol truck nearby. The truck was empty.

The landscape in Texas makes building a uniform fence difficult. In towns like Brownsville, the Rio Grande River cuts so close to city limits, federal authorities built the fence nearly a mile north of the border. That means a slew of homeowners and businesses own property north of the border, but south of the border fence. They call it a no man's land and say their property values have plummeted.

Vickers and others call for more boots on the ground to respond to illegal crossings, and more internal enforcement of existing immigration laws to discourage illegal immigration. That adds front-burner urgency to the back-burner issue of immigration reform in Washington, D.C.

For now locals like Vickers and Davila say they'll keep protecting as much of their community as possible. In an early November email, Davila wrote about an Oct. 24 accident in Falfurrias: A red Ford pickup truck full of illegal aliens and 500 pounds of marijuana struck the vehicle of an elderly couple from a nearby town. The immigrants had backpacked the drugs through the brush. "All subjects involved were critical, but survived the accident," wrote Davila. "Five illegals were arrested, and two absconded into the brush."


Two or three years ago, Ted Poe was on a tour of the SW border area (south of El Paso about 30 miles). There were some narrow metal bridges crossing the river and he threw a fit about those and I believe they were removed.

Now they want to open up this crossing again. Ever since this crossing was closed, the people (on both sides of the river in this area) have been complaining about having to travel 16 hours to get across. Apparently someone complained enough to get this opened up again. Bill Brooks, the public information officer at the BP Big Bend Sector (formerly called the Marfa Sector), is in favor of opening this crossing as are others. I think they have been talked into opening this crossing because of the remaining population of the little village on the other side and the hardships of those living there. Those Mexicans made their meager living on the tourists that would cross over and eat and buy handmade Mexican items and they would come across to the U.S. side to buy groceries.

Ordinarily the BP would not be allowed to patrol on National Park land...but the House Committee on Natural Resources passed H.R. 1505: National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act in October that has given the BP authority to patrol on NP land (within 100 miles of the border). Conservationists were not happy about it and complained about it being a form of government "land grabbing" and would cause a lot of damage to the parks...but apparently they haven't been to the borders in AZ and witnessed the tons of trash and garbage left by the illegals and smugglers!! I guess the Big Bend BP want to take advantage of this access to park land before the government changes its mind!!

I feel like a lot of others....that this is just going to open up another can of worms for the smugglers...and make it easier for the poor Mexicans to slip across with "a card" and then disappear into the U.S. like millions of others. The Mexicans have been coming across in this area for many years when the river is low enough to wade or walk across....which is probably dry now because of the drought. I believe the river between El Paso and Presidio is still being used by the smugglers....although it may have slowed down some after more and better armed agents were brought in.

I sent the article on this "plan" to Cornyn, AG Greg Abbott, our federal and state reps and senators. I would suggest contacting Perry's office and complaining about this. Since he is running for president...he will be more inclined to listen if he thinks he can get our support. He has been sounding very strong about securing the borders....and this would be a good time to complain to him about the crossing. The $2.3 million cost alone during a bad economy should be enough not to open it.

The Park Service started work on this facility the end of October and are saying it should be completed by spring (unless their plans are "changed") they are already building it. While it may be too late to stop the initial construction....complaints can be sent to:

William E. Wellman
Big Bend National Park Superintendent.
Big Bend National Park
P.O. Box 129
Big Bend National Park, TX 79834

Headquarters & Visitor Information
432-477-1175 FAX
E-mail contact form at:

John J. Smietana, Jr. is the Chief Patrol Agent at the Border Patrol Big Bend Sector (formerly called the Marfa Sector) in Marfa, TX, and can be reached at:

(432) 729-5200 or 1-888-536-6204

Bill Brooks is the public information officer for the BP Big Bend Sector and can be reached at: (432) 729-5200 or 1-888-536-6204

Mailing address:
Big Bend Border Patrol Sector
P.O. Box I
Marfa, TX 79843

From Pat Kennedy, WTCCC, Midland via e-mail

Read article here.

Obama Appoints La Raza Radical to Lead Our Domestic Policy

FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....Barack Hussein Obama continues stacking the deck of government leadership in favor of wide-open borders and amnesty for all. His latest move: appointing the former senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, Cecilia Muñoz, to head the Domestic Policy Council.

Cecilia Muñoz is a LaRaza radical amnesty advocate!!! My definition of an "amnesty advocate" is a demanding, arm-twisting behind closed doors, open borders lobbyist, that will stop at nothing to get their way in Washington....and National Council of LaRaza has produced some of the most outspoken radicals and determined amnesty advocates.

In 2008, LaRaza helped to register nearly 200,000 new Hispanic voters and helped more than 1.5 million eligible immigrants apply for citizenship. The actions of LaRaza will be as strong in the 2012 elections. LaRaza demands and is fighting for open borders and rights for all legal and illegal Latinos.

Janet Murgia, current president and CEO of National Council of LaRaza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil-rights and advocacy organization in the United States, was a deputy assistant to Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000. Murguia served as deputy director of legislative affairs, managing the legislative staff and acting as a senior White House liaison to Congress. Clinton granted six amnesties during his eight years in office.

Obama is granting his promised amnesties to the open borders activists...but through the back door of the White House!!! (Sneaky little devils aren't they!!)

Pat Kennedy

Read article here.

Monday, January 2, 2012

The New Republican Primary Rules Make It Possible for the Republican Establishment To Steal the Nomination From a Candidate They Don’t Like

From:  End of the American Dream

"New Republican primary rules are going to make it basically impossible for any candidate to wrap up the Republican nomination very early in 2012. In fact, the new Republican primary rules make a "brokered convention" much more likely and they also make it much more likely that the Republican establishment will attempt to steal the nomination away from a candidate that they do not like. How exactly they would do this will be discussed later in the article. The key is that most Republican primaries and caucuses will now allocate delegates using a proportional system rather than a "winner take all" system. Back in 2008, John McCain did very well in early "winner take all" primaries and wrapped up the Republican nomination very, very quickly. Nothing like that will happen in 2012. In fact, if the field remains crowded it is going to be very difficult for any candidate to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates by the time the Republican national convention rolls around. As will be discussed later on in this article, that would move the power into the hands of the Republican establishment.
First, let's try to understand what these new changes are. Sadly, it appears that even most Republican voters do not understand how things have changed.
The following rule was adopted by the Republican Party back in August 2010....
"Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis."
This new rule means that delegates will be apportioned to candidates on a proportional basis in Republican caucuses and primaries that are conducted prior to April 1st. One notable exception to this rule is Florida, which got approval to remain a "winner take all" state. So Florida will be very important.
In addition, all of the states that are now using "proportional representation" do not allocate delegates the exact same way. Each state has slightly different election rules.
But in general, in most of the primaries and caucuses held before April 1st, delegates will be awarded to multiple candidates instead of to just a single candidate.
Therefore, it now becomes much less important who wins each individual state. Instead, the key is how many delegates a candidate picks up in each state.
The Republicans decided to go to such a system after watching the extended battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008. The following comes from a recent Huffington Post article....
Don't look for a quick winner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. After watching Democrats successfully ride their historic primary battle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama all the way to the White House in 2008, the Republicans quietly adopted a new rule designed to extend their nominating process this time around.
The rule limits the ability of candidates to win large numbers of delegates in early primaries and caucuses – those held before April – because delegates must be awarded in proportion to the votes a candidate receives.
If proportional representation would have been used back in 2008, the Republican race would have looked much different. John McCain would have had to battle much, much longer to secure the nomination.
The following comes from
Consider the 2008 Republican nomination contest. John McCain secured an essentially insurmountable lead on February 5, Super Tuesday. Sen. McCain had become the frontrunner heading into Super Tuesday by winning three key primaries: South Carolina, Florida and New Hampshire. His average percentage share in those contests was just 34.5%, and he never even broke the 40% threshold. Even on February 5, he won only 3 states with a majority of the vote.
Although McCain on Super Tuesday did not capture a majority of the popular vote (and did not, in fact, ever reach a majority of 50% of votes cast in primaries), McCain’s disproportionately large delegate count forced his leading opponents to drop out of the race.
Some even believe that an extended three way race between McCain, Romney and Huckabee could have resulted in a "brokered convention" back in 2008. The following analysis comes from a recent Daily Kos article....
In 2008, the Republican primary contest was decided quickly and relatively painlessly only because there were winner-take-all rules at the time. Those rules have been changed. If you take the current proportional delegate rules and apply them to the results of the 2008 race through Feb 5th, when the race was still heavily contested, something very surprising happens. John McCain, who took a commanding lead under the winner-take-all rules in effect in most states, instead ends up behind Mitt Romney by eight delegates (with a confidence factor of plus or minus 5 delegates.) The standings, with more than half the delegates decided, would have been as follows.
Romney 439McCain 431Huckabee 247Other 114
This year, there will be very few "winner take all" primaries, and most of those will be at the end of the schedule.
This is going to encourage candidates to stick around longer. The more delegates that a candidate can accumulate, the more leverage that candidate will have moving into the convention.
Right now, the Republican field is very crowded and nobody has been able to take a commanding lead in the polls. The possibility that no candidate will be able to accumulate more than 50% of the delegates by the time of the Republican convention seems to grow by the day.
If no candidate has won more than 50% of the delegates by convention time, then it is likely that we will have a brokered convention.
So exactly what is a brokered convention?
The following is how Wikipedia defines a brokered convention....:
A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential-candidate at its nominating convention.
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.
Okay, so how does all of this make it possible for the Republican establishment to steal the nomination from a candidate that they do not like?
It is actually very easy.
If the Republican establishment does not like the candidate that is leading in the delegate count, they can try to shoot for a brokered convention.
They can do this by encouraging candidates to stay in the race longer in order to water down the vote.
They can also do this by encouraging late entrants into the race in order to steal some delegates away.
In fact, there are persistent rumors that the Republican establishment is already lining up late entrants to enter the race. The following comes from a recent Wall Street Journal article....
Efforts are underway by some wealthy Republican donors and a group of conservative leaders to investigate whether a new Republican candidate could still get into the presidential race. The talk is still preliminary and somewhat wishful, but it reflects dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
Conservative leaders are looking into whether it is feasible for a dark horse to get on the ballot in select states. The deadline to qualifying for the ballot has passed in Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire. But a candidate could still get on the ballot in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas. At the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, voters write in their choice, so there is no formal filing deadline.
The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.
If a candidate that the Republican establishment does not like gets out to an early lead, the Republican establishment will move heaven and earth in an attempt to keep that candidate from accumulating 50 percent of the delegates.
The goal would be to cause a brokered convention which would enable the Republican establishment to hand pick whatever candidate that they want.
In fact, if a brokered convention happens the Republicans could end up selecting someone that is not even running.
It certainly does not sound very American, but this is a very real possibility.
The Republican establishment is only going to go along with the will of the people as long as they pick the "correct" candidate.
That is why any anti-establishment candidate is going to be facing a huge uphill battle this year. It would be way too easy for the Republican establishment to force a brokered convention.
Any candidate that wants to avoid a brokered convention is going to have to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates before the convention, and that is going to be very difficult to do under the new rules."

Saturday, December 31, 2011


From Unfiltered News December 21, 2011 By

What is Sustainable Development?
“Sustainable Development” is the UN Agenda 21 “Plan For The 21st Century”
It is the UN plan to manage and control ALL human activity under Marxist/socialist principles.
Re-distribution of wealth is a built in feature of it.
In practicality, it is a direct economic attack on the United States.
In fact, Maurice Strong was the Chair of the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio where Agenda 21 was introduced. He made the intent clear when he was quoted saying that it was their responsibility to bring about the collapse of the industrialized countries.
It has been incorporated into federal policy with a series of Executive Orders starting with #12982 in 1994 and continuing this year with more creating the Rural and Ocean Council’s.
It is the primary reason that we can’t meet our energy needs with production from our vast natural resources whether it be petroleum, coal or timber.
It is the reason that the vital Keystone Pipeline project is being opposed.
It is the reason we export almost a trillion dollars annually buying imported oil when we have proven reserves totaling more than all the mid-east countries combined.
It is the reason American’s are exhorted to cut back energy use to 1990′s levels further crippling the economy while China and other countries are exempt. All based on a fraudulent premise put forth by the U.N. IPCC.
It is the reason that over 600 local governments in the U.S. are dues paying members of ICLEI which directs the local implementation of Agenda 21 and other U.N. policies that Congress never approved. (see:
It is the reason that the Secretary of Transportation announced that promoting motorized transportation is no longer their priority.
It is the reason that our seafood production is severely restricted with only limited access allowed to abundant marine resources.
It is the reason that some of the most productive areas of the oceans around the coast are being closed off in “Marine Protected Areas”
It is the reason that NOAA Director, Dr. Jane Lubchenco has made implementing the Agenda 21, Catch Share allocation system in every American fishery a top priority. In New England and Florida the results are American fishermen out of work and the Governor of Massachusetts declaring an economic disaster with a request for $21 million in federal aid.
Dr. Lubchenco’s response was asking for $54 million in additional funds to expand the program.
It is a primary reason that we import 84% of our seafood and export (re-distribute) nearly $11 billion to foreign countries like China and Vietnam in a seafood trade deficit.
It is the reason that our manufacturing base has been moved to foreign countries starting with NAFTA which had the goal of “promoting Sustainable Development”.
It is the reason that the Federal, State and local governments have been buying land in an effort to create the “system of protected areas” called for in the un-ratified U.N. Agenda 21 treaty.
It is the reason the U.S. Senate refused to even vote on the treaty when maps of The Wildlands Project were displayed on the floor of the Senate. The stated goal is “50% of the land in Core Wilderness areas with little or no human use” interconnected with Wildlife Corridors surrounded with Buffer Zones.
It is the reason that Volusia County, Florida now owns approximately 40% of the land in the County creating a “Conservation Corridor”.
When you put it all together it is a primary reason for the collapse of the American economy just as U.N. official, Maurice Strong wanted in 1993 when it all started.
Now, what are we going to do about it?   ~Lordhawke