New FBI report: Arabs smuggled to U.S. through Mexico
Grassfire.org Alliance
From the Desk of Steve Elliott
According to ABC News, the FBI is now investigating a major
human smuggling ring that is bringing Iraqi and other
Middle Easterners into the U.S. through our southern
border (see below for a link to the article).
The report indicated that the smuggling ring "used to
smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other
Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative."
The smugglers gathered at the Mexican border, crossed
the Rio Grande and bordered their "cargo" on trains
for the U.S. interior.
And this smuggling ring is just the tip of the iceberg.
+ + Hezbollah and Al Qaida coming through Mexico
Last year, the FBI director reported that both Hezbollah
and Al Qaida terrorists had crossed our Mexican border.
Also, as we reported in our "Truth About Illegal Invasion"
booklet, in a four-year period (2001-2005) more than 91,500
illegal aliens from countries known to or suspected of
sponsoring terrorism were apprehended at our border.
That means an estimated 200,000 illegals from potential
terrorist nations were not apprehended and successfully
infiltrated our country.
+ + Iranian terrorists coming through Cuba then Mexico
A few days ago, I received an anonymous call from an
Iranian man who is legally residing in the U.S. He
desperately wanted to get the word out that it is
common knowledge in the Iranian community that
terrorists are being smuggled into the U.S. through
Cuba and then Mexico.
He said he couldn't give me his name (for fear of repercussions),
and I admit his report is anectdotal. But based on what
our own FBI is willing to report publicly about Hezbollah
and Al Qaida and now this new smuggling ring, is there
any reason to doubt this man's report?
Meanwhile...
Only 13 miles of the 854 miles of border
fence authorized last year has been built.
And none of the 13 miles of new construction
has been of the mandated double-layer variety.
ed, let's face it -- President Bush and
the Kennedy amnesty gang would have quietly passed their
amnesty bill if you and I and thousands of other citizens
had not raised our voices.
Likewise, they will not build the fence and secure our
borders (even though terrorists are crossing constantly)
unless you and I and thousands more rise up and demand it!
A few days ago, we launched a major "Where's The Fence?"
fax and phone campaign to the President and Congress
Our records show you have not yet scheduled your faxes.
Please go here to schedule your faxes:
http://www.grassfire.org/22042/offer.asp?rid=11222869
(We also have posted the phone and fax numbers so you can
make calls and send faxes on your own if you prefer.)
Thank you for the stand you are taking!
Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org
P.S. I've posted this update on FireSociety with a link
to the ABC News article. Go here for those resources:
http://www.firesociety.com/blog/100/15791/?src=111
www.mccainalert.com
Friday, July 20, 2007
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand
John McCain was followed by Hillary Clinton on the floor of the Senate
early (and I do mean early!) this morning and they presented
two strikingly different visions of the war in Iraq. John McCain continues
to stand for victory against al Qaeda in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton
has sided with the Democrats who are calling for retreat and defeat.
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand al Qaeda "a historic victory"?
Hillary Clinton voted to surrender in our efforts to fight terrorists and Islamic extremists in Iraq, and dutifully indulged the Democratic leadership's all-night "debate." She sided with the Democratic leadership to put on a publicity stunt rather than acting like a leader and standing up for our troops. John McCain, however, refused to give in to the Democrats' empty exhibition, and used his
time speaking on the floor of the Senate to give an impassioned speech
fighting for victory in Iraq. While Hillary Clinton and the Democrats
pretended to lead, it was John McCain who showed real leadership in
denouncing their political stunt.
As John McCain points out time and again, there is a simple choice
facing our nation and it boils down to this - will we have the courage
to win the war against Islamic extremists, or will we succumb to the political pressures of the moment and accept defeat? Hillary Clinton and the Democrats claim this is a war we cannot win. But if we cannot win this war, then who won?
The answer is in the Iraq Study Group report, which states, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory."
The choice is simple, but our resolve for victory is more important now than ever before.
"This fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than
that and more important still, about whether America still has the
political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for
defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot
walk away gracefully from defeat in this war."
-John McCain
I am proud that John McCain is standing for victory in Iraq. He understands
that courage and sacrifice are necessary to make this historic choice, especially from the brave men and women fighting for our country. So much rests on
the shoulders of these brave men and women, and we as a nation should
not ask them to sacrifice for us unless it is absolutely necessary.
These are dangerous times we live in, and our enemy is not going away.
In fact, our talk of defeat and withdrawal is only emboldening the
terrorists we are fighting in Iraq. Make no mistake - the terrorists
are in this war to win.
Do we have the courage to stand up and fight for victory? Or will we
settle for Hillary Clinton's vision of retreat and defeat? John McCain has reminded
us time and again that the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq are catastrophic, which is why we must stand strong for victory.
I know most of you probably weren't watching the debate at 4 a.m. this
morning and I know most of your friends probably weren't either.
That's why it's up to us to spread the word about this morning's
clear contrast. John McCain and Hillary Clinton present starkly
different views of the War in Iraq. This morning there was one man
standing before the United States Senate ready to be our next
Commander-in-Chief. That man is John McCain.
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
www.mccainalert.com
John McCain was followed by Hillary Clinton on the floor of the Senate
early (and I do mean early!) this morning and they presented
two strikingly different visions of the war in Iraq. John McCain continues
to stand for victory against al Qaeda in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton
has sided with the Democrats who are calling for retreat and defeat.
Do we want a Commander-in-Chief ready to hand al Qaeda "a historic victory"?
Hillary Clinton voted to surrender in our efforts to fight terrorists and Islamic extremists in Iraq, and dutifully indulged the Democratic leadership's all-night "debate." She sided with the Democratic leadership to put on a publicity stunt rather than acting like a leader and standing up for our troops. John McCain, however, refused to give in to the Democrats' empty exhibition, and used his
time speaking on the floor of the Senate to give an impassioned speech
fighting for victory in Iraq. While Hillary Clinton and the Democrats
pretended to lead, it was John McCain who showed real leadership in
denouncing their political stunt.
As John McCain points out time and again, there is a simple choice
facing our nation and it boils down to this - will we have the courage
to win the war against Islamic extremists, or will we succumb to the political pressures of the moment and accept defeat? Hillary Clinton and the Democrats claim this is a war we cannot win. But if we cannot win this war, then who won?
The answer is in the Iraq Study Group report, which states, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory."
The choice is simple, but our resolve for victory is more important now than ever before.
"This fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than
that and more important still, about whether America still has the
political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for
defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot
walk away gracefully from defeat in this war."
-John McCain
I am proud that John McCain is standing for victory in Iraq. He understands
that courage and sacrifice are necessary to make this historic choice, especially from the brave men and women fighting for our country. So much rests on
the shoulders of these brave men and women, and we as a nation should
not ask them to sacrifice for us unless it is absolutely necessary.
These are dangerous times we live in, and our enemy is not going away.
In fact, our talk of defeat and withdrawal is only emboldening the
terrorists we are fighting in Iraq. Make no mistake - the terrorists
are in this war to win.
Do we have the courage to stand up and fight for victory? Or will we
settle for Hillary Clinton's vision of retreat and defeat? John McCain has reminded
us time and again that the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq are catastrophic, which is why we must stand strong for victory.
I know most of you probably weren't watching the debate at 4 a.m. this
morning and I know most of your friends probably weren't either.
That's why it's up to us to spread the word about this morning's
clear contrast. John McCain and Hillary Clinton present starkly
different views of the War in Iraq. This morning there was one man
standing before the United States Senate ready to be our next
Commander-in-Chief. That man is John McCain.
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
www.mccainalert.com
IS HILLARY HEDGING ON HEDGE FUNDS?
IS HILLARY HEDGING ON HEDGE FUNDS?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Although Hillary Clinton claims to adamantly support tax fairness,
she can't make up her mind about whether Wall Street barons should
have to pay the same tax rate as the regular workers she loves and
the corporations she loathes.
Right now, when private equity and hedge funds go public, the funds and
their managers only have to pay a 15 percent tax on their millions in
profits. That's a lot less than the top rates of 35 percent for
corporations and 33 percent for individuals. Doesn't sound fair,
does it?
But Hillary, whose Web site espouses justice and fairness by leveling
the playing field and reducing special breaks for big corporations
and ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes hasn't
come out in support of legislation co-sponsored by Barack Obama and
backed by John Edwards to increase the tax rate on hedge funds and
private equity firms to 35 percent.
She's still thinking about it.
And we're not talking about peanuts here. The dollars involved in these
transactions give new meaning to the term big bucks. Take a look at
the public offering on one such firm, Blackstone. Its IPO later this
month is expected to net $4.75 billion! And two of the partners alone
will have made almost $10 billion in the transaction. According to Business
Week, top partners Stephen Schwartzman and Pete Peterson will personally make billions: Schwarzman, 60, will own 24 percent of Blackstone after the
IPO, a stake that would be worth about $7.73 billion. Peterson, 80,
will get at least $1.88 billion when he sells all but 4 percent of
his interest in the firm.
And that's not all: the Blackstone folks are not even satisfied with that
amazingly low and preferential tax rate of 15 percent. Apparently they've even concocted a plan to avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion of the $4.75
billion profit.
Think about the difference between Mr. Peterson's taxes on the $1.8
billion at the current 15 percent rate and the proposed 35 percent rate:
that's $270 million vs. $630 million - a $360 million difference.
That's why the hedge fund and private equity firms have been deluging
Congress with their lobbyists and their money.
So why isn't Hillary jumping on the Obama/Edwards bandwagon? This is her kind of issue, isn't it? Her Web site also promotes ... reforming the governance of corporations and the financial sector. It is inconsistent with our values to allow CEO pay to skyrocket while workers' wages and benefits are under threat.
Guess how much Blackstone's CEO, Mr. Schwartz, made in 2006? FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!
And Hillary still has to think about it.
Maybe it's because she has received more contributions from hedge funds in her senate campaign than any other member of Congress $144,460 in the period
from January 2005 to June 2006 alone. And another $160,000 in the first
six months of her presidential campaign.
That's definitely something to think about.
But there's more: Hillary has a family interest in the hedge fund industry
Chelsea Clinton works for the Avenue Capital Group, a $12 billion hedge
fund in New York.
According to Marc Lasry, founder and managing partner of the firm (and a
long-time contributor to Hillary), he thinks that hedge funds make too
much money: "Obviously, what we make is absolutely obscene. I think it's
too much. I'm not saying it's wrong ... (but) trust me, the dollars
are still obscene."
Most people would agree with Mr. Lasry.
It's time to change the rules.
Hillary Clinton should stop hedging and join Edwards and Obama in seeking the justice and fairness that she claims to be pursuing.
Published on FoxNews.com on July 13, 2007.
www.mccainalert.com
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Although Hillary Clinton claims to adamantly support tax fairness,
she can't make up her mind about whether Wall Street barons should
have to pay the same tax rate as the regular workers she loves and
the corporations she loathes.
Right now, when private equity and hedge funds go public, the funds and
their managers only have to pay a 15 percent tax on their millions in
profits. That's a lot less than the top rates of 35 percent for
corporations and 33 percent for individuals. Doesn't sound fair,
does it?
But Hillary, whose Web site espouses justice and fairness by leveling
the playing field and reducing special breaks for big corporations
and ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes hasn't
come out in support of legislation co-sponsored by Barack Obama and
backed by John Edwards to increase the tax rate on hedge funds and
private equity firms to 35 percent.
She's still thinking about it.
And we're not talking about peanuts here. The dollars involved in these
transactions give new meaning to the term big bucks. Take a look at
the public offering on one such firm, Blackstone. Its IPO later this
month is expected to net $4.75 billion! And two of the partners alone
will have made almost $10 billion in the transaction. According to Business
Week, top partners Stephen Schwartzman and Pete Peterson will personally make billions: Schwarzman, 60, will own 24 percent of Blackstone after the
IPO, a stake that would be worth about $7.73 billion. Peterson, 80,
will get at least $1.88 billion when he sells all but 4 percent of
his interest in the firm.
And that's not all: the Blackstone folks are not even satisfied with that
amazingly low and preferential tax rate of 15 percent. Apparently they've even concocted a plan to avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion of the $4.75
billion profit.
Think about the difference between Mr. Peterson's taxes on the $1.8
billion at the current 15 percent rate and the proposed 35 percent rate:
that's $270 million vs. $630 million - a $360 million difference.
That's why the hedge fund and private equity firms have been deluging
Congress with their lobbyists and their money.
So why isn't Hillary jumping on the Obama/Edwards bandwagon? This is her kind of issue, isn't it? Her Web site also promotes ... reforming the governance of corporations and the financial sector. It is inconsistent with our values to allow CEO pay to skyrocket while workers' wages and benefits are under threat.
Guess how much Blackstone's CEO, Mr. Schwartz, made in 2006? FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!
And Hillary still has to think about it.
Maybe it's because she has received more contributions from hedge funds in her senate campaign than any other member of Congress $144,460 in the period
from January 2005 to June 2006 alone. And another $160,000 in the first
six months of her presidential campaign.
That's definitely something to think about.
But there's more: Hillary has a family interest in the hedge fund industry
Chelsea Clinton works for the Avenue Capital Group, a $12 billion hedge
fund in New York.
According to Marc Lasry, founder and managing partner of the firm (and a
long-time contributor to Hillary), he thinks that hedge funds make too
much money: "Obviously, what we make is absolutely obscene. I think it's
too much. I'm not saying it's wrong ... (but) trust me, the dollars
are still obscene."
Most people would agree with Mr. Lasry.
It's time to change the rules.
Hillary Clinton should stop hedging and join Edwards and Obama in seeking the justice and fairness that she claims to be pursuing.
Published on FoxNews.com on July 13, 2007.
www.mccainalert.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)