Page Nine

Illegal Immigration Persists

The lamestream media told you:

According to the AP:
"WASHINGTON — Arrests of illegal immigrants along the U.S. border with Mexico are at the lowest level since the Nixon administration, indicating that fewer people are attempting to cross the border to live or work in the U.S. The development could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here. It's the sixth straight year apprehensions have dropped. In the fiscal year that ended Sept.30, the Border Patrol arrested 327,577 people trying to cross the southern U.S. border.

"Arrests of people trying to sneak across the border have been steadily declining since 2006 after an all-time high of more than 1.6 million apprehensions in 2000." [If the all time high was in 2000 but numbers are declining since 2006, does that add up?]

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

1. For the umpteenth time: Decreased border arrests do not equate to fewer border crossers, it simply means authorities are catching fewer people.

2. Catching 327,000 people invading the U.S. is not a good thing, as AP implies. No accounting of the people who snuck in was included in the report because it is not known, could be much larger than the number of captures, as it has been in the past, and is also not a good thing.

3. The AP's suggestion in its second sentence that this, "could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here," is blatant editorializing right where the news is supposed to go. A third of a million invaders implies no such suggestion, except perhaps to the AP, a now well-recognized frequent propaganda arm of government.

4. Peak apprehensions of 1.6 million, several years ago (implying that at least an equal number snuck in) does nothing to justify the nearly 1,000 people this year caught trying to sneak in every day.

5. If indeed the lower captures are somehow related to a reduced number of invaders, the most likely explanation has been unmentioned -- after sneaking more than 20 million illegals into the country, they're running out of people to send. Who is "they"? Good question.

Illegal Immigration Succeeds

The lamestream media told you:

Both parties want a solution to illegal immigration, but they have very different approaches.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The "news" conjecture that the parties want to end illegal immigration is patently false, since many on the political right, including many businesses, love illegal immigration because it supplies a wonderfully large pool of low-priced labor.

The left is more overt in their support of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration:

-- Helps fundamentally transform America

-- Serves social justice goals

-- Is fair, because we stole the land, now must give it back, to be fair

-- These people struggled to get here, they ought to have a right to stay

-- How can you be heartless and deny them medical care

-- What about the innocent children who are victims of their parents' abuse

-- Some have served in the military and deserve rewards

-- Some have gone to college, at in-state rates, which helps the colleges

-- Oppressors have to face the music and this is it

-- Americans want non-government drugs, the migrants just supply demand

-- The drug and illigration wars provide job support for thousands of federal workers

-- Those workers support grocers, dry cleaners, car dealers, the entire economy

-- If illegals stop sending cash back to Mexico, it would collapse, and that would be a bad thing

-- Their brethren here support the migration, and they vote

-- The illegal immigrants also vote

-- Legals simply won't pick lettuce

-- Checkpoints help get the public used to unconstitutional police-state tactics for future programs

-- Militarization of the police advances all sorts of federal policies

-- Buckets of money flow into states from the feds for immigration programs, whether it works or not

-- Without constant fear your need for government decreases

-- All the immigration crises are good for advancing multiple agendas

-- If you can keep the Reps and Dems at each others' throats over this, the Bilberbergs and company benefit

-- Controversy helps sell newspapers, though that isn't working very well, is it.

Putting Numbers To The “Safest Border” Lie

The lamestream media told you:

Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano visited the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday to ensure Americans that it's safe to travel and conduct business across the border. The border is better now than it ever has been." (March 11, 2011). Mr. Obama, the current occupant of the White House, agreed with the assessment, and everyone in the administration, at least publicly, agrees.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047102-503544.html

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Sorry this took so long, but I've now got the numbers for the safest border. The latest figures available (some 2008, some 2009, from multiple sources including an attendee of the recent non-public DHS Security Conference, and the Government Accounting Office) --

463,000 illegals were caught trying to cross the border, the lowest since 1992. That's people caught, about a half million. The total number of crossings is UNKNOWN, so saying it's safer is unsupportable. Captures are down from 1.2 million in 2005, because --

Part of the reason the captures are low, is because Border Patrol has specific orders to send people back across the border, not arrest them and reduce the strwbrain on the judicial and prison systems. If that isn't blatant deception I don't know what would be.

Judicial Watch reports that of the captures, 59,000 are OTMs, Border Patrol's now famous term for Other Than Mexicans.

Of those, 663 were from “Special Interest Nations,” a government way of not saying muslims. No other information on these muslims, or what they had with them, is available. Again, these are only captured muslims, the total number of muslims sneaking in from nations of special interest is UNKNOWN.

The border, which is about 2,000 miles long, includes 129 miles where we can fully control and stop invading illegals, according to GAO. Another 367 miles has what's called “pedestrian fencing,” the kind a pedestrian has to work at to cross.

There's more, but you get the idea. DHS Secretary Napolitano is still in office, despite the travesties perpetrated on the public from her own lips. Rumors that those lips have never kissed a man could neither be confirmed nor denied at press time, and if you want to attack me for an off-color joke, you're one of the reasons I wrote Bomb Jokes At Airports. My latest book points out that otherwise good Americans have soaked up this nonsense about banning speech to protect, well, what exactly? You think banning jokes protects you? If you want to help in the struggle for freedom, get a copy, have some good belly laughs, and learn a mouthful. See hundreds of things you can no longer easily say, as politics cancels the First Amendment. Plus, find out how you can fix the problem.

Breaking News: BATFE In The Dark On Mexican Drug Guns

Jan. 24, 2011

Agency experts admit they have no idea how many guns go to Mexico from U.S.

Has no way to get the information either

"90%" figure used by U.S. media and government pundits is unsupportable

No desire to get the number or conflict with public statements

Exclusive to The Uninvited Ombudsman

LAS VEGAS -- In personal conversations at the SHOT Show with four high-level Justice Dept. officials, including knowledgeable BATFE experts speaking on condition of anonymity, it became apparent that a commonly cited figure used by the "news" media to attack American gun stores and gun rights is a complete fabrication.

No method exists to obtain the information. The agency has no mandate or desire to do so. Even if the information could be obtained or deduced from what few records exist, they would be reluctant to release it to the public and anger their superiors, they say. From the head of the State Dept. to the heads of various departments within the agency, the 90% gun-running stat has been standardized despite it being completely false.

Hillary Clinton, the current Secretary of State has publicly repeated the remark, made by Mr. Obama, who said at a Mexican press conference, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border." FactCheck.org provides interesting background on the false nature of these quotes: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

New information, according to our sources:

--Corruption, incompetence and inefficiency within the Mexican government itself prevents those officials from actually knowing how many guns they confiscate in the first place, from the illegal-vegetable cartels fighting Mr. Calderon's failed war on some drugs.

--An unknown number of these weapons are recycled right back into the cartels through bribes and theft, further clouding any numbers that are eventually provided to U.S. bureaucrats. Without these numbers, and ratios or comparisons are meaningless.

--Mexico does not release such information in a forthright way to U.S. officials, and what we do get is of unknown quality or accuracy. This makes any comparison or ratio of U.S. traces to the totals mere guesswork with less credibility than a routine issues poll conducted by ideological groups.

--An unknown percentage of confiscated-gun information in Mexico is sent to the U.S. for tracing. It is believed to be below 33%, and may be as low as ten percent or less. With no way to know this number, the percentages quoted by American leaders can barely be called propaganda. Only some guns with serial numbers or other markings, which may indicate a U.S. connection are submitted, making the quoted percentages preposterous.

--Of the traces actually conducted, which itself is only a portion of the total, officials made it quite clear that while American origin could theoretically be determined for some segment of the traces, determining how many of these are straw purchase and hence from border gun shops is essentially impossible.

They cited many reasons for this, including the fact that only the original purchaser can be identified. Guns bought years ago could go through many hands before making it to: a prohibited possessor (a likely source of many of the firearms, they said), an after-market straw purchaser (cannot be determined), theft (only distinguished if the then-current owner filed a report) or other means. The agency does NOT compile such statistics because they realize it would be a fruitless exercise in futility.

Among the answers repeatedly given for why the numbers are so bad, why top officials are using the now openly bogus figures, what the chances for future improvement might be, and why they won't publicly admit the truth or confront the leadership and help reestablish a semblance of credibility for the agency, were, "I have no knowledge of those statistics," and "I have no access to that information."

Reports surfacing from South America suggest that cartels, overflowing with cash and influence, send truck convoys (not just trucks) to aging military warehouses in Central and South America, stuff them with firearms sent by the U.S. and other world powers over the decades to prop up various banana governments, and obtain more firepower in one load than an army of drug-lord indebted hos can buy on 4473 forms from legitimate dealers in a lifetime.

Pictures staged by federal authorities to display captured weaponry, featuring fragmentation grenades, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), 20mm and 40mm cannon shells and other military ordnance not available from any U.S. stores, support the claims that drug cartels hardly need to shop at retail and pay sales tax.

Additionally, the ever-popular communist-designed AK-47 and similar weapons might come through the U.S. in some cases, but the point of origin for these is obviously not the U.S., a fact completely ignored among all the fuss. One knowledgeable source believes that less than 10% of all Mexican cartel armaments come from U.S. sources, in the sense of illegal retail purchases smuggled across the border. Some U.S. originated arms, supplied to the Mexican government in an official capacity, leak into the black market as soldiers there desert by the thousands annually. No comments from the White House or the State Dept. have been received or are expected.

Should SB1070 Be Secondary to... SB1108?

Crime Control vs. The Bill of Rights

by Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce


The entire world, driven by news reports, has fixated on the enormous illegal-immigrant invasion Arizona has suffered under for years.

The invasion had previously been ignored, a news-media black hole from which little information escaped.

The catalyst for the attention is my bill SB1070, empowering our law-enforcement agencies to deal with the invasion. We passed it because the federal government is aiding and abetting the invaders, instead of stopping them and defending the nation against a flood of biblical proportions.

But SB1070 is a simple criminal statute, enacted to treat symptoms of a harmful crime -- sneaking into our nation to commit felonies, leach off our successes, eat out our substance. A different law, SB1108, for which I am equally responsible, is the more important act.

SB1108 is no simple crime-control law. It repeals outrageous infringements to the Bill of Rights, reinstating wholesome fullness to the right to keep and bear arms. The media however, driven by a nearly fanatical racist miasma, blindly focused on the immigration-crime law -- finding racism where none exists -- at the expense of even noting the strengthened Bill of Rights, despite a packed news conference for SB1108.

Civil rights were reborn here on the same day the anti-invasion bill took effect, but this was ignored. While reporters cried racism, “Constitutional Carry” restored fundamental civil rights to anyone on the planet who enters Arizona legally. We've extended these rights to all people of Earth.

The God-given right to protect family, property and yourself from physical harm has been accepted since civilization's dawn. Our Founders ensconced it in the Constitution. This was uncontroversial and well understood, a deeply rooted basic human right until recently, when forces of darkness began attacking truths we hold to be self evident.

Arizona now enjoys more robust protection for the right to arms than anywhere on Earth. How could media pundits miss that? In times recently past, a law that frees every decent adult on Earth to carry a gun with no prior permission would have precipitated a national uproar.

Are the media just tired of crying wolf? They screamed about imminent blood-in-the-streets when Arizona's gun-permit law passed in 1994, but nothing ever happened (and they never apologized).

They convulsed recently, anticipating wild-west mayhem when gun bans in National Parks were repealed. Nothing happened (not even remorse for the fear mongering).

When Arizona's restaurant gun ban was lifted a year-and-a-half ago, we endured fantasies about impending homicidal frenzy from “shotguns in nightclubs,” but it turned out that breakfast at Denny's or lunch at Applebee's remained tranquil. No correction has been issued or is expected.

So should the media pay attention to a law that restores our rights, instead of one that hampers criminals?

Does it really matter that states nationwide now seek and are clamoring for Constitutional Carry for themselves?

So what if Arizona frees its women to put handguns in their handbags, go about their business, and return home without fear of arrest? The bill's chief advocates, the Arizona Citizens Defense League (azcdl.org) spent five years reaching this point. Americans are carrying guns but no one's getting shot? Who cares?

Most of all, why tell people that government's exit from the enforced-training regimen is a business-stimulus plan?

Private enterprise has launched the TrainMeAZ.com campaign to promote “a culture of marksmanship” and gun safety to every resident. This is Arizona -- learn to shoot straight. Marksmanship matters. Teach your children well. Why cover that, even if it is going up on billboards statewide?

Constitutional Carry and the TrainMeAZ campaign have ignited a firestorm of entrepreneurism, and rekindled a burning desire to restore the nation of marksmen our Founders envisioned.

I personally urge America to examine what we've done with Defensive Display, Castle Doctrine inside and outside the home, Burden of Proof, Specious Lawsuit Immunity, Firearms Freedom Act and more. Emulate the freedom of spirit thriving in the Grand Canyon State. Visit and experience life as a free adult, not a ward of the state. You may not want to leave. And if you do, you'll take the spirit of freedom home with you.


Russell Pearce is the Republican State Senator from Arizona legislative district 18 and author of the anti-illegal immigration bill SB1070, and the Constitutional Carry law for firearms, SB1108, neither of which are controversial in point of fact.

Mexican Infiltration Advances

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Infiltrators from Mexico continue unabated. A picture is worth a thousand words -- watch hidden-camera video as the illegals from Mexico pour into the United States through my state Arizona. If you have any questions as to why Arizona is seeking to empower its law-enforcement officers to deal with the problem, this brief video will remove all doubt.
http://cis.org/Videos/HiddenCameras2

SB1070 Training Revealed

The lamestream media told you:

Crazy racist madmen in Arizona are pushing a racial profiling campaign that forces Gestapo-like police to stop anyone brown on the street and demand ID papers. This is a hopelessly Nazi perversion of the American system, and if you have a shred of decency you will boycott these hateful lunatics. Show them that Hispanics promoting La Raza and Aztlan, who sneak into America through great hardship, are decent migrants seeking a better way of life, who deserve support, kindness, welfare, amnesty and free medical care.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I got to watch the entire police training video for enforcing SB1070, Arizona’s anti-illegal-immigration law.

Pretty much everything you’ve heard in the “news” about this law and its enforcement is completely wrong. A court temporarily put a hold on a few aspects of the law, but the law is in effect and unlike the media, that doesn’t prevent me from examining what the law actually does.

First -- Reasonable suspicion is not an arbitrary meaningless phrase that can be used to justify anything, as reporters have repeatedly repeated. From Black’s Law Dictionary, the gold standard for such things:

“Reasonable suspicion. Such suspicion which will justify police officer, for Fourth Amendment purposes, in stopping defendant in public place, is the quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand. It must be based on specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant intrusion.”

Despite “news” reports, reasonable suspicion must be based on facts, they must be specific, they must be articulable (you have to be able to say what they are, they can’t be vague feelings or hunches), and they must be sufficient to make a prudent and cautious person infer something criminal is happening. Failure to meet those conditions would be grounds to deny the legality of the officer’s actions, and bring on a world of hurt for the offending officer and the person’s entire department.

Mexico Cedes Arizona

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. Well, FOX ran a story on it, but none of the other media did.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This photo was taken by a close personal friend of mine, and it has begun to circulate. It is authentic. It is shocking. A significant portion of my state of Arizona is now posted off limits to citizens by our own government, because vicious Mexican invaders have taken over the land. While the "news" media is getting apoplectic over non-existent racial profiling on a law that hasn't even taken effect (SB 1070), designed to help curb this disaster, they stand mute while a foreign nation invades us and cedes land to themselves. Public lands south of Interstate 8 -- the land the feds have declared is no longer available to us -- is a huge chunk of the state. Where's the NY Times on this, or the networks?

Senator Russell Pearce, a good friend and the co-author (with other legislators) of SB 1070, in a speech I attended today (6/19), pointed out he has met with ranchers in this area. One has endured 300,000 trespassers across his land, three stolen cars, multiple break-ins, slaughtered livestock, destroyed water lines, and he and his family live in fear with their windows and doors boarded up. When you hear that the federal government is doing nothing, know well that this is a monumental problem, not some minor glitch. We are suffering an invasion, and the feds have abrogated their duty to "protect each of them (the States) against Invasion." (Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution).

Russell also complained that he doesn't like to follow me at the podium (I delivered the pre-luncheon address, at the Arizona Republican Assembly annual meeting), because I get the audience cheering and stomping and I'm a tough act to follow. C'mon, Russell, you held them in rapt attention, with total command of the facts, figures and politics of this debacle. J.D. Hayworth, who's challenging John McCain in the Senate race and was the luncheon speaker, and Andrew Thomas, the county attorney who is vigorously prosecuting captured invaders despite massive retaliation from groups within our own government, had no such complaints. I'm available to speak at your next event, if you're interested.

Left to Right: Sen. Russell Pearce (co-author of SB 1070), Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas (courageous prosecutor pursuing illegal-alien activity), Alan Korwin (The Uninvited Ombudsman), and senate candidate J.D. Hayworth (opposing long-time incumbent John McCain), at the Arizona Republican Assembly annual meeting, June 19, 2010. Photo by Tom Jenney, Arizona State Director, Americans for Prosperity.

Illegal Immigration Outlawed

The lamestream media told you:

“Arizona's immigration law, passed by the legislature in late April, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally,” according to Haya El Nasser, writing for USA Today.

"About 70 parents usually show up at Pena Blanca Elementary School in Rio Rico monthly for parent-teacher meetings, but the April meeting only saw 20 show up... There is a little fear,” according to the school principal. “Fear, mistrust, anger.” writes Nasser.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

It's a crime to be in the country illegally? Isn't that redundant?

This is not about immigration. This is about illegal immigration.
Arizona welcomes immigrants. Always has.

In Mexico, the penalty for sneaking into the country is two years in prison, with no trial and no due process. A repeat offense gets you ten years in a Mexican prison. In the U.S. there has been no penalty and no attention, because the official federal policy (based on observation) is to do nothing. This is why Arizona has undertaken to do something about the invasion it suffers under.

The 50 parents who didn't show up in Rio Rico (the law doesn't even take effect for two months) have nothing to fear if they're here legally. Nothing.

If they're here illegally, educating their kids at our expense, ripping us off for social services, using emergency rooms for routine medical care, paying no taxes because they have no ID, they should be deported (the U.S. justice system would never allow for two-year prison terms, especially without trial, like Mexico prefers).

Despite media reports, racial profiling is illegal. Stopping people to check “their papers” is illegal and not authorized by Arizona's fine new law. Anyone stopped for a legitimate reason (public drunkenness, traffic violations, vandalism, vagrancy, criminal acts, etc.) can be asked for ID. Failure to produce ID, when coupled with other legitimate factors, can lead to sufficient reasonable suspicion to check on the background and immigration status of a person. Sovereign nations require this. U.S. federal authorities, who have the main responsibility for this, have failed miserably in performing their duties to protect our borders and citizenry in this manner. It is left to the states to act to protect us.

The media has been saying there are 12 million illegals here since 2002 (now though it's mysteriously become 11 million). But the Border Patrol has been saying 2 million people a year attempt entry, and they catch one out of two, or one million new entrants annually. For eight years.

So, why don't the papers update their numbers? Because that would give credence to a point of view they don't believe in (called "reality") and would rather ignore.

Virtually everything you've seen reported in the lamestream media on this topic is flat out wrong or distorted past all recognition. Mexico has horrifically racist laws on immigration, while we are simply trying to stop an illegal invasion. Why are we letting all these racists in? The only people with anything to fear are the ones who are breaking the law by being here.

The worst part of the media coverage is what's missing -- like the photos obtained from the recent protests, which the lamestream media has deliberately chosen to suppress, leaving you in the dark. Almost.

Photos the media has censored

My jaw dropped when I saw these photos.

Somehow, the lamestream media, which swarmed all over this event, failed to notice any of this. Maybe they saw it all like everyone there did, and just failed to report it to you? Is that possible from the unbiased media? These images sure don't fit the standard narrative of poor desperate people who just want to immigrate and make better lives for their families -- the media's preferred belief and constant drumbeat.

Tremendous thanks to Kim Grady of Second Amendment Sisters in Phoenix for forwarding the images to me, taken by a mutual friend in Arizona government who is best left unnamed for safety reasons. Pictures taken May 29, 2010.

"This Internet stuff is way too dangerous. Allowing information like this to freely circulate at the mere discretion of the people, without strict controls from the ruling class and their compliant media must be stopped." You KNOW the power brokers are thinking that way -- the Wild West freedom of the Internet will need to be controlled if the ruling class is to stay in power. Watch for it. It's coming.