WE
HAVE SQUANDERED BILLIONS OVER THERE PROTECTING THE SAUDIS 9-11 INVADER’S
INTERESTS AND BORDERS AGAINST THEIR IRAQI AND IRANIAN ENEMIES. THE REAL THREAT
TO OUR NATION IS NARCOMEX!
MEXICANS
ARE THE MOST VIOLENT, RACIST AND ANTI-AMERICAN LOOTERS IN THE HEMISPHERE! THEY
MURDERS THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS YEARLY!
THERE
HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY ILLEGALS THAT FLED BACK OVER
OUR BORDERS TO MEXICO TO AVOID PROSECUTION!
ACCORDING
TO CA ATTORNEY GEN KAMALA HARRIS (LA RAZA DEM), NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN
MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEX GANGS! OF THE A.G.’S TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS, ALL ARE
MEXICANS!
OF
THE 200 MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN LOS ANGELES, 183 ARE MEXICANS, AND MOST OF THE
REST RUSSIANS.
CA
HAS THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PRISON SYSTEM IN THE NATION. HALF THE
INMATES ARE MEXICANS!
THE
MEX DRUG CARTELS NOW OPERATE IN OVER 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES. THEY HAUL BACK TO
NARCOMEX TO BUY POLITICIANS AND BORDER GUARDS, $40 TO $60 BILLION PER YEAR!
WHERE IS THE REAL THREAT TO OUR
NATION? A BUNCH OF NOSE PICKING MUSLIMS THAT LIVE IN CAVES IN AFGHANISTAN, OR
NARCOMEX???
NEW YORK TIMES:
U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train
Iraqi Police
By TIM ARANGO
BAGHDAD — In the face of
spiraling costs and Iraqi officials who say they never wanted it in the first
place, the State Department has slashed — and may jettison entirely by the end
of the year — a
multibillion-dollar police training program that was to have been the
centerpiece of a hugely expanded civilian mission here.
What was originally
envisioned as a training cadre of about 350 American law enforcement officers
was quickly scaled back to 190 and then to 100. The latest restructuring calls
for 50 advisers, but most experts and even some State Department officials say
even they may be withdrawn by the end of this year.
The training effort, which
began in October and has already cost $500 million, was conceived of as the
largest component of a mission billed as the most ambitious American aid effort
since the Marshall Plan. Instead, it has emerged as
the latest high-profile example of the waning American influence here following
the military withdrawal, and it reflects a costly miscalculation on the part of
American officials, who did not count on the Iraqi government to assert its
sovereignty so aggressively.
“I think that with the departure
of the military, the Iraqis decided to say, ‘O.K., how large is the American
presence here?’ ” said James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador to Iraq, in an interview. “How
large should it be? How does this equate with our sovereignty? In various areas
they obviously expressed some concerns.”
Last year the State
Department embarked on $343 million worth of construction projects around the
country to upgrade facilities to accommodate the police training program, which
was to have comprised hundreds of trainers and more than 1,000 support staff
members working in three cities — Baghdad, Erbil and Basra — for five years.
But like so much else in the nine years of war, occupation and reconstruction
here, it has not gone as planned.
A lesson given by an
American police instructor to a class of Iraqi trainees neatly encapsulated the
program’s failings. There are two clues that could indicate someone is planning
a suicide attack, the instructor said: a large bank withdrawal and heavy
drinking.
The problem with that
advice, which was recounted by Ginger Cruz, the former deputy inspector general
at the American Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction, was that few Iraqis have bank accounts and an extremist
Sunni Muslim bent on carrying out a suicide attack is likely to consider
drinking a cardinal sin.
Last month many of the
Iraqi police officials who had been participating in the training suddenly
refused to attend the seminars and PowerPoint presentations given by the
Americans, saying they saw little benefit from the sessions.
The Iraqis have also
insisted that the training sessions be held at their own facilities, rather
than American ones. But reflecting the mistrust that remains between Iraqi and
American officials, the State Department’s security guards will not allow the
trainers to establish set meeting times at Iraqi facilities, so as not to set a
pattern for insurgents, who still sometimes infiltrate Iraq’s military and
police.
The largest of the construction
projects, an upgrade at the Baghdad Police College that included installing
protective covering over double-wide residence trailers (to shield against
mortar attacks) and new dining and laundry facilities and seminar rooms, was
recently abandoned, unfinished, after an expenditure of more than $100 million.
The remaining police advisers will instead work out of the American Embassy
compound, where they will have limited ability to interact with Iraqi police
officials.
Robert M. Perito, director
of the Security Sector Governance Center of Innovation at the United States
Institute of Peace, called the project a “small program for a lot of money.”
“The first problem is the
State Department doesn’t operate in dangerous environments,” said Mr. Perito,
who last year wrote a history of United States police training in Iraq. “As soon as the U.S. military left, the State Department
was on its own. And that immediately ran the price up and restricted the
ability of advisers to move around.”
The State Department has
consistently defended the program, even after it was whittled down in scope and
criticized publicly by the head of Iraq’s Interior Ministry, Adnan al-Assadi,
who last year questioned the wisdom of spending so much on a program the Iraqis
never sought.
“We have stood up a robust
police-training program, which is doing a terrific job working with the local
police in training and developing a program, which I think will pay enormous
dividends,” said Thomas R. Nides, deputy secretary of state for
management and resources, in a briefing in February with reporters in
Washington.
In fact, at every turn the
program has faced steep challenges.
In an interview on Friday,
Mr. Nides said, “I don’t think anything went wrong.” He added, “the Iraqis
don’t believe they need a program of that scale and scope.”
Mr. Nides said the scaling
back of the program was part of his broader effort to reduce the size of the
embassy.
After realizing that the
security environment would largely prevent the trainers from traveling outside
their barracks, the focus of the program was shifted to holding seminars and
PowerPoint presentations on topics like how to spot suicide bombers, protect
human rights and deal with large crowds.
The trainers are mostly
retired state troopers and other law enforcement personnel on leave from their
jobs back home, and a number of officials who criticized the program questioned
what those trainers have to offer Iraqi police officials who have been
operating in a war zone for years.
Mr. Perito said that the
State Department never developed a suitable curriculum and that instead,
advisers often “end up talking about their own experiences or tell war stories
and it’s not relevant.”
Retired Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, now a senior
fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, who oversaw the training of Iraqi
security forces from 2007 to 2008, said, “The evidence suggests that the State
Department never really engaged the Iraqis to find out what they need and what
they want.”
The program has
consistently been challenged by the special inspector general’s office, which
in an audit late last year warned that it could become a “bottomless pit” for
taxpayer dollars. The office’s most recent quarterly report, released at the
end of April, stated that embassy officials acknowledged “that those challenges
may lead to the further restructuring” of the program “in the near future.”
Last year, in preparation
for the withdrawal of the military, the State Department planned a large
expansion of its role here, designed to maintain influence and be a
counterweight to the vast political influence of Iran. Yet, after doubling the
size of the embassy staff to nearly 16,000 people, mostly contractors, the
State Department quickly reversed course this year — partly because of Iraqi
objections to the expanded operation — and is now cutting back from the
slightly more than 12,000 people presently in Iraq.
Since 2003, the American
government has spent nearly $8 billion training the Iraqi police. The program
was first under the State Department, but it was transferred to the Department
of Defense in 2004 as the insurgency intensified. Yet the force that the American
military left behind was trained to fight a counterinsurgency, not to act as a
traditional law enforcement organization. Police officers here, for example, do
not pull over speeding drivers or respond to calls about cats stuck in trees.
“What is really needed is a
restructuring and reorienting of that force so it becomes a law enforcement
agency that serves a democracy,” Mr. Perito said.
*
WHAT COSTS MORE PER YEAR THAN THE IRAQ WAR?
*
Illegal Aliens Cause Massive Cuts For US
Seniors
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on
welfare to illegal aliens each year.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on
food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for
illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on
Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on
primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they
cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17
Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of
illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to
incarcerate illegal aliens.
7. 30%
percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on
illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed
American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States
have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens.
In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime
problem in the US
11.
During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed
our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist
Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana,
crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
12. The
National Policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation
would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and
$46 billion annually over a five year period.
13. In
2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their
countries of origin.
14. 'The
Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by
Illegal Immigrants In The United States Total cost is a whoopin'... $338.3
*
OBAMA
HAS ASSAULTED AMERICANS (LEGALS) IN AZ BY ENDLESSLY SUING THE STATE TO BLOCK
E-VERIFY AND EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS, PUSH AZ BORDERS WIDER OPEN FOR
THE CARTELS, WHICH OBAMA ARMS, SUES TO BLOCK THAT STATES REQUIREMENT THAT
VOTERS HAVE ID.S, WHICH WOULD PREVENT ILLEGALS FROM VOTING FOR HISPANDERING
OBAMA!
Arizona’s
illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than
once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion in 2009, according to researchers at
the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.
FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.
FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.
Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.
(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)
Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.
“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”
He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.
He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.
”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.
Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.
“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”
*
Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.
FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.
FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.
Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.
(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)
Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.
“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”
He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.
He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.
”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.
Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.
“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”
*
ARTICLE
8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted
Eight Out of Ten Illegal Aliens Apprehended in
2010 Never Prosecuted, Says Border Congressman
Thursday, March 17, 2011
By Edwin Mora
Culberson
submitted the figures for the record during a hearing Wednesday of the House
Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security.
THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE COSTS
LEGALS IN MEXIFORNIA ALONE $20 BILLION PER YEAR!
*
Illegal immigrants drain the tax
dollars
Congressional study shows illegal immigrants sap tax dollars
The Business Journal of
Phoenix - by Ty Young Phoenix Business Journal
A study by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday backs up the view that undocumented immigrants sap more tax dollars than they provide, especially in education, health care and law enforcement.
The study pulled together reports from the past five years, using data from sources including the Pew Hispanic Center, the Rand Corp., the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and various universities. The Congressional study also incorporated facts from states, including Arizona, but its authors acknowledged there was no aggregate estimate that could be applied to the entire country.
The report says that in 1990, 90 percent of undocumented immigrants primarily were in six states: California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas.
By 2004, undocumented immigrants had increased tenfold in other states, most notably Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee, according to statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center.
The report estimates there are 12 million undocumented immigrants nationwide. Of those, 60 percent are uninsured and 50 percent of the children are uninsured. Again using 2004 statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center the average income of undocumented immigrants was $27,400 while Americans earned $47,800. The difference puts undocumented immigrants in a lower tax bracket, thus reducing the amount of federal and state income taxes generated.
The study also showed that while undocumented workers represented just 5 percent of state and federal service costs, their tax revenue did not offset the amount spent by government. The authors of the study stated that, "the general consensus is that unauthorized immigrants impose a net cost on state and local budgets. However, no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost at a national level."
In education, which the study notes is the largest single expenditure in state and local budgets, multiple states reported 20 to 40 percent higher costs educating non-English speaking students, many of whom come from the homes of undocumented immigrant parents. Using New Mexico statistics from 2004 as a model, education spending on undocumented immigrants comprised $67 million of the state's $3 billion education budget.
The study estimates there are 53.3 million school-age children in the U.S., 2 million of whom are undocumented immigrants and another 3 million who are legal citizens, but whose parents are not.
Undocumented immigrants are more likely to access emergency rooms and urgent care facilities because most do not have health care, the study said. In Arizona and other border areas, states paid nearly $190 million in health care costs for undocumented immigrants in 2000, the study reported. The amount, which the study says likely has risen since then, represented one-quarter of all uncompensated health care costs in those states that year.
While the report found that undocumented immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than American natives, it said states still bear a large cost for the legal process. Based on a report from the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition from 2001, counties from the four states that border Mexico spent more than $108 million on law enforcement activities involving undocumented immigrants. San Diego County in California spent nearly half of that, with more than $50 million going into law enforcement activities involving undocumented immigrants.
By
Robert Rector
.............Heritage.org | May 16, 2006 (dated figures THE LA RAZA DEMS
HAVE EXPANDED THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION FOR CHEAP LABOR IN CALIFORNIA ENOUGH TO
ALONE DOUBLE THESE FIGURES!
VISIT HERITAGE.org for more info
on Mexican invasion and occupation
This paper focuses on the net
fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of
low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of
the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic
effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily
researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope
of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the
government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs
of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies
strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants
are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their
taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low
education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is
important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less
than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels
of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An
immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel
(R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them
on a path to citizenship (THERE ARE PROBABLY NEARLY 40 MILLION ILLEGALS HERE
NOW). Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the
federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion
per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the
right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become
citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10
million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more (CALIFORNIA
PUTS OUT $20 BILLION A YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES OF ILLEGALS).
In the long run, the
Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare
state in 35 years.
WHY THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS ENDORSE BARACK OBAMA’S LA RAZA
SUPREMACY:
FROM JUDICIAL WATCH – GET ON THEIR E-NEWS!
Mexican Drug
Lord Freed After Pledging To Cooperate, Keep In Touch
Email
Just
when you think you’ve heard it all involving the Obama Administration’s
disastrous Mexican gun-running experiment, new details surface to illustrate a
new level of negligence and incompetence on the part of federal authorities
orchestrating the scandalous program.
Known
as Fast and Furious, the federal experiment allowed Mexican drug traffickers to
obtain U.S.-sold weapons so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Instead federal law enforcement officers lost track of more than 1,700 guns
which are believed to have been used in an unknown number of crimes.
In
the past year lost guns have been linked to violence on both sides of the
border while top administration officials, including Attorney General Eric
Holder, insist they knew nothing about the reckless operation. Among the first
reports to surface; that Fast and Furious weapons were used to murder
a U.S. Border Patrol agent
(Brian Terry) in Peck Canyon Arizona. The assault weapons known as AK-47s were
traced through their serial numbers to an Arizona dealer the feds repeatedly
allowed to smuggle firearms into Mexico, according to a mainstream newspaper.
This
week the same publication published a scathing article that paints a clown-like
portrait of the agency—Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—charged
with running the program. It turns out that the ATF stumbled upon a top
drug-cartel suspect targeted by its unscrupulous gun operation but let him go
after he “pledged
to cooperate and keep in touch with investigators.”
It would almost be funny if
it wasn’t so pathetic. Seven months after launching the Fast and Furious
operation, federal agents caught their main suspect in a remote Arizona outpost
on the Mexican side, according to internal documents obtained by the newspaper.
The drug lord, Manuel Fabian Celis-Acosta, had 74 pounds of ammunition and nine
cell phones hidden in his German-made sports car.
So
what did the feds do? The top Fast and Furious investigator, Special Agent Hope
MacAllister, scribbled her phone number on a $10 bill after Celis-Acosta
promised to cooperate and keep in touch with investigators. Then Celis-Acosta
disappeared into Mexico and later slipped back and forth across the border,
illegally buying more American weapons and financing others. It’s all in the
government records. You can’t make this stuff up.
Eventually
Celis-Acosta got arrested, but the damage had been done and the government gun
operation had spiraled out of control. Nearly 2,000 firearms have disappeared
and scores have surfaced in Mexican crime scenes. Not surprisingly, the ATF
refuses to explain why it didn’t arrest this drug lord when it had him the
first time. An ATF spokesman quoted in this week’s story said: “Due to the fact
that the criminal case is still ongoing in the courts, and the inspector
general’s office is still investigating, we cannot comment about this.”
Judicial
Watch is investigating the genesis of the Fast and Furious operation and has sued the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the ATF to obtain records. Both agencies have refused to provide even
the most basic information about the program and neither has responded by the
statutorily mandated deadline.
No comments:
Post a Comment