Child Molester Set Free Because He's Short!

I can't really even find the words to express the anger I felt when I heard this story .

Richard W. Thompson could have been sentenced to 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in Sidney, Nebraska; instead, he was sentenced to 10 years probation. The reason for probation instead of prison: Thompson is short.

Cheyenne County District Judge Kristine Cecava sentenced Thompson, 50, on two counts of sexually assaulting a minor, but said that Thompson, who is 5-foot-1, is too small to survive in prison.

Joe Mangano, secretary of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults, thought the ruling was a good one. "I'm assuming a short inmate would have a much more difficult time than a large inmate," said Mangano, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall. "It's good to see somebody looking out for someone who is a short person."

Would Mangano have felt the same way had it been his daughter whom Thompson molested? Would Cecava have felt that justice was served by 10 years probation had her daughter been the victim?

This guy should be in prison, and I couldn't care less how short he is. This is an outrage!

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

                                                                                                  A.P. Photo

Think the U.S. should play soft with Iran? This is a picture of Iran's Shihab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missile, which Iran test launched this week. The Shihab-3 is capable of reaching Israeli and U.S. targets. This, in the hands of a leader who has already stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map," is a frightening and dangerous development, one that should be taken very seriously.

He's For a Wall Before He's Against It

John Kerry may be the best I've ever seen at sitting on both sides of the fence. A NewsMax report on Sunday quoted Kerry's thoughts on the 370-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican boarder that the Senate has recently voted for.

"I voted for it," Kerry acknowledged Friday while speaking to the New England Council breakfast.

But in quotes picked up by the Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Democrat added: "If I were making the long-term decision, I’d announce, you know, hopefully it’s a temporary measure, and we can take it down as soon as we have enough people" to guard the border.

It sounds a little bit like voting for the war before voting against it.

A 1,951-mile Wall, and What about the 12 Million?

I can hardly believe I’m writing about illegal immigration – again. I’m really getting tired of writing about this issue. I’m bored with it and wish it would go away, but it won’t, not until the government passes meaningful legislation and solves the problem. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem likely to happen.

Today, I want to address two aspects of this issue: building a wall along the U.S. – Mexican boarder, and the so-called amnesty aspect of the issue. I don’t expect much debate from fellow conservatives on what I’m going to say about the wall. My opinion on what to do with the 12 million illegals already in the country is another story.

I have been advocating in all of my posts on this issue that the United States build a wall along our southern boarder. I’m not talking about a wall in the urban areas like the President proposed in his speech Monday evening. I’m not talking about a 370-mile wall like the Senate has voted for. I’m not talking about a 700-mile wall as approved by the House. What I’m talking about is a 1,951-mile wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

I fully realize that I’m not the only one who is advocating this. I’ve also heard the arguments against building a wall, and I wanted to address those arguments.

Argument 1: Building a wall will create a bad impression of us in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Answer: I don’t care.

Argument 2: If we build a wall, they’ll just go around it, often into parts of the country that are more dangerous.
Answer: Not if we build it along the entire boarder, unless they want to swim around it in the ocean. I guess that also would be more dangerous, but once again, I don't care.

Argument 3: If we build a wall, it won’t do any good; they’ll just go over it.
Answer: Ten years ago, a fence was built along the San Diego sector. Since that time, apprehensions of people attempting to illegally entering the U.S. along that part of the border are down 95%, from 100,000 to 5,000 per year.

Argument 4: It would cost too much to build a fence along the entire border. Cost estimates range from $3 million to $5.3 million per mile. For a 1,951-mile wall, that come out to $5.9 billion to $10.3 billion.
Answer: First, find a private company to build the wall. I guarantee it could be done for far less money than for what the federal government could do it. Secondly, the federal government wastes more money each year than what this wall would cost. According to a Heritage Foundation study, “A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of government programs.”

Some examples given of waste and fraud include the following:

*$24.5 billion was spent in 2003 “by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent.” Notice that even at the higher-end estimate for building a wall, the $24.5 billion is more than twice the amount it would cost to build this wall.

*$100 million was spent for approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets that were purchased between 1997 and 2003 but never used.

*Medicare wastes $20 to $30 billion annually by 1) paying up to eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies and 2) payment errors resulting in over $12 billion in waste.

Click here if you want to see more, but you get the idea.

We need to build a wall. We need to deploy troops and give them the authority to actually apprehend illegals coming into the country (as opposed to only being there in some sort of support role with no real authority). We need to do whatever it takes to eliminate intruders illegally coming into the United States. I think nearly all conservative are with me on this.

Now, on to the more difficult aspect of the illegal immigration problem: the 12 million illegals already here. From what I’ve heard and read, I’m afraid this is one of those rare times when I have to disagree with my fellow conservatives.

Many conservatives have blasted the President for advocating what they call amnesty. The President wants to provide a way for most of the illegal immigrants who are already here to eventually become citizens without having to first go back to their own countries.

As I see it, we really have only three options for illegal aliens already here.

1. Do nothing. Allow them to stay here illegally, draining our social services by receiving free medical care, education, and other services without paying into the system.

2. Round up 12 million people and deport them.

3. Provide some way for them to become legal

I think we can all agree that option #1 is unacceptable, so we'll rule that out. That leaves us, as I see it, only options 2 or 3: deporting 12 million people or providing a way for them to become legal.

Most of the time when I hear my fellow conservatives say, "No amnesty," I don't hear them say what they propose instead. So I'm asking, when we say "No amnesty," are we advocating deportation, or is there another solution that I'm missing. If we're advocating deportation, I disagree for the following reasons:

1. It's not practical. Yes, it could probably be done, but at what cost? To locate, detain, and deport 12 million people would be a logistical nightmare.

2. Morality. Even if it were practical to deport all illegals now living in the county, I don't believe it's the right thing to do. We have, as a country, for years given a wink and a nod, then turned our heads as illegal aliens have flooded in. So we, as a country, have to accept some of the responsibility for the current situation. These illegals do not belong in this country, but some have been here for 10, 15, 20 years. Some are married to U.S. citizens; some have children who are U.S. citizens. Are we going to suddenly say, after doing nothing for all this time, that all of these people now have to leave the country? I don't believe that's the right answer.

So what is the right answer? I believe it does involve providing a way for illegal aliens already living in the country to become legal residents, and eventually citizens. Call it amnesty if you will, but it also involves illegal alien registration, penalties, and responsibilities. It provides a way for the U.S. government to immediately identify illegal aliens currently living in the United States. It provides a way for illegal aliens to eventually earn citizenship. It does not allow them to jump ahead of those who have been waiting to come into the country legally. I won't go into more detail because I've already done so in a previous post, and many of you have already read it. If you have not, you can do so here.

As a diehard conservative, it troubles me that I might be in disagreement with so many other conservatives. However, statements like this one from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, just don't make sense to me.

Rohrabacher, speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live," was commenting on President Bush's Monday speech.

He's playing these word games about massive deportations again, which no one is advocating... If they are here illegally and you make them here legally, that is an amnesty. (emphasis is mine)

If we're not advocating massive deportation, yet we don't want to "make them here legally," then what do we want to do? The only other option as I see it is to do nothing, to let them remain here illegally. Is there another option I am missing?

If there are better ideas for what to do with the 12 million illegals already living in the United States, please let me know. I'm certainly open to ideas. However, it's not enough to say simply, "No amnesty." We have to offer a solution.

Absolutely Unbelievable!

Why am I ever surprised at the lunacy of some people? I would think that at a certain point I would be so accustomed to the insanity of thought which is prevalent in some circles that nothing could astonish me anymore. However, that is not the case. The absurdity of this report has left me shaking my head.

In response to President Bush's announcement that 6,000 National Guard troops would be deployed to help secure the U.S. – Mexican boarder, the Mexican government has threatened to file lawsuits in U.S. courts.

According to Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez,

If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates.

My reaction to a threat like that is that, instead of sending 6,000 troops to the boarder, we should sent 12,000, and we should arrest every last one of these people who think they somehow have a right to violate the sovereignty of the United States. The only problem is that they would start filing their lawsuits, and if they get one of our country's liberal judges, they'll probably win their case.

Rating the President's Illegal Immigration Plan

In Monday evening's speech on immigration reform, President Bush was right on target with many of his statements and ideas. Much of what he said seemed to echo some of the ideas that I proposed in my plan for dealing with illegal immigration nearly a month ago. There were, however, a couple of places in the President’s speech where I believe he did not go far enough, and there are a couple of ideas in my plan that I think would have improved the President’s plan. Unfortunately, he forgot to consult me before finalizing his plan.

The President began by addressing the issue of boarder security. Two components of his boarder security plan are nearly identical to mine: 1) increasing the number of trained boarder patrol agents (from 12,000 to 18,000 by the end of 2008), and 2) utilizing technology (motion sensors, infrared cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles) to help secure the boarder.

The President also talked about constructing “high-tech fences in urban corridors.” I, too, believe that a security fence is needed; however, I believe the President's plan falls short of what is needed in this area. My plan calls for a fence along the entire U.S. – Mexican boarder.

President Bush addressed what needs to be done with those who are caught crossing the boarder illegally, saying, “We must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home.” He went on to elaborate.

We've have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We've have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we've have ended "catch and release" for illegal immigrants from some countries. ... When people know that they'll be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.”

While I agree that those caught illegally crossing the boarder need to be sent home, once again, the President's plan does not go far enough. In my plan any person caught illegally entering the United States would not only be returned home, he would also be permanently barred from legal residence in the United States. If people who want to someday legally live in the United States know that getting caught attempting to illegally enter will cause them to be banned for life from any chance of gaining legal status, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

The President’s plan involves the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guardsmen along the U.S. - Mexican boarder. Although this was not a part of my plan, I am in favor of using the National Guard. However, I was disappointed to hear the President say that guard units “will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities.” If we’re going to deploy guardsmen along the boarder, which I support, let’s authorize them to do the job properly.

On the subject of what to do with the 12 million illegal aliens already in the United States, the President said that it is “neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.” Although this will not make me popular with many of my fellow conservatives, I think the President is correct on this point. In my previous post on this subject, I said this:

I don't believe it's practical to attempt to deport 12 million people, nor do I believe that deportation of all illegal aliens is the right answer. As a nation, we have been content for years to look the other way as people have entered our country illegally, and we must, therefore, accept at least some responsibility for the situation we’re in. We now have people who have lived illegally in the United States for 15 or 20 years. Some of these people have children who were born in this country and who are, therefore, U.S. citizens. I don't believe we should now say to these people that they have to leave the country.

This does not mean granting amnesty, and it certainly does not mean allowing illegals to jump ahead of those already legally in line for citizenship.

The President's plan would offer those illegal aliens who have established roots in this country a way to work toward citizenship. According to the President, they would be required "... to pay their taxes, ... to learn English ... and to work in a job for a number of years." The President also said that "approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."

In my plan, I went into more detail about how this process would work than what the President did in his speech. I won't go into all the details again here, but if done correctly, those who are already here could be given the opportunity to become legal residents, and eventually citizens, without gaining any advantage over those who waited to enter the country legally. If the details of what the President is proposing are similar to what my plan entails, then I think he is on the right track.

One part of my plan that was not a part of the President's speech is that in my plan, the first step toward legalization would be to require every illegal alien who wishes to remain in the United States to register within 90 days to become a “registered illegal alien.” Any illegal alien not registered within 90 days, if caught, would be deported and permanently barred from legal residence in the United States. Employers who employ or continue to employ an illegal alien after the 90-day registration period would have to require the illegal alien to possess a "Registered Illegal Alien" card. Severe penalties would be imposed against any employer who employed or continued to employ an unregistered illegal alien. Illegal aliens who register could then begin the process of working toward naturalization.

Registration would provide a way for the U.S. government to identify illegal aliens currently living in the United States. The combination of permanently barring from residence in the United States any illegal alien who does not register, requiring registration for employment, and providing the opportunity to work toward naturalization for those who do register would be a strong incentive for illegal aliens to comply with registration.

Overall, the President's plan is a good one. It's not perfect by any means, but if anything is certain, it is that we will never have a perfect solution to the illegal immigration problem.

The Left is Out of Touch, as Usual

When the USA Today reported that "The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans," other mainstream media outlets were ecstatic. You could almost hear them panting at this latest opportunity to show the American people what a fascist, power-hungry tyrant George W. Bush is.

The Washington Post began its report with this startling announcement: "The Bush administration has secretly been collecting the domestic telephone records of millions of U.S. households and businesses..."

The New York Times reported that "Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike demanded answers from the Bush administration on Thursday about a report that the National Security Agency had collected records of millions of domestic phone calls...

The Los Angeles Times ran with this headline: "Report of NSA Phone Database Ignites Furor"

As the media was basking in the glory of reporting this shocking news, Democratic politicians began to swagger, with support from at least one RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was quite concerned about this privacy issue: "We need to take this seriously, more seriously than some other matters that might come before the committee because our privacy as American citizens is at stake... We’re talking about the most fundamental issue of privacy for America and its citizens."

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) scolded his colleagues in Congress for allowing the administration to keep the American people in the dark: "Shame on us for being so willing to rubber-stamp anything this administration does. The Republican-controlled Congress refuses to ask questions, so we have to pick up the paper to find out what is going on.... It is our government, it's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing."

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is concerned for the constitution: "I happen to believe we are on our way to a major constitutional confrontation on Fourth Amendment guarantees of unreasonable search and seizure."

Senator Arlen Specter (RINO-PA) is going to subpoena executives from AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth in order to get to the bottom of all this: “When we can’t find out from the Department of Justice or other administration officials, we’re going to call on those telephone companies to provide information to try to figure out exactly what’s going on.”

So the media, the Dems, and the RINO's are looking out for the American people, but what do the American people think about the NSA's collection of phone records?

Answer: We Don't Care!

An ABC News/Washington Post poll reported that 63% of Americans said that the collecting of phone records is acceptable, while only 35% said that it is not acceptable.

When asked, "Would it bother you if there was a record of your phone calls," 66% said that it would not bother them; only 34% said that it would.

In answer to the question of which is more important, investigating threats or respecting privacy, 65% said that it is more important for the government to investigate threats.

So while the left are troubled and concerned about the NSA's collection of phone records, there is one more thing they are as well: out of touch with the American people.

Of course, that's nothing new.

Outrageous!

The mass media has been up in arms about the National Security Agency's so-called domestic spying program in which the agency has been authorized to listen in on communications between U.S. citizens and suspected terrorists overseas.

How much outrage will this story raise among the media elite? It seems that the U.S. government is keeping tabs on members of the Minuteman Project, the volunteer civilian border patrol group that is Doing What the Government Won't Do in securing the U.S.-Mexican boarder. Not only is the government keeping tabs on the Minutemen, but it’s also notifying the Mexican government as to where the Minutemen are!

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Minuteman members were not so sanguine about the arrangement, however, saying that reporting their location to Mexican officials nullifies their effectiveness along the border and could endanger their lives.

"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.

"They just basically endangered the lives of American people."

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is not the only volunteer boarder patrol group whose activities are being monitored and reported to the Mexican government. Friends of the Border Patrol, which patrolled the boarder between Mexico and San Diego from June to November 2005, has also been affected.

Mexican officials had access to the exact location of the group founded by Andy Ramirez, which ran its patrols from the Rough Acre Ranch, a private property in McCain Valley.

Ramirez said that for safety reasons, he disclosed the location of his ranch patrol only to San Diego Border Patrol and law enforcement officials...

"We did not release this information ... to the media or anyone else," Ramirez said. "We didn't want to publicize that information. But there it is, right on the Mexican government's Web site, and our government gave it to them."

Will the New York Times jump on this story, or is it O.K. for the government to gather information on the location of U.S. citizens trying to keep foreigners from illegally entering our country, and to then give that information to the foreign government? Is it only wrong for the government to keep tabs on U.S. citizens who are communicating with terrorists?

This is simply outrageous. If the government will not secure the boarder, would it be too much to ask that they not interfere with the attempts of private citizens to do so?

S.22 a Step in the Right Direction

Last week a liberal acquaintance of mine began talking to me about the need for a national health care plan paid for by our tax dollars. Of course, I indicated to him that I was not in favor of taxpayer-financed health care, but I do believe that there are some changes needed in our current health care system.

One needed change is to limit the liability resulting from runaway numbers of frivolous lawsuits. S.22, a bill known as the "Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006," was introduced in the Senate on May 3rd. The purpose of S.22 is "To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system."

While medical liability reform won't solve all the problems associated with our health care system, it's a good place to start.

UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting today that "Democrats served notice last week that they have enough votes to block" S.22 and a similar bill that would apply only to litigation against obstetrician-gynecologists from coming to the floor for a vote.

Go figure. That's just one more example of Democrats earning their reputation as the party of obstruction.

Cheney is Right on Target with Comments on Russia

Vice-president Dick Cheney has it exactly right. Russia needs to decide whose side it's on: the side of freedom and democracy, or the side of oppression and tyranny.

In remarks made to a group of Eastern European leaders, Cheney said:

...in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade. In many areas of civil society – from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties – the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people.

That Russia is once again restricting the rights of its people should not come as a surprise to anyone, not with a former KGB officer as its President.

It's also troubling that Russia seems to have become friendly with China. Last summer Russia and China conducted joint naval exercises. Today, Russia and China are together threatening to block possible U.N. sanctions against Iran. To have the world's most dangerous formerly communist country seemingly allying itself with the world's most dangerous currently communist country is - well - dangerous.

This is not to say that Russia cannot still become truly part of the free world, a point Cheney also made:

America and all of Europe…want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies...Russia has a choice to make...None of us believes that Russia is fated to become an enemy.

The United States and other democratic powers around the world must continue to encourage Russia to make the right choice. Cheney stated that this would be addressed at the G8 summit, which will be held in July in St.Petersburg, Russia.

We will make the case, clearly and confidently, that Russia has nothing to fear and everything to gain from having strong, stable democracies on its borders and that by aligning with the west, Russia joins us all on a course to prosperity and greatness.

There is still a tremendous amount of work to do in bringing Russia into the family of free nations. It's work that must be done with both optimism and caution. We need to be optimistic that a stable and free democracy can be established in Russia, yet we cannot let our guard down. It's way to soon to fully trust the Russian government.

New Addition to California Schools' Curriculum?

Yesterday, the California State Senate Education Committee passed SB 1437 by an 8-3 vote along party lines. The bill, authored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, mandates that California schools adopt only textbooks which include “contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”

The following points are from the text of SB 1437, showing that the bill

4) Revises the social sciences course of study to include
the age appropriate study of the role and
contributions of people who are lesbian, gay,
bisexual, or transgender to the development of
California and the nation with emphasis on their role
in contemporary society.

5) Requires that when adopting instructional materials,
local governing boards may only include instructional
materials that they determine to accurately portray,
in an age appropriate manner, the cultural, racial,
gender and sexual orientation diversity of our
society, including the contributions of people who are
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the
development of California and the United States.

The bill now moves to the Senate floor and would have to eventually garner Governor Schwarzenegger's signature to become law, but if it does, California schools will be mandated to teach students about the contributions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders.

Here’s a novel idea for California schools: teach students how to read, write, add, and subtract.

Doing What the Government Won't Do

Abraham Lincoln is credited with having once said, "The purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do at all or do so well for themselves." When it comes to securing our boarders, however, it may be more accurate to say, "The purpose of the people is to do for themselves what government will not do so well or do at all."

We’ve had the Minuteman Project, a volunteer civilian border patrol group, for quite some time. Now, there is a story out of Arizona that is yet another example of the people doing what the government will not do: control the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that approximately 100 volunteer posse and Sheriff's Deputies will soon begin randomly patrolling the desert areas and main roadways in southwest Maricopa County as a part of an operation to curb the flow of illegal immigrants entering the county.
...

"There are so many illegals trying to make it into the county that it's overwhelming my deputies, so I have called on members of my 3000 member volunteer posse to assist," says Sheriff Arpaio. "It's not only illegals we find and arrest out there, we've also made some recent huge drug seizures involving illegal aliens including nearly 100 pounds of methamphetamine and approximately three pounds of heroin."

Posse man Andrew Ramsammy, who was part of Tuesday's arrest team, says that he believes he represents many of his peers when he says that the posse is anxious to be a part of the Sheriff's solution to the immigration problem.

"As a group of law abiding people, we are fed up with the number of people who come into this county illegally. We're tired of the drugs that some of them bring to sell to our young people and we're ready and willing to assist the Sheriff's deputies in the fight against illegal immigration," says Ramsammy.

It’s amazing and sad that the United States government is not willing to protect our own boarders. However, I have a feeling that as this problem continues to go unchecked and as groups like the Maricopa County sheriff's posse continue to grow, illegals crossing the boarder might wish that the U.S. government had taken control of the boarder. The government wouldn't be nearly as tough on illegals as what these posses are likely to become.

Political Career Off to a Slow Start

Yesterday, my political career got off to a less than glorious beginning. I lost my bid for precinct committeeman, 52.5% to 47.5%.

I can't feel too upset, though. There are several reasons to feel good about the election even though I lost.

1) My opponent is a friend of mine; we go to church together, and he's a fine person.

2) He has been involved in local politics for many years; whereas, this was my first foray into the political arena.

3) I spent exactly $0.00 on my campaign, and I only asked three people to vote for me: my wife, my son, and my cousin who lives down the street. (My cousin went to Florida this week and didn't vote at all. My wife and son voted, and they say they voted for me, but it is a secret ballot, so you never know.)

4) I've read where Abe Lincoln lost in his first run for office, so that puts me in pretty good company. (Of course he ended up getting shot, so I'll drop that comparison.)

Anyway, it was fun, and I'll probably throw my hat in again sometime.

Marxist Group a Force Behind Illegal Immigrant Protests

Lou Dobbs writes a commentary today in which he points out the relationship between illegal immigration protests and the radical leftist organization A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)

...only one newspaper, to its credit, reported that illegal aliens and their supporters' boycott of the national economy on the First of May is clear evidence that radical elements have seized control of the movement. The Washington Post, alone among national papers, reported that ANSWER has become an active promoter of the national boycott.

Some illegal immigration and open borders activists in the Hispanic community are deeply concerned about the involvement of the left-wing radical group. But others, like Juan Jose Gutierrez, whom I've interviewed a number of times over the past several months, manages to be both director of Latino Movement USA and a representative of ANSWER.
...
Just how significant is the impact of leftists within the illegal immigration movement? It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and even anarchic organizations.

Lest you think Dobbs is exaggerating, consider the following:

International A.N.S.W.E.R.'s website today displayed this headline:

May 1 / National Boycott / No Work, School, Selling, or Buying/ A Day Without An Immigrant, and featured this statement:

The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) fully supports the struggle of the immigrant community to win the rights that all people should enjoy, and we denounce the racist attempts to criminalize undocumented and all immigrant people.

A.N.S.W.E.R. LA's website ran this headline:

May 1 Boycott & LA Marches for Immigrant Rights
No Work! No School! Take To the Streets!

So just who is A.N.S.W.E.R.? A look at its leaders provides a pretty good insight. According to Wikipedia

...its steering committee consists of socialists, Marxists, civil rights advocates, and progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities.
...
Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation...

The Workers World Party is a "communist party in the United States founded in 1959..."

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is "a Marxist-Leninist party in the United States founded (in 2004) to promote revolutionary change.

A.N.S.W.E.R. is an anti-United States, Marxist organization. While most illegal immigrants have nothing to do with the organization and are probably even unaware of its existence, there is no doubt that A.N.S.W.E.R. is behind many of the organized protests. The question is why. The answer is that A.N.S.W.E.R. leaders understand what many of our Senators and Representatives do not: that illegal immigration is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States of America. A.N.S.W.E.R. is using the illegal immigration issue to further its own anti-American agenda, and our elected officials are letting it happen.