I'll start with the alarming, but unsurprising, from Red Hot Cuppa Politics:
The problem with the re-count in Mexico is that the correct person --i.e., the leftist candidate -- might not win. That's what happened in Florida in 2000, where the goal was to just count the votes until Gore "won." (and incidentally, only one recount of the many done in 2000 showed that Gore won).
So far, the partial recount in Mexico shows that Calderon is still winning by a narrow margin. But, that's not good enough for the leftist candidate.
From the BBC:
Supporters of Mexico's left-wing presidential candidate have pledged to place his rival "under siege" if he is declared winner of the disputed poll.The results are known, though. From the WashingtonPost:
A spokesman for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's party said Felipe Calderon would not be able to operate outside his office if he was made president.
Mr Lopez Obrador disputes the official results which give a narrow victory to his rival and wants a full recount.
A partial recount has been completed, but the results are not yet known
Although there was no evidence of widespread irregularities, let alone fraud, on Aug. 5, Mexico's independent Federal Electoral Tribunal, a seven-judge panel, ordered a recount at 11,839 polling stations, about 9 percent of the total.Even if you don't like the winner of an election, you uphold the law by accepting the results. Then, the next chance you get, you vote him/her out of office. But, it might not work that way in Mexico. [more]
That recount is complete. According to Mexican press reports, it has yielded no major change in the presidential results -- certainly nothing sufficient to justify Mr. López Obrador's wild allegations. The Federal Electoral Tribunal now has until Sept. 6 to either annul the election or certify the results and declare a winner
Just when you think logic cannot be twisted any further, cities that have implemented their own illegal immigration legislation now face lawsuits.
Why are the pro-illegal activists so quickly challenging these small communities?
Because it's working!
The Boston Globe reports:
Since July, when the city of Hazleton, Pa., passed an ordinance aimed at making it "one the most difficult places in the America for illegal immigrants," dozens of other communities have picked up on the idea, saying local governments must find ways to expel illegal immigrants.
Already, laws have passed in a handful of places: In Valley Park, Mo., population 6,518, landlords over the weekend began evicting tenants who are not legal citizens. In Riverside, N.J., families departed so quickly that they left piles of mattresses behind.
Our Senate should take a hint that enforcing our current immigration laws will ultimately result in attrition through enforcement. While pro-illegal pinheads spout that mass deportation is "unrealistic", enforcement of our immigration laws is not only realistic but expected by the American people.
Yesterday, in hopes of stopping the spread of the ordinances, opponents filed federal lawsuits against Hazleton and Riverside, arguing principally that the local governments are violating the supremacy clause of the Constitution by attempting to regulate immigration, which is a federal matter.
Cesar Perales, president and CEO of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is suing Hazleton, called his case against the ordinance "a slam-dunk." But a victory in court, he said, will not address the anger that is growing in small-town America, where many blame illegal immigrants for a range of social ills.
"There is now this crazy climate of `get these people out of town,' " Perales said. "The laws are a reaction and a response to this sentiment. But it is also feeding it, and saying to people in these small towns that these [immigrants] are bad and they shouldn't be here with us."
Give me a break! The people in these small towns are not saying, "immigrants are bad", they are saying that ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is bad. I wonder how many mattresses legal immigrants or American citizens in Riverside, N.J. left behind?
But, have no fear, the elected officials of these small communities are not backing down to the groups that seek to support those who ignore the laws of this nation.
Barletta said yesterday that Hazleton's residents are "prepared to take the fight to the highest court in the United States if we have to," and have arranged a legal defense fund to defray the city's legal costs. Even if the ordinance fails the legal challenge, Barletta said, it will still have been worth it, because illegal immigrants are leaving.
"It's been incredible. We have literally seen people loading up mattresses and furniture and leaving the city en masse," he said. "That was our goal, to have a city of legal immigrants who are all paying taxes. It's already been effective."
Amazing! The laws of our nation actually work when our elected officials have the will and the courage to enforce them.
And from the Uncooperative Blogger:
We are planning another illegal immigration blitz on August 23rd 2006. We will again fax, email and call our elected representatives, but this time, include your state representatives and media outlets. Write letters to the editors of all your local papers. Call your TV stations and local radio stations. If you are up to it call your favorite talk radio hosts. [more]
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let Brian know at what level you would like to participate.