Demand an Explanation: Why is Our Government Working with Mexico to Promote Food Stamp Program to Mexican Citizens?

Seriously? OK, enough is enough. From Judicial Watch: 

Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012. The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. In an email to Borjon Lopez-Coterilla and Jose Vincente of the Mexican Embassy, dated January 26, 2012, Yibo Wood of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) sympathized with the plight of illegal aliens applying for food stamps, saying, “FNS understands that mixed status households may be particularly vulnerable. Many of these households contain a non-citizen parent and a citizen child.”

There is a long history of the Obama administration working to increase the food stamp rolls, not only with people legally in the U.S., but by importing more dependents. More from the Judicial Watch article:

March 30, 2012 – The USDA seeks approval of the Mexican Embassy in drafting a letter addressed to consulates throughout the United States designed to encourage Mexican embassy staffers to enroll in a webinar learn how to promote increased enrollment among “the needy families that the consulates serve.”
August 1, 2011 – The USDA FNS initiates contact with the Mexican Embassy in New York to implement programs already underway in DC and Philadelphia for maximizing participation among Mexican citizens. The Mexican Embassy responds that the Consul General is eager to strengthen his ties to the USDA, with specific interest in promoting the food stamp program.
February 25, 2011 – The USDA and the Mexican Consulate exchange ideas about getting the First Ladies of Mexico and United States to visit a school for purposes of creating a photo opportunity that would promote free school lunches for low-income students in a predominantly Hispanic school. Though a notation in the margin of the email claims that the photo op never took place, UPI reported that it actually did.
March 3, 2010 – A flyer advertises a webinar to teach Hispanic-focused nonprofits how to get reimbursed by the USDA for serving free lunch over the summer. The course, funded by American taxpayers, is advertised as being “free for all participants.”
February 9 , 2010 – USDA informs the Mexican Embassy that, based on an agreement reached between the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (now ICE), the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) food voucher program does not violate immigration laws prohibiting immigrants from becoming a “public charge.”

The reason that Obama and his merry band of Alinskyites have been so successful at exploding the food stamp rolls is because the makers are passive as the takers scream “more! more! more!” The time has come for that to end. I plan to contact my Congressman and my senators to demand an answer for why this outrage continues. If you give a rat’s rear end about the future of this country, and what we are leaving to future generations, you should do the same. Don’t know the contact information? It’s here for members of the House, and here for both the House and Senate.

Burn, Baby, Burn

As Hillary Clinton famously said: ”What difference, at this point, does it make”?


Proponents of Amnesty for illegal aliens claim there are between 11 and 20 million people living “in the shadows”. This is not a condemnation of the policies of the United States, but rather a vote (albeit with their feet) on the policies of The Republic of Mexico, and other countries. Mexico, being the country with the most illegals here is what I shall attempt to deal with presently.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was really the first Amnesty:


The United States of America and the United Mexican States animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calamities of the war which unhappily exists between the two Republics and to establish Upon a solid basis relations of peace and friendship, which shall confer reciprocal benefits upon the citizens of both, and assure the concord, harmony, and mutual confidence wherein the two people should live, as good neighbors…

The very first sentence of this treaty requires “reciprocal benefits”. Illegal aliens in Mexico can be sentenced to 8 years in prison. It’s illegal to buy property in Mexico if you are not a citizen. All government activities are conducted in Spanish.

One of the objectives of the treaty was to set the boundaries of the two Republics.

Article V

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.

Obviously, the boundary line has not been respected, religiously, or otherwise. The breach of this treaty comes with the full support of the government of Mexico, as well as acquiescence from the U.S. government in the form of lack of border security.

Thus, with the breach of this peace treaty both Republics revert back to their original state: War.

The No Border network spouted up to support illegal aliens. And No Person is illegal. You see, it is RACIST not to allow criminals past your border- they can protect their border, but you become a racist if you do.

The Network has also held demonstrations against ID cards.

Why would anyone need identification? Like Hillary said: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”


If you don’t need identification, then you certainly don’t need a birth certificate. Like Hillary said: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

We should all just march down to Washington D.C. and burn our birth certificates, driver’s licenses, voter’s cards, and any other ID we may have. They don’t mean anything anyway. Just burn them like a draft card in the 1960′s. Or a bra.

The Lawless Obama Administration

The following comes from CNN’s website on April 16 2009: “Reviving a ban on assault weapons and more strictly enforcing existing gun laws could help tamp down drug violence that has run rampant on the US-Mexican border, President Obama said Thursday. Speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said he has ‘not backed off at all’ on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban. It was instituted under President Clinton and allowed to lapse by President George W. Bush.

From the moment the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons was lifted a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico,’ Calderon said. He said that more than 16,000 assault weapons have been seized in the crackdown on drug traffickers, with almost 9 in 10 coming from the United States.”
Fox News exposed the lie in that easily shown to be false prevarication, and so the Obama Administration set out to make it the lie a reality. Hence the genesis of “Fast and Furious.”

Which forces us to address the lawless Obama administration

A lawless administration is a depressing institution because it is an institution completely without respect for the purpose of law in a constitutional republic. Even as we are SATURATED with ordinances, commands compulsions and regulations, the administration conducts itself in a matter that reeks of contempt for the meaning of law. .
Law exists apart from what a group of people at any given time want you to do. That is why the aged nature of the United States Constitution is a strength. The farther away we travel from 1789, the less that the foibles and frailties of the Framers affect us. The transitory human things fall away leaving only the essence of law.
If our Bill of Rights were drafted today it would look very different than it did back then. Not only would there be no Second Amendment, but most of the others would read dramatically different. There would be few severe restrictions on government power. Nor would there be unlimited Freedom of Speech. The entire thing would run a few thousand pages and would be filled with all sorts of lawerly escape clauses, which when added together would render the whole thing meaningless.

This administration personifies the essence of lawlessness, which is to say that there is a whole buncha statutes they invoke, but all that is merely mechanics for those in power to enforce their will on others. If you want to force people to do something, all you need to do is lay out your reasoning create a spurious justification and voila, you can impose your will on the nation and extort unconstitutional gun legislation from the cowed and intimidated capons in Congress.

It’s law in the same sense that a mugger putting a gun to your head is law. He has a gun and he makes the laws. The laws don’t apply to him. They don’t apply in any larger universal fashion. The mugger can choose to suspend any laws at his whim, because he has a gun.

The United States has drifted into lawlessness, into laws that are the guns of government. Want to force everyone to buy health insurance? Pass a law. Ignore any questions of constitutionality because legality doesn’t matter. If people come out to protest, send out your SEIU thugs to beat them. If you lose your Senate majority, use Reconciliation to pass it. If the Supreme Court threatens to investigate the constitutionality of the law, threaten the Court.

The only thing separating tactics like these from the mugger on the corner is public interest. Which is to say that the government is playing Robin Hood. It isn’t mugging you because it likes the smell of money, but because it wants to help those less fortunate. Robin Hood was rebelling against the illegal authority of the Sheriff of Nottingham. And our government is rebelling against the legitimate authority of .the written Constitution..
The government becomes the outlaw, doing what it likes because it must resist all the “powerful special interests”, in this case the pro gun lobby like the NRA.. The Revolution becomes permanent, with the Reds in power constantly rebelling against the bitter clingers desperately clutching their guns and Bibles to their panic stricken bigoted heaving breasts.

This farce can take place under the guise of law, but it represents the whims of a lawless administration. The constitution was created to establish and enumerate the limits of the police power, i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”. It limits the power of individuals, institutions and governments. But for a lawless administration no limitation on power applies if the power is being applied for the sake of the higher ideals which the administration is claiming to represent. If those higher ideals involve helping the poor, so has to protect them from “assault weapons” while refusing to acknowledge the general communal breakdown that resulted from liberal welfare state policies that contributed to the rise of the criminal gangs that employ the “assault weapons”, then every institution can act like Robin Hood.

In a lawless administration, law is a function of the emotions they can generate, or the mob they can demagogue. The one who screams the loudest gets his way if he can influence enough people to believe that he has a case. Laws get made from a sense of “rightness” that is entirely a function of emotion

Rights become entirely positive and empathy based. Negative rights become associated with selfishness. Everyone has the right to a thousand benefits, but no one has the right to opt out. Everyone is free to speak their mind, so long as it is an expression of need, rather than a demand to be left alone.

Empathy makes for very bad law, because it isn’t law at all. It’s a subjective response to the suffering of others. And often those who excel at marketing their suffering aren’t suffering at all, while those who are genuinely suffering remain silent. Empathy-based law commodifies pain, but it’s empty of justice.

A lawless administration is one where those who manipulate empathy gain power. Where temporary outrage substitutes for policy. The Obama administration was trying to gin up outrage against lawful gun sales that originated from legal gun dealers.. There is no real respect for law and so Fast and Furious is political, because law is made on an ad hoc basis. Just project enough grief and victimization and there ya go.Obama the actor is every bit as ersatz as his Styrofoam Greek columns. Every press conference is a performance as he oh so sincerely tells you why he must violate the constitution.
The idea that there should be one law for all, rather than one law for the sufferers and another for those who aren’t suffering, is alien to a society where empathy trumps law. Rather than doing the right thing, Obama does the Robin Hood thing, leaping from the tree, looting the society, and writing songs about his own dashing kill Bin Laden valor.
The government-media complex acts out the empathy narrative. Its reporting has nothing to do with the facts, but everything to do with emotion. A law is bad when it protects the privilege of the opposition, but good when it protects their privilege. The powers of the Senate, the Executive and the Supreme Court are good when they serve their ends, but bad when they serve the ends of their enemy. The blame always goes to the side blocking their agenda.

For a lawless administration, laws and the constitution only matter so long as it serves the purpose of those in power. When it doesn’t, then it’s ignored or tossed aside.

Last week we witnessed Obama playing Robin Hood by casting aside immigration law and transparency to the huzzahs of the media, whose fondest wish is for politicians to play Robin Hood, cut all the Gordian Knots and just carry out their agenda without regard for the law, even the law that Obama cited as previously restraining him. That is what they wanted, that is what they got. But a lawless administration cuts both ways and takes the system out of the protection of the law.

Law should be impartial. It states absolute principles that apply regardless of faction and position. But for a lawless administration, there is no law, only power. The cultural Marxist left exemplified by the Obamunists has ushered in a lawless administration even as they inundate us with statute..

Differences between Bush’s “Wide Receiver” and Obama’s “Fast & Furious” explained for cognitively dissonant liberals and Obamunists:

Wide Receiver – The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 300
Fast & Furious – The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 2,000

Wide Receiver – Guns were traced with miniature tracking devices and constant surveillance from ground and air.
Fast & Furious – No tracking devices were used, no surveillance was made whatsoever.

Wide Receiver – ATF agents were ordered to follow the gun smugglers every step of their trip from the gun store to the US/Mexico border.
Fast & Furious – ATF agents were ordered to stand down and not follow the gun smugglers after they left the gun store. The only surveillance was made through the gun store own video cameras; after gun smugglers left the store, the ATF agents were expressly ordered not to pursue.

Wide Receiver – Mexican army and police was in the loop about Wide Receiver. They took over the surveillance of the gun smugglers after they crossed with the guns in Mexico.
Fast & Furious – Mexican authorities were kept in the dark by the ATF and the US DOJ. They had no idea about Fast & Furious and the fact that guns provided to gun smugglers by the American authorities were “walked” in Mexico into the hands of drug cartel murderers.

Wide Receiver – When a small number of guns (30-40) were lost due to malfunctioning tracking devices and / or because the gun smugglers discovered the surveillance and learned how to evade it, the operation Wide Receiver was immediately aborted and cancelled.
Fast and Furious – Operation continued even after ATF and DOJ lost track of all 2,000 guns sold to Mexican drug cartels

Wide Receiver – 1,400 arrests were made in joint operations by the Mexican authorities and DEA and ATF agents. No lost Wide Receiver guns were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico or the US.
Fast & Furious – The operation was planned to let the guns go without any surveillance. Guns were SUPPOSED to be recovered at the murder scenes. One of the 150+ murder scenes where Fast & Furious guns were recovered was that of US border patrol agent Brian Terry; another one was the murder scene of ICE agent Jaime Zapata. The DOJ and ATF didn’t muster any explanation about how they planned to make arrests of the drug cartel murderers BEFORE THEY KILLED PEOPLE with the Fast & Furious guns, and how they were supposed to make arrests in Mexico without the fore knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican authorities.

Deaths as a Result of Wide Reciever: 0 as of this date

Fast & Furious results: 300+Mexican citizens murdered; 2 US Federal agents murdered.
As I have said REPEATEDLY next time lets try hiring a natural born citizen as POTUS.

In conclusion let me just say, Barack Hussein Obama Umm Ummmm Ummmmmm.

Will Obama Throw Eric Holder Under the Bus?

Unless you listen the the Teri O’Brien Show, or similar broadcasts dedicated to exposing the Left, you haven’t heard much, especially lately, about Operation Fast and Furious, Attorney General Eric Holder’s botched effort to create a gun-running crisis so that the Obama administration could ride to the rescue with more gun control laws. It’s been over a year since Border Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a Fast and Furious gun, and no government official has been held accountable, although Mr. Terry’s mother accurately referred to Holder as a “coward” and a “joke.” Eric Holder continues to stonewall requests for information from Cong. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), using the ridiculous excuse that he is investigating himself. Too bad Richard Nixon never thought of that. He learned the hard way, and his experience resulted in a political truism: it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. Over the weekend, The Hill reported that Tea Party members in Speaker John Boehner’s home district are putting the heat on him to force Holder’s hand.

Now even some democrats won’t speak up for the President’s man. From the Daily Caller:

Oklahoma Democratic Rep. Dan Boren won’t say if he supports Attorney General Eric Holder amid a surge in the number of House members who have demanded Holder’s resign over Operation Fast and Furious.

A spokesperson for Boren, a conservative Democrat who is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, said the congressman had “no comment” on whether he still has confidence in Holder.

This is the first time a Democrat has openly refused to support Holder as 120 congressmen, three senators, two sitting governors and all major GOP presidential candidates demand his resignation.

Boren was one of 31 Democrats who signed a letter to President Barack Obama on June 3, 2011, asking him to direct the Justice Department and Holder to provide all information and documents related to Fast and Furious to congressional investigators.

Obama and Holder have apparently ignored the request from Boren and his colleagues, and are still withholding more than 70,000 pages of lawfully subpoenaed documents from House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. Holder has, however, provided the documents to the DOJ’s internal Office of the Inspector General.

The other 30 Democrats who signed that letter did not immediately respond to TheDC’s requests for comment.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about whether she continues to have confidence in Holder. It’s unclear if she does.

Holder’s conduct in office, from claiming a law that he admitted never reading was unconstitutional, to refusing to enforce voting rights laws against black defendants (and saying that those who criticize his racist handling of the case are demeaning “his people“), to his statement that America is “a nation of cowards” on the issue of race, has been an embarrassing disaster, and he deserves to be, at a minimum, fired, and possibly prosecuted.

Given Holder’s record, and with Obama’s approval rating tanking, it’s tempting to think that he will soon send Eric packing to some cushy ambassadorship thousands of miles away, at least until after the election. I don’t think so. Don’t underestimate the degree to which Barack Hussein Obama is fiercely committed to those who share not only his radical leftist, but also his racialist, point of view, particularly Eric Holder. He won’t let the Man tell him to fire an equally “historic” public official, at least not unless he’s absolutely convinced that he will lose the election unless he does so. For now, I’m sure he’s hoping to keep Holder in place to fight the voter ID laws that are might stop some of their voting blocks (illegals, dead people, dogs) from voting.

Ironically, he may be correct about that race coward accusation, since but for Barack Obama’s ability to skillfully exploit white guilt, he would never have been elected.