March 2008


It was tagged "Amnesty Trail." Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens followed it to "amnesty" in the United States. The Strategic Border Initiative was supposed to plug the hole at the border. Just as we predicted, it failed.
Now citizens are documenting just how bad things really are.
    On Friday, March 28, these brave citizens used a thermal camera to document the flood of invaders. Their report not only shows the flood of probable illegal aliens, it documents how negligent the Border Patrol is in apprehending these people.
    "The degree of betrayal of the people of the United States has never seen an historic equal," said Glenn Spencer of American Patrol.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office

From left: Mug shots of Efrain Malave-Bermudez, 34, Ernie Azucey, 23, and Juan Ayende-Nieves, 52.

TAMPA — Airport police arrested three baggage handlers Friday on charges of dealing in stolen property pilfered from Continental Airlines luggage checked at Tampa International Airport.

Among the electronics airport police recovered were laptop computers, digital cameras, cell phones, iPods, a GPS device and headphones.

All three work for Delta Global Services, a company contracted to handle baggage for Continental, arrest reports state.

The three were traced through a rigged laptop computer loaded into luggage March 12 on a Continental flight to Houston.

Continental’s security had the laptop loaded with software that would track any activity on the computer if it was turned on. The computer never made it to Houston, reports state.

On Tuesday, someone turned on the computer and accessed a MySpace account, and the software gave investigators images of what the user viewed while logged on.

The computer was turned on again Wednesday and Thursday. Police were able to trace the computer to a woman who said she got it from one of the baggage handlers who bought it for $350.

An arrest report said one of the men told investigators he bought laptops for $60, iPods for $10 and digital cameras for $50.

Airport police released no further details Sunday.

"It is an ongoing investigation," airport spokeswoman Kelly Figley said.

Arrested were Efrain Malave-Bermudez Jr., 34, 6720 S. Lois Ave., on seven counts of dealing in stolen property; Juan Ayende-Nieves, 52, 2004 E. Lake Ave., on four counts of dealing in stolen property; and Ernie Azucey, 23, 8510 Hyaleah Road, on 33 counts of dealing in stolen property.

Azucey is being held in Orient Road Jail, with bail set at $247,500. Malave-Bermudez’s bail is $52,500, jail records show.

Ayende-Nieves was released after posting $30,000 bail.

The electronics that were seized include six laptop computers, nine digital cameras and three cell phones. Police also recovered nine pairs of sunglasses.

The report says investigators are trying to contact the owners of the items.

[Check out the Arrest Report below. The three men are illegal aliens. Azucey’s POB, name, and ethnicity are questionable] 

  • Ernie Azucey Arrest Report
  • Efrain Malave-Bermudez Arrest Report
  • Juan Ayende-Nieves Arrest Report
  • Source

     15742948.jpg

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Four men in Orlando were charged with a hate crime after they pummeled a 62-year-old woman and her two mentally-challenged companions at a public park after they didn’t pay a "fee" for being white, police said.

    Investigators said the victims were walking into a Kaley Park when they were confronted by Christopher Colbert, Erick Golden, Willie Pritts and Antoniette Boone.

    Police said the victims were told that since they are white, they had to pay a fee to be in the park.

    When the three didn’t pay, the men beat them, officers said.

    One of the victims was held up with a knife, a police report said.

    Deputies stopped the men a few miles from the park and they were taken into custody.

    The men face several charges in connection with the incident.

    Source

    Heads_Up FR

     By KENNETH P. VOGEL

    During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.

    The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

    Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

    They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”

    But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer.

    The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, were later supplied directly from the group, Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama’s campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and positions, since both were active in it before his 1996 state Senate run.

    Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.

    “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”

    But the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability. Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the superdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama.

    Taken together – and combined with later policy pronouncements – the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive issues.

    Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent – or at least notify their parents – before having abortion.

    The first version of Obama’s questionnaire responds with a simple “No.”

    The amended version, though, answers less stridently: “Depends on how young – possibly for extremely young teens, i.e. 12 or 13 year olds.”

    By 2004, when his campaign filled out a similar questionnaire for the IVI–IPO during his campaign for U.S. Senate, the answer to a similar question contained still more nuance, but also more precision. “I would oppose any legislation that does not include a bypass provision for minors who have been victims of, or have reason to fear, physical or sexual abuse,” he wrote.

    The evolution continued at least through late last year, when his campaign filled out a questionnaire for a non-partisan reproductive health group  that answered a similar question with even more nuance.

    “As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults – an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor,” his campaign wrote to RH Reality Check.

    “Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases.”

    Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

    He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires.

    But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views, asserting he “consistently supported the death penalty for certain crimes, but backed a moratorium until problems were fixed.” And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois’ death penalty laws.

    On guns, the fact sheet says he “has consistently supported common sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

    After Politico’s story on the first questionnaire, Clinton aides seized on the handgun-ban answer in particular, which a campaign press release asserted called into question Obama’s electability.

    That was a curious argument to make in a Democratic primary. But Republicans will certainly seek to make it in the general election if Obama is the Democratic standard-bearer against the presumptive GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

    It could also provide ammunition for a line of attack quietly peddled for some time by Republicans. They allege Obama has a penchant for blaming his staff for gaffes ranging from missing a union event in New Hampshire to circulating opposition research highlighting the Clintons’ ties to India and Indian-Americans to underestimating the amount of cash bundled for his campaigns by his former fundraiser, indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

    And the questionnaires play into storylines pushed by both Republicans and Clinton suggesting Obama has altered his views to appeal to differing audiences.

    That suggestion is galling to many members of IVI-IPO, some of whom have relationships with Obama that date back nearly 15 years. The group had endorsed Obama in every race he’d run – including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) – until now.

    The group’s 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.

    “One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

    “I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”

    It’s more benign than that, contended fellow board member Lois Dobry, who voted to endorse Obama last year and hosted the 1996 interview session at her home.

    That “was a long time ago,” she said. “And anybody who hasn’t refined their ideas over that period of time … is not anybody I’m interested in,” she said. Dobry asserted Obama’s views have evolved mostly at the margins and that he’s still the same person she met in the 1990s.

    “He always was right from the start very, very clear on where he was coming from on most issues,” she said, “and he certainly wasn’t letting anybody else decide that for him.”

    Dobry, Patt and current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki, a Clinton supporter, agreed Obama likely didn’t write every word of his campaign’s 1996 answers. But they all dismissed as unbelievable his presidential campaign’s assertion that Obama never saw or signed off on the state Senate questionnaires.

    Campaigns are routinely bombarded with all manner of questionnaires from advocacy groups of every stripe, so it’s not uncommon to have staffers fill them out in candidates’ names. But usually there’s some process by which the answers are vetted to insure consistency with the candidates’ views.

    And there were plenty of reasons to believe that occurred in the case of Obama’s 1996 IVI-IPO questionnaire.

    The group was very influential in Obama’s South Side district. It also was a leader on government reform issues, which Obama has made a centerpiece of his political persona.

    He and his campaign manager, Carol Harwell, both were active with IVI-IPO prior to his candidacy, and had once helped interview candidates seeking the group’s endorsement, according to Igasaki.

    Dobry called Harwell “an extremely experienced person, also someone highly familiar with IVI. And she would know perfectly well that the candidate would have to answer questions based on these answers and to suddenly have the candidate discover that somebody else had written answers that they were in no way in agreement with would be pretty embarrassing, right?”

    Harwell, a veteran Democratic operative who got her start working for the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s and now works for Cook County Clerk David Orr, last year told Politico she filled out the first questionnaire.

    But she did not return several telephone messages asking about the second questionnaire and the handwritten notes on it.

    They appear under a question asking candidates to “list all endorsements you have received so far.” In typed text that matches that of the rest of the answers, both of Obama’s questionnaires list four local Democratic organizations and two aldermen. But the latter questionnaire adds to that with hand-written notes listing another 10 endorsements, including an Illinois seniors group, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, IBEW and unions representing nurses and firefighters.

    Igasaki said Obama was shoo-in for the IVI-IPO endorsement, but that it was important to have a strong showing because “our chapter basically was his field operation. … Those people were already working for him and it was important for him to identify with us.”

    Patt, though, conceded the inevitability of the group’s endorsement could have led Harwell to be “less than 100 percent careful” in filling out the questionnaire “because it probably didn’t matter that much at the time. It’s only in the context that it’s now found that has much greater importance than anyone could have imagined it would back in 1996.”

    On Tuesday, the federal government begins accepting visa applications for 65,000 skilled foreign workers. But much as it could use some extra help, Progress Software Corp. won’t be applying for any of these coveted H-1B visas.

    Instead, the Massachusetts company is embracing a different visa program, called L-1, that lets businesses import workers who’ve already been hired at their overseas offices.

    "It’s certainly easier than getting an H-1 visa," said Todd Tracy, the company’s director of talent planning and acquisition.

    Despite the slowing economy, companies say it’s hard to find enough highly skilled workers. The H-1B program was designed to help businesses hire capable foreign workers, but demand for the 65,000 visas far exceeded supply in 2007, and the same is expected this year.

    Many tech companies have embraced L-1 visas as an alternative. Companies can apply for the visas at any time of year, and there is no limit to the number that can be issued. The United States granted 53,000 L-1s in 2006, up 33 percent from the number granted in 2000.

    But critics of U.S. immigration policy say some companies are misusing the L-1 program. "We have found and heard lots of stories recently of companies that are really kind of abusing it," said Bob Meltzer, chief executive of Visanow.com, a Chicago company that processes visa applications online.

    Many of the leading recipients of L-1 visas are Indian companies such as Infosys Technologies Ltd. and Wipro Ltd., which specialize in providing foreign workers to U.S. companies. The Indian companies’ use of the visas is legal, but Meltzer thinks the L-1 program should be available only to U.S.-based firms.

    "It wasn’t created to help the Indian companies," he said. "It was intended to support American companies and the American economy."

    Some companies also abuse the L-1 system, according to Kim Berry, president of the Programmers Guild, which seeks to protect U.S. high-tech workers. While the H-1B program requires employers to pay foreign workers the prevailing U.S. wage for a particular job, L-1 has no such requirement. Thus an engineer brought in from, say, India, could be paid the same as in their home country, rather than the much higher pay U.S. engineers demand.

    "There’s tens of thousands of foreign workers working in the U.S., and they continue to be paid in their foreign wages," Berry said.

    Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., have filed legislation to reform the L-1 and H-1B programs. Their bill would require companies to pay a prevailing wage to L-1 visa employees and would forbid the use of L-1 visas by outsourcing companies.

    Meanwhile, some in Congress favor jacking up the number of H-1B visas. U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., recently introduced a bill to raise the H-1B visa quota from 65,000 to 130,000 a year. Meanwhile, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, filed legislation to raise the cap to 195,000.

    Progress officials would welcome an increase.

    "We don’t see any decrease in our employment needs at all," said Joe Andrews, vice president of human resources at the company, which makes programs to monitor and manage business computing activities.

    But last year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service shut down the H-1B application process the day after it began, having received 133,000 applications for the 65,000 slots. The agency ended up choosing successful applicants through a computer lottery. Many in the technology sector predict a similar rush this year. Faced with such daunting odds, Progress focused instead on L-1 visas.

    "The unavailability of the H-1B visas has put us in a position where I don’t think it’s part of our overall strategy right now," Tracy said.

    Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Inc., a microchip manufacturing equipment maker in Gloucester, Mass., hasn’t entirely given up on H-1B visas. Company officials expect to apply for about three of them Tuesday.

    But they’re also counting on an H-1B alternative: the O visa, a special program to help companies hire foreign workers with exceptional skills.

    The program is sometimes used to enable foreign athletes to play for U.S. teams; Varian uses it to hire scientists and engineers.

    "Because some of the people we want to hire are Ph.D.s and are outstanding in their field, we’re able to apply for an O visa," Varian human resources manager Bob Moore said.

    O visas are far less controversial than other foreign-worker visas because so few are issued — fewer than 7,000 in 2006, with another 3,700 for workers who assist the exceptional employees.

    Many tech companies say they’ll take their chances with the H-1B system.

    RSA, the security division of EMC Corp., the giant data-storage company, will ask for about 10 visas.

    "We expect to grow this year, and that means we need more people to do more things," RSA president Art Coviello said.

    Coviello said he is especially eager to hire foreign recruits who have recently graduated from U.S. universities.

    "It just seems a shame that we have so many people coming here to get an education … and we end up sending them home," he said.

    Source

     

    An unlicensed cab driver will seek to show a federal jury this week that the police department is failing to abide by Mayor Bloomberg’s pledge that the city won’t alert immigration authorities to illegal aliens who otherwise obey the law.

    The case of the cab driver, Waheed Saleh of Jenin in the West Bank, indicates that a New York City police lieutenant casually tipped off a federal immigration officer about Mr. Saleh’s immigration status, court documents in the case show.

    Mr. Saleh’s civil trial against the lieutenant and another police officer is expected to begin tomorrow. It may be the first time that the city has been called to account in connection with Mr. Bloomberg’s Executive Order 41. Issued in 2003, that order was intended to encourage illegal immigrants to seek out help from the police department and other agencies and allay fears that the city would turn their names over to federal immigration officials.

    Court records show that police officers considered Mr. Saleh to be a troublemaker who could turn violent when confronted by the minor annoyances of big-city life, such as a dispute over a parking spot or the high price of cigarettes. In one instance, officers responded to a 911 call from a bodega employee who claimed Mr. Saleh threw a pack of cigarettes at him after a dispute over its price, according to court documents. In another instance, police officers broke up a fistfight between Mr. Saleh and another man over a parking spot, according to depositions. Police believed that Mr. Saleh, earlier in the fight, had tried to use his vehicle to ram a person standing in the street, the documents say.

    Mr. Saleh maintains that the immigration tip-off was in retaliation for the repeated complaints he had made against the second police officer he is suing, Kishon Hickman, who policed the intersection of 231st Street and Broadway in the Bronx, where Mr. Saleh often sought fares for his cab. The complaints, which alleged general harassment but were never substantiated, were made to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which investigates allegations of police misconduct.

    Mr. Saleh’s lawsuit claims that the retaliation he believes he faced in response to his complaints amounts to a violation of his First Amendment rights. Two acquaintances of Mr. Saleh have filed affidavits in court claiming that Officer Hickman told them to tell Mr. Saleh to drop his complaints or the police would cause him difficulties.

    Depositions of police officers and federal immigration officials do indicate that police at the 50th precinct did try to get Mr. Saleh deported. When an agent with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Rodger Werner, was at the precinct house in late 2003 or early 2004 in search of someone other than Mr. Saleh, a police lieutenant, Kevin Nicholson, volunteered him with Mr. Saleh’s name, Mr. Nicholson, who is now a captain, said in a deposition. And on December 20, 2004, Mr. Nicholson and other officers tipped off the federal agents that Mr. Saleh could be found at his usual intersection. Mr. Nicholson sat in a nearby car until the federal immigration agents had arrested Mr. Saleh.

    There is some dispute as to what role Officer Hickman, the recipient of Mr. Saleh’s complaints, played in alerting immigration authorities about Mr. Saleh. In a deposition, Officer Hickman said he had never spoken to any federal immigration officers about Mr. Saleh. In a police report and a deposition, a second immigration officer, Mark Limongelli, claims he was in contact with Officer Hickman about what Mr. Hickman described as Mr. Saleh’s "disturbances in the neighborhood," including his driving an unlicensed livery cab.

    The city’s policy for not sharing information with the federal government about illegal immigrants contains an exception for immigrants suspected of crimes. Given Mr. Saleh’s trouble with the law, he appears to fall under that exception. Police policy in effect at the time, but no longer, required communications between the NYPD and federal immigration officials to begin with a written report that went through the NYPD’s Intelligence Division. A police Internal Affairs Bureau report concluded that Captain Nicholson did violate the procedures on alerting the federal immigration officials in Mr. Saleh’s case. But the report, which was filed in federal court, found that Mr. Saleh’s claim that Captain Nicholson was acting in response to the complaints against Officer Hickman was unsubstantiated.

    "What you people believe is I am trying to get this guy for complaining," Captain Nicholson said of Mr. Saleh in a deposition. "It is not the truth."

    Captain Nicholson, in the deposition, said he was not aware of the procedures required of NYPD officers who wanted to pass on information to immigration authorities. He said he believed he was allowed to release information about immigration status to federal agents if the the alien "is engaged in criminal activity."

    Mr. Saleh is represented by the firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Lawyers on the case could not be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for the city law department declined to comment.

    "It may be sound practice for NYPD officers to alert ICE when they encounter unlawful aliens under normal circumstances, but when they do so for retaliatory purposes, they run afoul of the Constitution," the judge handling the case, Sidney Stein of U.S. District Court in Manhattan, wrote in a ruling allowing the case to go forward last year. ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Judge Stein noted that there is no evidence to suggest either Captain Nicholson or Officer Hickman had ever contacted federal immigration officials about any other illegal immigrant besides Mr. Saleh.

    At one point, Mr. Saleh had been released from federal custody on bail. His current whereabouts could not be verified. He is expected to be present for his trial.

    Source

    A task force led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided more than two dozen mostly Latino night clubs, restaurants, pool halls and other businesses Saturday night, arresting 49 undocumented immigrants employed as security guards, officials said.

    All of those arrested work for two local security companies, which authorities declined to identify Sunday.

    "We don’t want to compromise the investigation so we’re not releasing the two security company names yet," said Jamille Bradfield, spokeswoman for the Dallas County district attorney’s office, which is participating in the investigation.

    It’s unclear if more arrests are expected, officials said.

    At 11 p.m. Saturday, teams made up of local, state and federal officers simultaneously hit 26 businesses in the Love Field area, northwest Dallas, Old East Dallas and Lakewood. No injuries were reported.

    Authorities recovered four pistols. Federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from possessing firearms.

    Those arrested also face charges of being in the country illegally.

    Five of the suspects face charges of document tampering in order to get licensed as a security officer and to carry a firearm, Ms. Bradfield said. That is a third-degree felony, and the punishment range is two to 10 years.

    "Hopefully, this operation will help us send a message that we will not tolerate the falsification of documents for undocumented aliens under the guise of providing security," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins in a statement Sunday.

    Among those businesses raided were Ojeda’s Restaurant on Maple Avenue and the Dallas Gentlemen’s Club on West Northwest Highway.

    None of the managers at any of the businesses reached had any comment.

    Four of those arrested were from El Salvador, and the others were Mexican, authorities said.

    One of the Salvadorans was in the U.S. legally, immigration officials said.

    It’s unclear what charges he faces.

    In addition to ICE and the district attorney’s office, the following agencies also participated Saturday night: the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Dallas Police Department; the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission; and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.

    Businesses raided

    1. Az De Oro Night Club, 3320 Samuel Blvd., Dallas
    2. Far West Night Club, 7331 Gaston Ave., Dallas
    3. Ojeda’s Restaurant, 4617 Maple Ave., Dallas
    4. El Penasco, 4601 Maple Ave., Dallas
    5. Izalco Bar, 4605 Maple Ave., Dallas
    6. Palacio, 4430 Maple Ave., Dallas
    7. Metropolis, 8416 Denton Dr., Dallas
    8. El Pulpo Restaurant, 2829 W. Northwest Hwy., Suite 330, Dallas
    9. Los Compass Deli and Club, 2829 W. Northwest Hwy., Suite 216, Dallas
    10. Taqueria Lupita’s, Webb Chapel Ext., Dallas
    11. Terry’s Supermarket, 3025 Webb Chapel Ext., Dallas
    12. Extravaganza Restaurant and Bar, 2905 Webb Chapel Ext., Dallas
    13. Billares Puebla, 2900 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas
    14. Guerrero Bar, 2900 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 220, Dallas
    15. Exclusiva, 2900 Walnut Hill Ln., Suite 200, Dallas
    16. La Frontera, 9744 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
    17. La Pachanga, 9745 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
    18. Los Corrales Restaurant and Bar, 10229 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
    19. El Diamante, 4915 Singleton Blvd., Dallas
    20. Club de Cache, 9100 N. Central Exp., Suite 300, Dallas
    21. Oficina Billares, 10830 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
    22. Viva Cafe and Billiards, 2829 W. Northwest Hwy., Suite 330, Dallas
    23. Dallas Gentleman’s Club, 2117 W. Northwest Hwy., Dallas
    24. 039 Club, 1820 W. Mockingbird Ln., Dallas
    25. Orienta Night Club II, 8120 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
    26. La Tormenta, 9834 Brockbank Dr., Dallas

    Source

    FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bob Parks is a nationally syndicated political and social columnist. In addition to writing radio commentary, Mr. Parks appears on the award-winning television program, "Black & Right"

    By Scott Ott for ScrappleFace

    Ending weeks of speculation, Sen. Hillary Clinton today pulled out of the race for the Democrat presidential nomination, and announced she would endorse Prozac, a prescription drug used to combat depression and obsessive compulsive disorder among other conditions.

    The New York senator, who launched her White House bid claiming that she didn’t want to start a campaign “but a conversation” that she was “in to win”, this morning said abruptly: “This conversation is over. I win.”

    The former presumptive front runner then promptly inked a $7.9 million deal with Eli Lilly to become the national poster-woman for its flagship antidepressant drug.

    A spokesman for the pharmaceutical company said, “If Prozac can keep Hillary Clinton on an even keel after the shattering of her life’s ambition and manifest destiny, think what it can do for those of us who are just feeling a little blue.”

    Asked if she would eventually endorse presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama, she said, “With my Prozac contract, we’ve established the benchmark price for all future endorsements. That said, I’d be glad to back Barack for the good of the party, and of the nation.”

    Next Page »