RSS Feed

You wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media blackout of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the Democratic primary contender made a trip to the southern border Tuesday, visiting Yuma, Arizona where thousands of migrants enter the U.S. illegally each week.
Kennedy documented the trip on Twitter, posting a video of himself at the border near Yuma where he said he personally watched nearly 150 migrants enter the U.S. illegally within an hour.
After meeting with Yuma County Sheriff Leon Willmot, Kennedy expressed his willingness to learn about the reality of illegal migrants crossing into the U.S., Tweeting, “I’m at the border learning about the crisis here. So many heartbreaking stories.”
Kennedy stated in a follow up Tweet that the migrant population in Yuma has grown so significantly through the city’s proximity to the border that the local maternity ward had nearly no beds for local mothers, leaving them to delay induced births by weeks.
“200,000 residents in Yuma. 310,000 migrants last year”, Kennedy Tweeted Tuesday. “Migrant Moms occupied 32 of 36 beds in Yuma hospital maternity ward so that local moms had to delay induced pregnancies for two weeks”.
“This is a humanitarian crisis”, Kennedy said in the video posted to Twitter. “Because of the understanding across the globe that we now have an open border here, there are people being drawn here, they’re being abused, there are all kinds of, just horrific stories, and this is not a good thing for our country. It’s not a good thing for these people, and it is unsustainable.”
Kennedy has yet to definitively state his immigration and border security stances, but at minimum the Democratic contender is not shying away from the issue.
Americans for Limited Government Foundation President Richard Manning remarked, “the border is not and should not be a partisan issue. Any candidate purporting to represent the American People needs to recognize the crisis that open borders has caused and put an end to it.”
The border crisis under the Biden Administration is far from solved. As the New York Post reported recently, Biden’s strategy appears to be less about securing the border and more about creating legal loopholes for those who break U.S. law. Todd Bensman recently reported for the Post that families of illegals are heading into Texas and being admitted “no questions asked”.
Mark Krikorian, also for the Post, indicated part of the Biden Administration’s solution is to allow thousands of illegals to enter the United States without legal status using the Custom and Border Protection’s CPB One app.
This is an issue on which Americans’ patience is growing thin. A Gallup report from February of this year found a significant rise in dissatisfaction with immigration over the past two years, with the bulk of those who are dissatisfied saying they want immigration levels curbed. Two-thirds (63%) of Americans are currently dissatisfied with immigration, the highest share in over a decade.
The Gallup report found that among those who are dissatisfied, a full 64% (which is equivalent to approximately 40% of Americans) want less immigration into the U.S., while just 8% want more, and 15% aren’t sure.
The border is once again a focal point, and it is likely to continue to be one leading up to the 2024 election. Americans are clear in their desire for immigration levels to be curbed, particularly in light of the recent border crisis. With Kennedy’s visit to the border and statement that open borders are unsustainable it is possible border security will become a bipartisan issue.
But whether it returns to a true bi-partisan issue, the public was motivated in 2016 to an extent that it propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Things have only gotten worse and more abusive to the American people. History is going to repeat itself one way to the other – either the issue is addressed by all parties in the government or the People will elect those that will.

Bill Wilson is the former president of Americans for Limited Government.

On Sunday, the Vermilion Parish Sheriff’s Office was notified of an armed robbery that had occurred at the Dollar General Store located on US-167.
Investigators with the Criminal Investigations Division were called out to the scene to assist the Vermilion Parish Sheriff’s Office Patrol Division.
It was learned that the pictured individual entered the store just before closing and cased the inside before he threatened the associates that were working with a firearm. The suspect then robbed the register of an unknown amount of cash before departing.
The Vermilion Parish Sheriff’s Office would like to request the public’s assistance in identifying the subject.
Anyone with information is encouraged to call the Vermilion Parish Sheriff’s Office Criminal Investigations Division and ask to speak to Sgt Lon Hargrave or call Crime Stoppers of Vermilion at 337-740-TIPS (8477), or download the P3 application for smartphones.
All tips through Crime Stoppers of Vermilion will be considered confidential and anonymous.
As of Monday afternoon, no arrest has been made.

Jean Lafitte was the most notorious — and successful — of the pirates operating from Louisiana in the early 1800s, but he wasn’t the only one.
A federal grand jury in New Orleans reported in July 1814: “Piracy and smuggling are ... long established and ... systematically pursued by many of the inhabitants of this state and, particularly, of this city and vicinity.”
When the War of 1812 ended, in fact, “the opportunities for capable and industrious buccaneers ... in the Gulf of Mexico underwent a sudden, remarkable expansion,” according to a study by historian John Smith Kendall.
Practically all of Spain’s colonies in South and Central America were in rebellion and the leaders of the uprisings found it useful to use so-called “privateers”—independent seamen licensed to make war on behalf of a particular country—to attack Spanish shipping. Pirates found the situation to their liking, whether or not they were formally working for a rebel government.
“The owners and masters of the [privateer ships] that had played havoc with the British merchant marine during the war [of 1812]... set sail for such Spanish-American ports as were in the hands of insurgents,” Kendall writes.
Many people in the United States sympathized with the rebellious colonies. As a result, the U.S. government did little to combat what turned from so-called privateering into outright and obvious piracy.
“As a whole, our people declined to believe the facts even when American vessels mysteriously vanished. ... Not till 1840 can it be said that the last pirate had been hunted down and exterminated in the Gulf of Mexico. Even after that date there were sporadic incidents of more or less piratical character,” Kendall says.
He gives the example of a man named Desfarges, who was hanged as a pirate in 1819. He had served under Lafitte at Barataria and Galveston and in August 1819 signed an agreement under which Desfarges became commander of El Bravo, a vessel owned by Lafitte and described as a “Mexican corsair.”
Lafitte instructed Desfarges to capture ships “from the West of the stream” (the Mississippi River) and to bring them exclusively to Lafitte’s lair at Galveston, where the spoils would be divided.
Unfortunately for himself, Desfarges didn’t listen to his instructions.
He looted a ship near the mouth of the Mississippi and several people were killed. Desfarges was captured by an American warship and he and 16 members of his crew were taken to New Orleans.
Lafitte hurried to the city to do something about it. He planned to set a fire as a diversion at the Cabildo, where Desfarges and his men were being held, but Lafitte’s would-be rescuers got drunk and torched the wrong building.
Then the pirate king went to Washington, where he still had some influence after his gallantry in the Battle of New Orleans, and tried to wrangle pardons for the men. He got one young crewman off, but the rest had to suffer the fate of pirates before and after them.
Desfarges and the rest of his men were sentenced to be hanged. Desfarges was the first to feel the noose. The rest of his crew, despite some legal maneuvering, met the same fate before the year was out.
You can contact Jim Bradshaw at jimbradshaw4321@gmail.com or P.O. Box 1121, Washington LA 70589.

I recently read an interesting newspaper article sent to me from my friend, Robert “Bob” Broussard, an Abbeville native who now makes his home in Centerville, near Franklin, LA.
Although the dateline was not included, the article was written by Malcolm Ritter, an AP science writer. The piece was certainly an interesting one and well written. It stated that “all men can trace their male chromosomes to a single man that lived about 188,000 years ago”. The article reported that chromosomes are “passed only from father to son” and there are 24 chromosomes in the male body. It also reported that a “new study supports the idea that modern humans arose in one place, rather than evolving on more than one continent.” Michael Hammer, an assistant research scientist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, wrote the article in the Journal Nature. Hammer compared the Y chromosome of Africans from Australia, Japan, and Europe. He wanted to see the difference in DNA from each group. Hammer calculated “how long it would take for evolution to produce the diversity he found.” His result was reported above in Ritter’s news publication.
Hammer’s report also implied that “modern humans appeared around 100,000 years ago, a date that some dispute among scientists.” However, many agree with the 100,000 years ago in Africa. Other scientists think the number is correct but believe instead of only one location (Africa), they believe modern humans “arose in different parts of the world at different times.”
According to “Origins” written by Hubert Reeves, Loel De Rosnay, Yves Coppens, and Dominique Simonnet published in 1996 reported that humans originated from southeast Africa. The author reported that evolution began “somewhere between fourteen and fifteen billion years ago, according to the best estimates.” Man, and chimpanzees are “genetically very close: 99 percent of our genes are common to both species.” And no one opposes the Big Bang theory, which was “first proposed in the early 1930s.” The author of Origins also reported that this was especially true “after statements made by Pope Pius XII that science had rediscovered Fiat Lux, (Let there be light). Therefore, validating the Bible’s description of Creation.”
The author of Origins stated that from the time of the existence of humans, “early man migrated east and west into what is now the Americas and the Far East.” Each generation back then moved probably no more than 30 miles from their previous location. Origins also stated that those 30 miles for each generation was “enough to bring man from his African origins to Europe in no more than 15,000 years.” This migration apparently occurred eons ago before the continents were separated, thus allowing humans to journey to other lands.
It was reported by the author of Origins that Titus Lucretius, the Roman philosopher, determined that the universe was still in its early advancement. He determined that since his youth, he has noticed plenty of improvements in various areas. It is just as we have noticed improvements over the years with medicine, telecommunications, and automobiles to mention a few. Otherwise, there would be nothing new, nothing to change because it would have already been accomplished. We would be “living in a finished world.” The author of Origins reminded his readers that evolution is still ongoing. The author believes “our earthly civilization is in all likelihood only one among many.” He reasoned that the probable earth-like planets are perhaps just as intelligent, advanced, and knowledgeable as our earthlings here. These other planets might also be equipped with nuclear weapons. The author stated that a visit to these other intelligent planets would probably indicate one of two things. First, the planet might be “an arid planet, devoid of life, covered with the remains of radioactivity—in other words, a world where those who lived there failed to adapt.” The second might be a planet of greenery with “welcoming surfaces on those worlds where the inhabitants did adapt.” He asked the question, “Are we capable of coexisting with our own self-made power?” We are the responsible party. “It’s up to us to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that our planet not only survives but flourishes” was his reply.