Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

November’s Edition Of “The Front Line” Available

By Greg L | 31 October 2007 | Uncategorized | 33 Comments

The November edition of the newsletter of Help Save Manassas, “The Front Line” is now available for download.  This edition is a big twenty pages, full of commentary, local and national news on the immigration issue, transcriptions of some of the presentations at the recent Board of County Supervisors meeting, and a listing of all the candidates for office running in Prince William County.

It’s the best free newsletter anywhere.  Take a look and see for yourself!

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. Lafayette said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Excellent work once again. Thanks to one and all that contributed to the newsletter. It just keeps getting better.
    Keep it up!

  2. Vigilant1 said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ditto to Lafayette’s comment above!

  3. manassascityresident said on 1 Nov 2007 at 6:11 am:
    Flag comment

    OUTSTANDING issue! I enjoyed reading the “citizens speakout” — I would like to extend a huge thanks to all who stuck it out that day and made it to the podium!

  4. Mando said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:01 am:
    Flag comment

    Bravo! Nice issue and thanks for everyone’s hard work!

  5. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:07 am:
    Flag comment

    GREAT issue! James Rippe was right on the money!

  6. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:32 am:
    Flag comment

    I just sent the newsletter to people I know around the country (since the information applies to all areas). I urge you all to do the same. Other places need to start taking action on the local level around our country.

  7. Brighter Future said on 1 Nov 2007 at 10:12 am:
    Flag comment

    This is an absolutely fantastic edition of your great paper.

    It has the history of what took place on Oct. 16 th.

    This was an awakening that people will need to understand is on the same level as what happened to us on 9/11,and the people saw it coming and rose up.

    Great job HSM and all your staff and contributers.

    Hopefully this will sprend all over PW,with Help Save everywhere.

    It’s alot of work but it is so rewarding.

    Thanks Greg and all your people.

    We in Woodbridge can’t wait till we have a strong mass speaking out and gathering as a community.

  8. Advocator said on 1 Nov 2007 at 10:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Great work, but that’s one ugly sumbitch on the cover page! Must be a Kohl’s shopper.

  9. Beck said on 1 Nov 2007 at 10:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank you for including the photographs of speakers from October 16. The pictures put a face on the meeting for me. I listened to the Supervisors Meeting through the internet. I did not intend to listen as long as I did. I couldn’t turn it off. The speakers were impressive. They were honest and articulate and made me proud to be an American. Thank you, Greg. Thank you to all who spoke.

  10. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Nov 2007 at 11:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Another home-run by the editorial staff of the Front Line! Great job!

  11. Advocator said on 1 Nov 2007 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Great article in today’s on-line WSJ at http://online.wsj.com/page/lexis.html, but you need a subscription to view it, so I’m pasting it in it’s entirety here:

    November 1, 2007


    This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:

    • See a sample reprint in PDF format.
    • Order a reprint of this article now.

    Immigration Burns Candidates
    Republicans and Democrats Alike
    Approach Issue With Care
    November 1, 2007; Page A6

    WASHINGTON — An uproar over New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants — and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s seeming endorsement of it — shows how perilous the immigration issue is for the presidential candidates.

    Democrats aren’t alone in their difficulty with the issue. Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have adopted tough enforcement platforms after being criticized for their former immigrant-friendly policies. Arizona Sen. John McCain’s standing slid with his party’s base for his support of an immigration overhaul many saw as amnesty. He, too, now favors strong enforcement.

    Mr. Spitzer has been forced to jettison the driver’s license plan, and Mrs. Clinton appeared to edge away from her support during a Democratic debate Tuesday, even though many policy experts say granting licenses would improve road safety and give police a new crime-fighting tool.

    Providing illegal immigrants with a driver’s license wouldn’t qualify them for public benefits, jobs or legal residency. But it enrages immigration opponents, who see it as the government making life easier for lawbreakers, says Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues for reduced immigration.

    “It’s the sense that the government is violating the law,” he says.

    The furious opposition to the idea suggests why the Democrats have been largely quiet on immigration so far in the campaign, and why the Republicans have generally focused on promises to toughen enforcement of immigration laws.

    Mrs. Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards don’t even mention immigration on the issues pages of their campaign Web sites. In the Tuesday debate, Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd opposed a driver’s license plan, even though he voted for a bill that would have allowed most of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants to earn legal residency.

    “A license is a privilege,” Mr. Dodd said during the debate.

    The driver’s license issue has bubbled in state legislatures for years, generally heating up with the debate over illegal immigration. The issue came to a boil in 2003 when New York and California moved to change their licensing laws.

    California legislators twice passed a law that would have allowed illegal immigrants to get licenses, only to be forced to repeal it once and to see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto it the second time.

    Mr. Spitzer’s Republican predecessor, George Pataki, set up administrative barriers that immigrant-rights groups said would prevent about 150,000 illegal immigrants from renewing their licenses. Mr. Spitzer had planned to remove those barriers and to join other states that now don’t require applicants to prove their legal status.

    Supporters argue that licensing illegal immigrants would improve road safety by subjecting millions of currently unlicensed drivers to road tests, making them abide by laws that require drivers to buy liability insurance, and including them in police databases.

    Millions of Americans flash a driver’s license to get on an airplane, purchase a handgun, open a bank account, cash checks or otherwise prove their identity. In most cases, a passport, credit card and even a rent bill are just as acceptable, says Tyler Moran, who follows licensing laws for the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group.

    But a license has become “a de facto ID card — it makes things easier,” which is why it’s highly sought, says the Center for Immigration Studies’ Mr. Camarota. A license also “embeds” illegal immigrants in their communities, which is what riles many immigrant opponents, he adds.

    “They get a license, a job, a car, insurance — it makes legalization a fait accompli,” he says.

    That view makes for a potent political issue, even though polls show a majority of voters are in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status.

    The bipartisan bills that Mr. McCain and others pushed in the Senate in 2006 and again this summer would have provided a path to legal status. Republican opposition killed it both times and it isn’t likely to come up again for years.

    Last month, supporters tried to break out and pass one of the bill’s most popular provisions, but it too was rejected. Known as the Dream Act, it would have given legal status to the children of illegal immigrants after they completed two years of college or military service.

    Mr. McCain, who voted on an unrelated bill minutes earlier, didn’t stay around for the Dream Act balloting.

    The presidential candidates, facing a small but noisy opposition, have generally shied away from talking about any legalization during the campaign. Mr. Giuliani has received flak from his Republican rivals over a sanctuary policy that barred New York agencies from turning in suspected illegal immigrants when he was mayor. He now says he would build a high-tech fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and issue tamper-proof ID cards to citizens.

    “Politicians are afraid of groups that care deeply, and people who care the most [about immigration] are against it,” says David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political science professor.

    Write to June Kronholz at june.kronholz@wsj.com

  12. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 1 Nov 2007 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Advocator, thanks for the article. Illegal Immigration is our nations #1 issue! When will these ridiculous elected officials get that!?!?

  13. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 1 Nov 2007 at 11:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Old Senator Reid is at it again! We better keep our eyes and ears open!

  14. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 1 Nov 2007 at 11:52 am:
    Flag comment

    Illegal Alien Activity Tracker.

  15. park'd said on 1 Nov 2007 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “even though polls show a majority of voters are in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status.”

    LIES, the complete opposite is true.

    “The presidential candidates, facing a small but noisy opposition, have generally shied away from talking about any legalization during the campaign.”

    LIES again. The group is not small. It consists of many tens of millions of Americans that are sick of illegals and all the problems that come with them. Liberal spin from a liberal rag forced to report the truth.

  16. Legal Guy said on 1 Nov 2007 at 1:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    I love the Front Line! Can’t wait for next month’s edition!

  17. Enquiring Minds Want to Know said on 1 Nov 2007 at 1:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Liberals love taking ‘Poles!’

  18. Rob Smalls said on 1 Nov 2007 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Another excellent publication of Front Line. My thanks to the staff who hards hard on such a quality product!

  19. Advocator said on 1 Nov 2007 at 1:30 pm:
    Flag comment


    Right you are! Forced to report the truth (albeit with a spin)! That’s exactly why I thought the article was so important to be posted to here. The truth is, that as much as many politicians want to avoid this issue (e.g., Frank Wolf, who had NOTHING on his website about it as little as 3 months ago), are now being forced to address it, and forced to take a stand on it. And we, right here in PWC, and especially HSM, are a large part of forcing that issue.

  20. Beck said on 1 Nov 2007 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment


    Right you are, indeed! The author of the article works in D.C. for the WSJ. She has access to all available news, information, polls, facts on illegal immigration. She simply can’t make herself tell the truth and her editors support her.

    Also catch the part in the article:

    “The bipartisan bills that Mr. McCain and others pushed in the Senate in 2006 and again this summer would have provided a path to legal status. Republican opposition killed it both times…”

    Republican opposition?! What about the goofy Republican senators who supported the bills? The bills wouldn’t have been stopped without opposition from some Democratic senators. What about all the Democrats who called their Senators in opposition to the bills? This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue.


  21. Hmmm... said on 1 Nov 2007 at 2:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not sure I would lump the Wall Street Journal in with the “liberal media.” The WSJ’s editorial content tends to skew conservative. If there is any slant to the reporting, it would be in the direction of pro-big business and policies that benefit business…

  22. Advocator said on 1 Nov 2007 at 2:40 pm:
    Flag comment


    The WSJ has been pro illegal immigration and pro amnesty for quite some time because of the short term benefits large business obtains from their presence. The fact that it is now acknowledging the risk politicians take by not coming out against illegal immigration is noteworthy in and of itself. We’ve changed the political landscape and altered the national agenda by bringing this issue up.

  23. Beck said on 1 Nov 2007 at 4:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    The WSJ was a firm advocate of the Grand Bargain. In editorials, it has repeatedly warned that the Republican party will not recover from the coming backlash from Hispanic voters.

    The WSJ was purchased by Rupert Murdoch this summer. Maybe he is providing some insight to his reporters. Reporter June Kronholz needs a little more.

    Advocator is correct that today’s article is noteworthy by acknowledging the political risk of the illegal immigration issue. Such an article would not have appeared in the WSJ this summer.

  24. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 1 Nov 2007 at 5:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Increased border security and work enforcement have led to a huge decrease in the billions of dollars that illegal immigrants in the U.S. send to Mexico annually and immigration advocates say Mexicans are suffering because they can’t pay medical bills or buy clothes.”

    Cry me a river! This is great news. Follow the money!

  25. Legal2 said on 1 Nov 2007 at 5:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Are there that many sick & naked mexicans? Really! Let’s see who is really “suffering” with less $$ rolling in.

  26. Michael said on 1 Nov 2007 at 8:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    The fact that they are “hispanic” voters and not racial, gender, religious, ethnic group “neutral” American voters should concern the entire nation deeply. When an ethnic group starts to vote along ethnic group lines, they create a facist state. If we do not make ethnic group aligned political advocacy “illegal” in the near future, we will all end up under a facist political regime. When it is an “illegal” voting ethnic group, we should be even more concerned as the criminal element has now entered and affected the voting outcome and created the selection of an ethnic group supremacy leader by criminal means.

    Wake up America!

  27. Michael said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patriot, I’m not trying to single you out, but sometimes you need to “chill” your zeal, and think along more neutral lines. Though you are showing us one area of militant ethnic group supremacy activity to be concerned about, and we deeply appreciate seeing the truth in its raw ugliness and hatred toward America and non-ethnic group aligned Americans, you need to show a more gender, racial, religious, ethnic group balanced view of the problems and threats of such activity to Democracy and the general welfare of all “legal” people regardless of thier ethnic origin. Sometimes I think you forget that when you use ethnic group names in your comments. That goes for a lot of people here, not just Patriot. I appreciate what you are doing, but you could help us all build a better reputation in the public by carefully choosing how you represent your point of view.

    Please keep us informed of militant ethnic group supremacy activity, and “illegal” activity, but report it please with more ethnic neutral emotion. It will go a lot further to convince everyone we are seriously impartial and concerned only about the impact of “illegal” activity on our general welfare, security, financial security and national security (even the continuance of Democracy if such group aligned Facism of these ethnic groups continues). These issues need to be understood as damaging and destructive regardless of the gender, racial, religious, ethnic group breaking such laws.

  28. starryflights said on 1 Nov 2007 at 10:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Very informative news letter. Great work! Advocator, thanks for posting the article. If illegal aliens do receive the low tier New York driver’s licenses, I hope that they have the tracking chips in them. Most people getting the lowest tier would most likely be illegal aliens. What a great way to know where they are. ;-)

  29. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 2 Nov 2007 at 8:31 am:
    Flag comment

    Michael, I have posted nothing but items I have found in actual published materials and videos (not my opinions). So I disagree with your comments and don’t need you lecturing me. I will continue to expose the real information as I find it because I think it is important for people to understand the real agendas that may be hiding under cover. If you have read all of my posts…you will find that I am a supporter of sensible legal immigration and integration of all groups (via the American melting pot). Oh, by the way, I actually have hispanics in my family (legal ones that oppose illegal immigration - much along the lines of “You Don’t Speak for Me”). I mentioned this a while back. If you knew me personally, you would know that I am not pc at all. I say what I have to say (in a tactful manner) and will back my statements up with references. The truth hurts sometimes, but it must be told.

  30. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 2 Nov 2007 at 8:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Oh…and as far as “chilling”….I will NEVER get complacent on this most important issue!

  31. Michael said on 2 Nov 2007 at 11:58 am:
    Flag comment

    I rarely get into this kind of member to member crituque, but in this case I need to be specific about why. Patriot, I believe you misunderstand what I am trying to suggest. I am focused on the zeal or perhaps cynicism you convey in just one sentence “immigration advocates say Mexicans are suffering because they can’t pay medical bills or buy clothes.”

    Cry me a river! This is great news. Follow the money!

    My critique is that others who see this callous remark for the welfare of other human beings will build a negative picture of all of us here, that negates any positive progress we make in the character of the “legal” verses “illegal” debate.

    You can do better. I agree you are trying to report the truth as carefully as possible, and it is a great service to us all. When you forget to use some restraint on what some may interpet as cruelty, you do a dis-service to yourself, the character you portray to others, and the objective we are all trying to achieve. I try to hold myself accountable to that same higher standard.

    Again this is not an attack, just a request. I hope you understand.

  32. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 2 Nov 2007 at 12:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    I stand by my statements.

  33. Michael said on 2 Nov 2007 at 5:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    You have that right. It is your right to say whatever you want. I stand by that, just don’t necessarily agree with the tone.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2061