Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Barney Frank: Patriot (?)

click on first video

More Open-Borders Claptrap From the Chron

Monday's SFGate contained not one... not two... but three! steaming piles of open-borders propaganda, two of them penned by the Danielle Steel of the genre: Tyche Hendricks.

Hendricks this time makes no bones about her sympathies; the woman is not so much pro-immigrant as she is anti-immigration law.

In the past, I have called articles like these "pro-amnesty" which is a bit of a mistake, and a soft-sell to boot. I've given the impression that there is a difference between "pro-amnesty" people and "open-borders" people, when in reality they are almost always one and the same.

Behind every voice in
favor of illegal immigration is a voice against American sovereignty.

For these folks, amnesty may be a huge, monumental, almost insurmountable goal... but it is only the beginning.

The goal of the pro-amnesty/open-borders crowd is not amnesty for all illegal aliens in America... it is amnesty for all illegal aliens who are here
and will ever come here in the future. In short, they are after making the entire concept of the illegal alien - illegal.

How can you do that without erasing America's borders, throwing out all immigration laws, and destroying America's sovereignty?
You can't.

Because that is the real goal. People like Hendricks have a lot of nerve pretending to care about "Americans" when their sole reason for being is to destroy America as we know it... and turn it into a third-world, Communist hell hole.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Sunday's Arena Rock Moment

Pretty good... for a dead guy!

"Who are Wings? Only the band the Beatles could have been!"
- Alan Partridge

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Honduras For Dummies

Click on video #1...

Sotomayor's Confirmation May Not Be Total Disaster After All

A nice bit of perspective here from the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel...

The Week Judicial Liberalism Gave Up by Patrick McIlheran

Sonia Sotomayor, all concede, will be confirmed. Since Democrats hold an unassailable majority in the Senate, the appointee of a popular Democratic president would ascend to the Supreme Court even if no Republicans were seized by senatorial courtesy or deference to the Latino vote. She will be confirmed.

So who cares that Sotomayor's sudden conversion away from any previous "progressive" views is so transparent? Republicans suspect she's not really past all that wise-Latina stuff, but does that matter?

Yes. Quite a bit, actually.

It's worth pointing out, first, just how noticeable has been Sotomayor's switch. Take the infamous matter of her 2001 speech in which she argued against the observation that a wise woman and a wise man would reach the same conclusion. Sotomayor argued not merely that ethnic and sex differences shape a judge's perspective, an uncontroversial view. She argued that they actually make some judges inherently superior: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said.

This week, she said that was "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat." Yet it was a rhetorical flourish she'd used at least six times over the course of a decade, suggesting it was her deliberate and considered view. Why shouldn't it be? Such notions that white maleness is a handicap apparently are found regularly in legal scholarship. Her disavowal of the idea in Senate hearings drew outright scorn from some liberal legal scholars.

So, too, on other issues. Sotomayor kept her head down on abortion, arousing complaints from abortion-rights groups. Law professors complained to journalists that empathy "went out the window," that they were "completely disgusted" by Sotomayor giving answers indistinguishable from what John Roberts and Samuel Alito might have said.

The interesting question is why she did this. She does not have to please Republicans. She could have answered them by standing and singing "The Internationale," and she'd still end up on the court.

Yet she went out of her way to spurn President Barack Obama's view about empathy: "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart," she said. She's disavowed that moral superiority is granted by being part of a minority. "I do not believe that foreign law should be used to determine the result under constitutional law or American law," she said Thursday, throwing overboard the progressive dream of correcting our bad habits in the court of world opinion. Asked whether the Constitution is a living, breathing document, she replied it is "immutable" but for amendments. "It doesn't live other than to be timeless," she said.

Antonin Scalia must have wept at the beauty of this statement.

Why such a thorough repudiation of all that progressives feel? Why must Sotomayor be portrayed as identical to a George W. Bush appointee before Democrats can vote for her?

Because, apparently, that's what Democrats suspect the public wants. On some level, the president and his congressional allies believe the public would not stand for a justice who thinks the Constitution must breathe modern air, that world opinion must inform our law, that abortion is a constitutional right if not a sacrament and that who you are should matter to how the law treats you.

The Democrats might be right. The Rasmussen poll Wednesday said that while 90% of respondents figured Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, only 37% favored it, while 43% were against. And 83% of them said the legal system "should apply the law equally to all Americans rather than using the law to help those who have less power and influence."

So much for the empathy gambit.

From this, two possible outcomes emerge. One, Sotomayor is confirmed, and it turns out her conversion is real. Wise Latina? Nah, she's an umpire in the Roberts mold. Result: Conservatives win.

Two, she's faking. She's confirmed and becomes a reliable liberal vote to mutate the Constitution into what she's sure the writers would have made it had they been as smart as modern liberals. Result: No change from the man she replaces, David Souter, and Obama loses more credibility with independent voters.

Either way, what's become clear is that the week that was supposed to be the humiliating rout of old white guys in the Senate has turned into the surrender of judicial liberalism. That has become the philosophy no potential justice can admit to, even when her president owns the Senate. Whoever in the administration coached Sotomayor knows this: A conservative Supreme Court is not at odds with America. It is its reflection.

via ChronWatch

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Do You Have The "Right" To Defend Yourself? Sotomayor Says Maybe Not

I'll admit that I am not following the Sotomayor confirmation hearings as closely as I should - mostly because it seems to be a done deal - but even I was floored at this little nugget from the hearing room, brought to you by Debra Saunders...

The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

For eight years, Democrats attacked the Bush administration for giving short shrift to personal liberties. As Obama wrote in "Audacity," the Bush picks "showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy and checks on executive power."

Now the Obama pick for the Supreme Court can't think of a right to defend yourself. That is arguably extraordinary.

... and more than a little frightening.

I've said this before and I'll say it again... there are some things in life that you simply don't need the government's permission to do.

Breathe. That's one.

Decide whether to pour shampoo directly on your head, or into your hand first and then transfer. That's another.

Defend yourself when you are attacked. That's another.

Why is it, you may ask, that the founding fathers - who apparently thought of everything - did not expressly put into the 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms in the purpose of self defense?

The answer is simple. Because it is so basic, so obvious that they didn't feel the need to.

I mean, who in their right fucking mind would argue that a human being does not have the right to defend themselves?!?

The right of self-defense is a basic fundamental element of being to any living entity - or, at least, any living entity that wants to keep on living. To argue otherwise is beyond insane. To argue otherwise is to harbor a death wish for humanity.

I'm going to follow more closely because clearly this bitch is nuts.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

What Is "Cultural Marxism" Anyway?

While researching the GSLEN for the previous post, I came across this great archived piece from Linda Kimball.

Read on... it's worth the effort...

Cultural Marxism

Linda Kimball

Conservative Underground

There are two misconceptions held by many Americans. The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded. The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well. “The Sixties are dead,” wrote columnist George Will (”Slamming the Doors,” Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991).

Because the New Left lacked cohesion, it fell apart as a political movement. However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single-issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay’ rights groups. All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

Birth of Multiculturalism

In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality-Friedrich Engels wrote,

“All the…large and small nationalities are destined to perish…in the revolutionary world storm… (A general war will) wipe out all…nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes…but…reactionary peoples.” (”The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)

By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world’s proletariat had not heeded Marx’s call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists – Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary – concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first. Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the working class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a “long march through the culture.” Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his “Prison Notebooks,” he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

The Prototype

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de- Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

Hungary’s youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education, while being simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.

Gramsci’s prescription and Lukacs’ plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU – acting as judicially-powered enforcers – later brought into American schools.

Building a Base

In 1923, the Frankfurt School – a Marxist think-tank – was founded in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.

The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revolution based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion and morals, it would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.

Toward this end, Marcuse – who favored polymorphous perversion – expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs’ radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci’s ‘long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism.

Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.

The pernicious influence of Adorno’s ‘authoritarian personality’ idea can be clearly seen in some of the research that gets public money,

“In Aug. 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives…suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.” (http://www.edwatch.org/ “Social and Emotional Learning” Jan. 26, 2005)

The Orwellian cast of the pathologies named shows how far Gramsci’s long march has led us.

A corresponding and diabolically crafted idea is political correctness. The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the ‘new’ moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance. Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological ‘command and control’ device. Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

Critical theory is yet another psychological ‘command and control’ device. As stated by Daniel J. Flynn,

“Critical Theory, as its name implies, criticizes. What deconstruction does to literature, Critical Theory does to societies.” (Intellectual Morons, p 15-16)

Critical Theory is an ongoing and brutal assault via vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society.

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying. They are the psycho-political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left. These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria’s ‘cultural terrorism’ tactics. In the words of Beria,

“Obedience is the result of force…Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force.” (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin’s right-hand man)

Double-thinking ‘fence-sitters’, otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs bear the imprint of these psychological ‘obedience’ techniques. These people – in some cases literally afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers – have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another. At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written:

“I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!”

Cultural Determinism

The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity. In its turn, cultural determinism was birthed by the Darwinian idea that man is but a soulless animal and therefore his identity is determined by, for example, his skin color or his sexual and/or erotic preferences. This proposition rejects the concepts of the human spirit, individuality, free will, and morally informed conscience (paired with personal accountability and responsibility) because it emphatically denies the existence of the God of the Bible.

Consequently, and by extension, it also rejects the first principles of our liberty enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. These are our “unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Cultural Marxism must reject these because these principles of liberty “are endowed by our Creator,” who made man in His image. Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is

“Identity politics – the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism – which is the basis of academic multiculturalism…a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well.” (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998)

It is said that courage is the first of the virtues because without it fear will paralyze man, thus keeping him from acting upon his moral convictions and speaking truth. Thus bringing about a general state of paralyzing fear, apathy, and submission – the chains of tyranny – is the purpose behind psychopolitical cultural terrorism, for the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda must, at all costs, be clothed in darkness.

The antidote is courage and the light of truth. If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children’s children can live in a ‘Shining City on the Hill’ where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth. Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

from Conservative Underground Archives via Sword-at-the-ready

More Left-Wing Propaganda From SFGate: Fighting William B. Shockley Park

It's truly amazing how much of the SFGate is little more than left wing propaganda, funneled to it from various leftist advocacy groups and printed - often verbatim - with absolutely no journalistic integrity whatsoever.

Today's exercise is an article written, most likely, by the ACLU, and funneled through "reporter" Justin Wiley, on efforts to thwart a move by the Auburn Area Recreation and Park District to name a piece of land after Nobel Prize-winner
William B. Shockley and his wife - who donated the land (and $50,000 for upkeep) to the District.

In March, the Auburn Area Recreation and Park District board voted 3-2 to accept the tract, along with $50,000 for park upkeep. A coalition that includes the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union will try today to persuade the board to reverse that decision.

Jim Updegraff, chairman of the Sacramento County chapter of the ACLU, stressed that this is not a question of free speech. "We don't feel that was the proper action for the board to take. It is an insult to people of color and anyone in the Placer area with an IQ under 100," Updegraff said.

Shockley won his Nobel Prize in physics in 1956 for his work on the solid-state transistor, along with fellow Bell Laboratories colleagues John Bardeen and Walter Brattain.

His book Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors, published in 1950, became the "bible" for an entire generation of scientists working to develop and improve new variants of the transistor and other devices based on semiconductors.

But who cares, right? The only thing that matters was his personal beliefs - among them being that the high birth rates of our stupidest citizens would eventually lead to our downfall.

On the Wikipedia page, it states "Shockley reasoned that because intelligence (like most traits) is inherited, the black population would, over time, become much less intelligent countering all the gains that had been made by the Civil Rights movement."

Anyone care to argue that this isn't exactly what has happened?

I don't see the fucking imbeciles at the ACLU arguing that Noam Chomsky's groundbreaking work in linguistics not be separated from his personal views. But then, of course, Chomsky is a leftist...

If it weren't for people like William B. Shockley, we'd still have vacuum tubes in all of our electronics, and hand held electronic devices would still be a dream.

"Shockley is the man who brought silicon to Silicon Valley."

Alan Partridge's Tour de France

Just thought I'd put this up for all of you following the Tour de France!

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Numbers USA's Roy Beck With Encouraging News On Amnesty Battle - and What You Can Do To Keep It Going.

Roy Beck of Numbers USA has some great news for us all on recent developments in Washington regarding the huge DHS bill and several pro-American, anti-amnesty proposals that have made their way into it...

What a week!

And, yes, the results were just as wonderful and just as scary as you might hope and fear.

Most of you are shocked by the Senate's passage of 4 strong immigration enforcement amendments that would open up hundreds of thousands of jobs to unemployed Americans over the next year alone. Maybe even millions of jobs!

The Sessions E-Verify amendment. The DeMint fence amendment. The Vitter no-match amendment. The Grassley E-Verify amendment.

Rightfully, many of you are skeptical. You are asking us: Did the Senate Democratic Leadership -- that has opposed everything that favors unemployed Americans over illegal aliens -- suddenly "allow" us to win as a kind of trap? What's the trick?

First, you really do need to take a minute to celebrate (just a little). Your pressure has caused the Democratic leadership to retreat a bit. The fact that congressional leaders believe that they have to concede some victories to us shows that your efforts are having some effect.

But, based on our information from inside Congress, we should expect that Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama have every intention of killing these amendments in a backroom maneuver when the joint Conference Committee negotiates the final bill to be sent to the President. (See below.)


Friends, we spend most of our time trying to get good legislation just looked at somewhere.

We are in a totally different -- and better -- position at this moment. What we have now is amazingly good legislation already passed by the U.S. Senate -- by easy margins! The good stuff is on the table. It's on its way to law. It is ours to lose right now. We haven't been in a better position than this in a very long time. Instead of fighting for our lives to stop something really bad, we have something very good to protect and preserve.

Our Action Buffet team already has several important faxes for you to send from your corkboard to protect the 4 Amendments. But we will come back to you Monday with another task, and perhaps a number of others during the week. One of our Capitol Hill Team told me late last night that there is no reason to save energy for any other time -- NOW is the time to mobilize everything we have.

As you fight, remember that you aren't fighting just for yourself or your family but for 15 million Americans and their families who currently are desperately searching for a job but can't find one.

If you win in keeping these enforcement amendments in the DHS bill, hundreds of thousands of jobless families will once again have income, benefits and the hope of not having their houses foreclosed. Is that enough incentive?

We are highly unlikely to get a better chance to make a huge humanitarian difference the rest of the year.

(and here Roy explains why - despite repeatedly winning votes to improve border security and workplace enforcement - nothing ever seems to get done...)


In February, I told you about the R-O-P-E killing of really tough enforcement measures that had been passed by the House as part of the Stimulus Bill.

R-O-P-E is my short-hand for where all federal power is currently concentrated: Reid-Obama-Pelosi-Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Although U.S. citizens elect 535 Members of Congress to represent them, the four members of the R-O-P-E team currently have almost dictatorial power when House and Senate bills go into a Conference Committee negotiating session. Many of you find it hard to believe but that is what has been happening. And this is what will happen with the Homeland Security spending bill just passed by the Senate and the one earlier passed by the House.

If the Conference process this time is like for the Stimulus Bill and most others this year, this is what will happen next week:

1. R-O-P-E and their staffers will meet in secret and decide which things to keep and which to throw out of the two bills.

2. Democratic Senators and Representatives on the Conference Committee will be told by their leaders that they have to accept the decisions and vote for the R-O-P-E package with out alteration.

3. The R-O-P-E package then will be brought back to both Senate and House where Members won't want to vote against the overall spending bill just because they oppose the removal of the workplace protections for workers against illegal aliens. Unemployed Americans will lose again.

But like the Ghost of Christmas Future told Scrooge, this is not the future that has to happen. Please open all of our Action Alerts and come back to this website daily for suggestions of ways that you can persuade R-O-P-E and the Democratic Conferees to leave the 4 Enforcement Amendments in the bill.


The first two votes on Wednesday (Sessions and DeMint amendments) were by roll call. For the first time this year, our side won -- handily with the help of 12 Democrats and an Independent.

Viewers of C-SPAN Immediately saw Vitter's and Grassley's enforcement amendments come up, and it looked like they would enjoy the same roll call victories.

But Reid stopped the process for lunch.

When the Senators returned, the Vitter and Grassley amendments were nowhere to be seen for the rest of the day and much of Thursday. The momentum in our direction had been temporarily interrupted.

The roll call votes were very threatening to Reid's Democratic Caucus. They were forcing Senators either (a) to anger the majority of their constituents by taking the side of illegal aliens and outlaw businesses, or (b) to anger the special-interest open-borders groups by siding with unemployed Americans against illegal employment.

Most of the rest of the year, Reid solved that dilemma by using parliamentary powers to just keep any of our amendments from ever coming up for a vote. But NumbersUSA's members and many others have pounded Reid mercilessly this year for such high-handed, undemocratic efforts. For some reason, Reid decided he would allow the Vitter and Grassley enforcement amendments to come up even though they were sure to pass.

But insisting on a voice vote with no position recorded for any Senator would protect the Members of his Caucus.

Passing on voice vote was not a sign that the amendments didn't have substantial opposition among the Senators. In fact, it was just the opposite. But the open-borders Senators realized they couldn't beat them and they didn't want to be held accountable for opposing them.

Passing on voice vote did indicate that nearly everybody in the Senate recognized that most Americans would not understand how somebody representing the U.S. national community could vote against those amendments.

Often in these kind of circumstances, the Majority Leader assures opponents of a measure that allowing it to pass will not matter because it will be ripped out of a bill in the Conference Committee.

That is why we are at such a dangerous point. All can be lost easily over the next few days. But so much can also be won if we pull away the curtains that hide the shameful pandering to special interests and shine the light of day on all the proceedings.

Take action now. And please open all emails I send you these next two weeks.


The 4 Enforcement Amendments we are trying to save would do far more than give unemployed Americans a much better shot at jobs than they have had.

They would also reverse what will otherwise be an even worse shot at jobs because of decisions being made this month by Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano. She is systematically gutting the moderate level of enforcement at the end of the Bush Administration and providing a de facto amnesty to most illegal aliens.

If the 4 Amendments are not kept in the bill, the result of Napolitano's new orders will be that far more returning veterans and other Americans will be unemployed as far more illegal aliens get to keep and obtain U.S. jobs.

Here is what is at stake:


  • Authorizes E-Verify permanently. It would not be a program that is constantly under threat. Congress could always decide at some point that it wants to terminate the program, but it wouldn't be automatically on the chopping block every few months as is now the case.

Napolitano wants the program to be threatened with elimination again in two years.

  • Mandates that if a company has a federal contract, every new person hired within the entire company would have to be checked through E-Verify.

Napolitano's new proposal would require E-Verify only for new hires for the federal contract itself. The company could still hire illegal aliens for its other operations. Then if the company transferred the illegal alien into the contract project, he/she would NOT have to go through E-Verify. This creates a huge loophole.

  • Mandates that ALL people working on the government contract would have to be put through E-Verify, even those who have previously worked for the company for years.

Napolitano makes no provision for rooting out previously hired illegal foreign workers (click here to watch Sen. Sessions speaking about his amendment on the Senate floor).


  • Requires the completion of the 700-mile fence along the Mexican border by the end of 2010.


  • Activates a no-match notification system that not only informs employers of all their workers with bad Social Security numbers but tells them to fire the ones who can't correct the problem.

Napolitano this week issued a decree that she was ending this no-match system that was started by the Bush Administration but which was stopped before it was implemented because of law suits by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and leftist open-borders organizations.

The Vitter amendment would potentially alert businesses, non-profits and governments about several million of the 8 million illegal aliens estimated to currently hold a job. Advocates for illegal workers are hysterical about this provision and fear it could drive a large segment of the illegal population out of the country. Every one of those jobs would then be open to unemployed Americans.

Currently, if you are an illegal alien who has been working at a job since before an employer started using E-Verify, the law forbids an employer from running you through E-Verify.


  • Allows any business, non-profit or government to voluntarily run all their existing employees through E-Verify.

Large numbers of the 110,000 employers now using E-Verify would love to get all illegal aliens out of their work force. But the law forbids them to check on existing employees. They can only use E-Verify on new hires.

Grassley would allow patriotic employers to make sure that all their jobs are available to returning veterans and other American citizens and legal immigrants.


Can you believe that any Senator really would like to face voters and explain why they would be opposed to any of those four measures?

Some will try to claim that E-Verify is unreliable. That is nothing but nonsense. E-Verify has a higher accuracy rate than almost any program of government. And no U.S. citizen or legal immigrant has ever been reported as fired on order of the E-Verify system.

The only reason to oppose these measures is because a Senator wants 8 million illegal aliens to keep their jobs -- and is willing for 8 million returning veterans and other Americans to be without a job as a result.

Your message to every Senator should be similar to the message we need to deliver to Pres. Obama:

President Obama, I expect you to instruct your staff to keep all immigration enforcement in the DHS Appropriations bill during the Conference Committee process.

In February, your people conspired with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to kill the House E-Verify provisions. And you did it behind closed doors, without explanation. That isn't going to work again this time. The nation's eyes will be on whether you condemn hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans to continued joblessness because you overturn the Senate's enforcement amendments and favor the hiring of illegal foreign workers.

If you have never before raised your voice to your elected representatives and told them to STOP favoring illegal workers over American citizens, to STOP aiding and abetting the wholesale violation of our borders and our sovereignty, then NOW IS THE TIME TO START.

Go to Numbers USA's Action Buffet, register, and fax your representatives for free using their system. You can alter the suggested wording and add your own comments (resist the urge to use profanity, please!).

The pressure that millions of Americans just like you has put on these officials is the ONLY reason why we don't have a full amnesty and completely open borders right now!

And here's another thing to consider... if it were just a matter of obstructionism by a Republican minority, we would also be under an amnesty. The fact that we don't have an amnesty is thanks in part to the many DEMOCRATS who - under tremendous pressure from their constituents - could not swallow that final pill, and went against the elite's wishes and voted (sometimes reluctantly) to support Americans over illegal aliens.

I'm going to tell you something that not many people believe anymore... your voice DOES matter and it DOES make a difference.

My years following this issue has shown me that, contrary to what so many people in this country want to believe, Democracy is NOT dead. If it were, we wouldn't be talking about this. The fact that we still have immigration law - despite almost all of elitist opinion being 100% against it - is proof that the people's voice still matters.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Hold Strong Honduras!

The Government and People of Honduras are holding strong!

I really didn't expect this level of resolve, but I'm happy to say that the country is not backing down against pressure to re-install its Hugo Chavez wanna-be dictator Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted from power after attempting to hold a constitution-altering referendum which was deemed illegal by the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Military (who run elections in Honduras).

The military blocked the runways at Tegucigalpa's airport and forced Zelaya's plane to go to El Salvador instead! Yeah!

The Chron printed a heavily biased pro-Communist account from Associated Press, some of which is here...

Already volatile Honduras slid toward greater instability after soldiers blocked an airport runway to keep ousted President Manuel Zelaya from returning, and protests that had remained largely peaceful yielded their first death.

Police and soldiers blanketed the streets of the capital overnight Monday — enforcing a sunset-to-sunrise curfew with batons and metal poles.

The extended curfew added to the tension after a turbulent Sunday that saw soldiers clash with thousands of Zelaya backers who massed at the airport in hopes of welcoming home their deposed leader.

Zelaya's plane, on loan from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (what a shock), arrived to find the runway blocked by military vehicles and soldiers under the command of the government that has ruled this Central American country since Zelaya's ouster last weekend.


Clashes broke out Sunday afternoon between police and soldiers and the huge crowd of Zelaya supporters surrounding Tegucigalpa's international airport. At least one man was killed — shot in the head from inside the airport as people tried to break through a security fence, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene. At least 30 people were treated for injuries, the Red Cross said, after security forces fired warning shots and tear gas.

When Zelaya's plane was turned away, his supporters began chanting "We want blue helmets!" — a reference to U.N. peacekeepers.


Zelaya won wide international support after his ouster, but several presidents who originally were to accompany him decided it was too dangerous to fly on Zelaya's plane, which carried only his close advisers and staff, two journalists from the Venezuela-based network Telesur and U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, a leftist Nicaraguan priest and former foreign minister (which pretty much shows where the UN is coming from).

Honduras' new government has vowed to arrest Zelaya for 18 alleged criminal acts including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since taking office in 2006. Zelaya also refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling against his planned referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing the constitution.

Critics feared Zelaya might try to extend his rule and cement presidential power in ways similar to what his ally Chavez has done in Venezuela — though Zelaya denied that (but only after he was ousted).

But instead of prosecuting him or trying to defeat him at the ballot box, masked soldiers flew the president out of the country at gunpoint, and Congress installed Micheletti in his place.

All of the American MSM coverage, with the exception of op-eds, has been pro-Zelaya. They tell only one side of the story, that of the Zelaya faithful - mostly poor. Go ahead - try to even find a story in the mainstream media that gives any quotes from the anti-Zelaya forces.

I hope this can be maintained without a full scale war developing. Unlike leftists, I take no great pleasure in seeing people killed for any reason. But this is a bad situation; Chavez has clear imperialist designs on the entire region (check out ALBA if you don't believe me), and Zelaya is clearly Chavez' puppet. If he is allowed back in the country, he will try to become a dictator, and Chavez will no doubt send in troops.

If that happens, what would Jesus... sorry, Obama... do?

Friday, July 3, 2009

Quick Notes For the 4th

Saturday is the Fourth of July, the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

For the few of you out there for whom this date still has some meaning beyond hot dogs, fireworks, or time-and-a-half, here's a few things coming up this weekend...

TEA PARTY II - The Tea Party movement, which emerged last Tax Day to remind the Government and its media lapdogs who pays the bills, is going for round 2. This will probably not be as big a deal as the first one (and will be assuredly ignored and ridiculed by the likes of MSNBC and other leftist trash), but nonetheless it's an important statement and one that will no doubt continue to grow as Obama's designs for the destruction of the USA become clearer and even a majority of the kool-aid drinkers start to wake up.

The official Tea Party website is here. There are no events planned in the City of San Francisco this time, but there are several around the Bay.

Also... the Golden Gate Minutemen will be in the Fremont 4th of July Parade again this year! Come out and support 'em! Starts at 10 am.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

A Coup D'Etat? Really???

A New Paradigm In Central America?

So let's say you have a President (for the sake of argument, let's say it's this Obama guy)...

In 2012, several months before his 2nd term is up - and he is legally required to vacate the White House - Obama proposes a referendum which would, among other things, let him have a third term in office.
The Supreme Court rules that the referendum is designed to overturn "set-in-stone" aspects of the Constitution - including the term limit - and is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, Obama orders the ballots to be distributed by the military (or whoever runs elections in your country). The Chief of the Army announces he won't violate the law by doing so. Obama sacks him, saying...

"We will not obey the Supreme Court," the president told cheering supporters in front of the presidential offices.

"The court, which only imparts justice for the powerful, the rich and the bankers, only causes problems for democracy," he said.

Obama then rounds up a large group of "supporters" and "liberates" the election materials from a local air force base - where they are being kept - and announces that the illegal and unconstitutional referendum will take place anyway, apparently with security provided by his new "buddies."

The Government, which has tried its best to stop this illegal and anti-democratic action, now has no choice but to depose the President. Put in his place is the next-in-line for President - a member of the President's own party - who says that elections will go on as planned and that he personally will not run.

Does this really constitute a "coup d'etat?"

Central America's Latest Wanna-be Dictator, with his
"pro-democracy" friends Castro and Chavez

... this is basically the situation going on in Honduras at the moment.

Around the world, countries are lining up to condemn the "coup d'etat," apparently preferring the consolidation of power into a Communist dictatorship, the expansion of Hugo Chavez' imperialist designs, and ultimately quite likely a civil war.

Apparently it would have been better if the illegal referendum had been allowed to go ahead, Zelaya had imposed himself as dictator for life, and have a civil war break out - most likely involving Venezuela and several other Communist countries coming to his rescue. Yeah... that would have been
far better! The Government and military of Honduras evidently figured it would be better to have bloodless coup now than a bloody one in 8 months.


Deposed Honduras Prez Accused of Drug Ties

Ousted President alienated many in Honduras

Plus Still More to Come...

Wednesday, July 1, 2009