Thursday, July 29, 2010

Illegal Aliens, Criminals, Racist Liberals Win Round 1 of Arizona Battle

As many expected, the Government won a temporary injunction against several provisions of Arizona's. The law has not been ruled unconstitutional by any means, though it is a big disappointment, and it certainly provides some clarity as to whose rights this administration is willing to fight for.

And here's a hint: it ain't yours.

PHOENIX — Supporters of Arizona's illegal-immigration law vowed a long legal fight to enforce it after a federal judge blocked key provisions of the legislation that ignited a national furor.

Hours before the law was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Bill Clinton appointee, on Wednesday put on hold its most contentious element: a provision that requires police to check suspects' immigration status during routine stops if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.

The decision, a temporary action until the full legal dispute is aired, also blocks parts of the law that ban illegal immigrants from seeking work and require documented immigrants to apply for or carry registration papers.

Bolton noted (read: paid lip service to) the state's concerns about illegal immigration but said enforcement of the provisions "would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy."

The much-anticipated ruling is a (small, temporary) victory for (illegal) immigration rights advocates (and other racists) and the Obama administration, yet it marks just the first skirmish in a swelling legal battle.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the legislation in April, promised an "expedited" appeal of the initial ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while opponents of the law said they would continue their fight to strike it down permanently.

Once the Appeals Court rules, the dispute could head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This fight is far from over," Brewer said.

The Obama Justice Department, which filed one of seven challenges to the law, had argued that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility.

"While we understand (read: pay lip service to) the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement," Justice spokeswoman Hannah August said. (But of course the myriad of Sanctuary City policies - designed to interfere with the system - will stand).

Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski, a Democrat, stood outside the federal courthouse here to back the judge's decision.

"You can't have 50 states doing their own version of immigration law," he said.

Bolton's ruling came as supporters and opponents of the law gathered for demonstrations today in Phoenix and as officials in nine states — from Florida to South Dakota — had offered their support to Brewer.

"Today's ruling is a slap in the face to citizens who are trying to exercise their sovereignty," said Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican candidate for governor.

Mexican officials, too, acknowledged the fight (for the reconquering of the Southwest) is not over. Francisco Ramírez Acuña, speaker of Mexico's House of Representatives, urged colleagues to continue preparing for more deportees in case the law eventually takes effect.

"We have to agree to generate sources of jobs (for once), so that these people who are coming from the United States can find some kind of employment in our country," he said.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Our deepest sympathies and healing prayers go out to the people of Germany and Duisberg.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Raving Lunatic Of The Week: Asshole Congressman Pete Stark

Sure, even wastes-of-skin like Pete Stark should be respected as elected members of the government. But, at some point, you get back the respect you give.

Just listen to this flaming asshole...

Stark and people like him are exactly what is wrong with the government. In one portly, ugly frame, Stark embodies government arrogance, corruption, running roughshod over the people to preserve the party, and the deep disregard and contempt for the people he supposedly represents.

Most government officials don't have the balls to openly mock their constituents, lie to them, and belittle their concerns. But then Stark is a fucking prick... always has been.

A Question or Two For The Obamaphilic...

This post was in the comments of this story in the USAToday: Obama: It will take time to dig ourselves out of the jobs hole - which begs the question... how exactly does one dig yourself out of a hole?

But anyway...

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 9 months -- so you'll have three years and three months to come up with an answer.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Independence Day Post: Happy Fourth of July!

Happy Independence Day to All!

"In the Year Of Our Lord"... Independence Day And Loyalty Day by James Fulford

Possibly because, as I write this, it is still only the Third of July, I couldn't find on the Obama White House website a presidential proclamation on the subject of Independence Day. However, in addition to various housekeeping proclamations, and more conventionally patriotic fare, I did find these proclamations on the first two pages:

You can make up your own jokes here. Kamehameha was the name of the first King of Hawaii, as well as of the last one, and the three in between—the Hawaiians weren't very inventive as far as names are concerned. This proclamation honors the first one:

"Two hundred years ago, King Kamehameha the Great brought the Hawaiian Islands together under a unified government. His courage and leadership earned him a legacy as the ‘Napoleon of the Pacific,’ and today his humanity is preserved in Ke Kanawai Mamalahoe, or ‘the Law of the Splintered Paddle.’ This law protects civilians in times of war and remains enshrined in Hawaii's constitution as ‘a unique and living symbol of the State's concern for public safety.’

“On this bicentennial King Kamehameha Day, we celebrate the history and heritage of the Aloha State, which has immeasurably enriched our national life and culture. The Hawaiian narrative is one of both profound triumph and, sadly, deep injustice. It is the story of Native Hawaiians oppressed by crippling disease, aborted treaties, and the eventual conquest of their sovereign kingdom. These grim milestones remind us of an unjust time in our history, as well as the many pitfalls in our Nation's long and difficult journey to perfect itself. Yet, through the peaks and valleys of our American story, Hawaii's steadfast sense of community and mutual support shows the progress that results when we are united in a spirit of limitless possibility." [link added.—JF]

Five minutes with Wikipedia will tell you that Kamehameha "brought the Hawaiian Islands together under a unified government" by the usual process of brutal conquest, not unmixed with treachery. The 1893 takeover by the US was much more civilized, but President Clinton insisted on apologizing for it in 1993. And apologies are still continuing under Obama, who was, we are assured, actually born in Hawaii.

But such apologies are typical of this administration. Obama did manage to proclaim Loyalty Day without apologizing for the Palmer Raids, the "Red Scare," or the Americanization campaigns of the early twentieth century:

Presidential Proclamation--Loyalty Day

However, in proclaiming Loyalty Day, Obama (or the speechwriter actually doing the writing) did manage to say, on the subject of the famous motto e pluribus unum, which represents the union of the Thirteen Colonies: "It became a cherished creed, representing the foundation of our national values. As a union of States and a Nation of immigrants from every part of the world…"

Aargh. I promise you, the Founders meant Massachusetts joining with Virginia, et cetera, not, for example, mass Hmong immigration.

If you've never heard of Loyalty Day, you might look back at an old Sam Francis column, from when Bush proclaimed Loyalty Day in 2003

"'Loyalty Day' is not new and has been proclaimed for at least the last two years as well, but I confess I'd never heard of it until now. For me as with most other Americans, every day is Loyalty Day, but then, given mass immigration and political leaders who see nothing wrong in dragging this country into war on behalf of other countries, maybe there's a need for it. "

Bush's proclamation was just as bad, and didn't impress Sam at all:

"'To be an American is not a matter of blood or birth,' the First Citizen gushed.’Our citizens are bound by ideals that represent the hope of all mankind. On Loyalty Day, we reaffirm our allegiance to our country and resolve to uphold the vision of our Forefathers.' Well, not quite."

Loyalty Day was an idea from the more confident and patriotic days of the 1930s and 1950s. Held on May 1st, it was intended to counterbalance the tendency of the wrong kind of immigrant to march on behalf of international communism on that day.

But yes, as Sam said, for most Americans every day is Loyalty Day, and so is every day Independence Day—in the sense that most Americans want their country to remain sovereign and independent.

But in the Obama administration, no day is ever really Loyalty Day, and no day is ever Independence Day—none of them are loyal to America as she is now, much less as she used to be, and none of them really want the United States to remain sovereign and independent.

Even so, the President's proclamations continue to be in the old form: "in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth."

I keep expecting them to try and drop the words "in the year of our Lord".

And I hope that they never get to say "of the Independence of the United States of America the…last."

Obama Wrong - U.S. Not "A Nation of Immigrants" By Michelle Malkin

In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a "nation of immigrants" defined not by blood or birth, but by "fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear."

If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.

Obama blames "politics" for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose "reform" (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or "racism" (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).

Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver's licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?

Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be "RAAAAACIST"?

Further, as I've noted many times over the years when debating both Democrats and Republicans who fall back on empty phrases to justify putting the amnesty cart before the enforcement horse, we are not a "nation of immigrants." This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here.

Yes, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a "nation of immigrants." (And the Politically Correct president certainly wouldn't argue that Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians and descendants of black slaves "immigrated" here in any common sense of the word, would he?)

Even if we were a "nation of immigrants," it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:

  • George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."
  • In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society."
  • Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."
  • Hamilton further warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust;—the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."
  • The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character." "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

As pro-amnesty extremists moan that "we didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us" and illegal alien marchers haul foreign flags above Old Glory, President Obama pretends that the "common national sentiment" our Founding Fathers embraced still binds us all together.

Many of us still have faith in a strong, sovereign America—the unhyphenated, the law-abiding, the gratitude-filled sons and daughters and grandchildren of legal immigrants for whom such distinctions still matter.

But it's no thanks to the assimilation saboteurs who put "one world" over "one nation under God."

Friday, July 2, 2010

Bloomberg: Throw Open the Borders... Destroy The Country... What Do I Care?

New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come up with a great idea... just erase any pretense that we are in any way a country, throw open the borders, and make the former nation of the United States of America a global gladiator ground for the world's avaricious.

What could possibly go wrong?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the country (despite welcoming more immigrants than all other countries in the world combined) is "giving shortshrift to immigration" and that economic problems will worsen until America sends out a (even) more welcoming message (if that is at all possible).

Bloomberg says the U.S. is "pushing people that other countries want away from our shores." He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that an overly restrictive immigration policy (which we decidedly do not have) discourages people who can create work with an entrepreneurial spirit.

Bloomberg said, "If I were the president working with Congress (which I'm sure is his wet dream, although dictator would be more suited to him), I would give a green card to anybody from around this world who wants to come here, create a business. They keep the green card as long as they employed, let's say, 10 or more workers."

He said a path to citizenship should be found for the roughly 11 (to 30) million people here illegally.

Bloomberg of course represents the so-called "right-wing" view of the double-barrel destroy-the-country crowd - much like the oft-printed big business shill Tamar Jacoby - that America in order to survive must destroy itself by opening its borders.

A country of half a billion people fighting for resources might sound like hell to you and me. To assholes like Bloomberg, it just means we're halfway to being able to compete with China.

It's odd - and more than a bit of a lie - to suggest that Bloomberg (and his mentor Bush) somehow represent a "conservative" approach to amnesty. That's bullshit. There's nothing conservative about it. It is NeoLiberalism on a global scale. Bloomberg seeks to be nothing less than a global plantation owner, watching over the hardest working slaves. Under avaricious cunts like him, just relaxing will become a crime in America. Probably the only law that will be enforced.

Bloomberg is a conservative? Fucking bullshit. He is globalist scum, who wants to see this country neutered just as much as the most racist La Raza adherents.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Congressman Tom McClintock Tells Mexico To Butt Out

Tom McClintock puts Mexico's bitch-ass Presidente in his place!