Comment Last Three
September 23, 2010
Stop big government, stop more taxes, stop Progressives (liberals), stop Obamacare, stop Cap & Trade, and stop destroying American values and individual rights. Support the Tea Party movement and candidates.
We all need to support individual candidates, not large political organizations who are fighting for us--like the candidates in DE, AK, NE, AZ and other states. The Tea Party movement is a grassroots effort to tell our elected officials that "We are mad as hell and we will not take it any longer". The GOP's congressional campaign committees must provide financial and political muscle behind "tea party" candidates who knocked off some of their hand-picked Republicans in the primaries.
They've cut checks, sunk millions of dollars into campaign advertisements and reserved additional airtime in likely battlegrounds across the country on behalf of tea-party-backed winners.
Now, the Republican Party must decide which candidates to support and target their races.
"It's on a case-by-case basis," said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist. "They put money into places that they can win." By most accounts, the task got more complicated after two tea party candidates - Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Joe Miller of Alaska - beat more moderate Republicans, Rep. Mike Castle and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, respectively, who were considered Election Day shoo-ins. We wupport both of these candidates.
"If you listen to many folks, they would tell you Delaware became a challenge when Castle didn't win the nomination," Mr. Madden said. "But I think it's harder to make the argument that the chance to take back the Senate majority rests just on that state when you have ample opportunities in places like Connecticut, West Virginia and Wisconsin that at the beginning of the [election] cycle did not present themselves."
With insurgent tea party candidates defeating so many incumbents or candidates handpicked by party leaders, some analysts wondered how willing the party would be to back them. Republican candidates who lost must be humble and accept their defeat and support the Republican who won the Primary. If not, then the candidate will have a harder time in their races against the Democrats.
So far, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has cut $42,600 checks to seven of the eight tea party candidates, the maximum allowed under federal law. The NRSC also has pumped millions of additional dollars into campaigns for television advertisements and committed millions more in airtime for some of the candidates that Democrats consider the GOP's most vulnerable.
Republicans who lost, get out of the way since the election was not about you, but our nation. Support the Republicans who won fair and square---not through Democrat cheating and stuffing the ballot box.
July 06, 2010
Obama and the DOJ have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to enforcing our borders and protecting legal American citizens. They are are the side of illegal aliens---not law abiding US citizens.
The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, calling it a law that blatantly violates the Constitution. The Arizona law enforced federal law and Obama is paying back all of the illegals and Hispanics that voted for him--what an idoit for a President. Where is DHS in securing the border?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states rights at a time when politicians across the country have indicated they want to follow Arizona's lead on the toughest-in-the-nation immigration law.
The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona's action, declaring that the law will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while altogether ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law say the suit was an unnecessary action by the federal government after years of neglecting problems at the border. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision."
Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.
The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration — and that those statutes take precedent.
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law struck down.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.
"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.
The lawsuit is sure to have legal and political ramifications beyond Arizona as the courts weigh in on balancing power between the states and the federal government and politicians invoke the immigration issue in this crucial election year.
Reflecting the political delicacy of the issue, three Democratic members of Congress in Arizona asked the Obama administration not to bring the suit in a year when they face tough re-election battles. On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain is locked into a tough primary fight as his right-leaning GOP challenger takes him to task for his earlier promotion of comprehensive immigration reform, which he has since abandoned in favor of a message to "Complete the danged fence."
The case focuses heavily on the legal argument called pre-emption — an issue that has been around since the Founding Fathers declared that the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the land."
The Obama administration's reliance on the pre-emption argument in the Arizona case marks the latest chapter in its use of this legal tool.
Within months of taking office, the Obama White House directed department heads to undertake pre-emption of state law only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states.
The 2009 directive was aimed at reversing Bush administration policy which had aggressively employed preemption in an effort to undermine a wide range of state health, safety and environmental laws.
"The case strikes me as incredibly important because of its implications for the immigration debate," said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Julian Davis Mortenson. "The courts are going to take a close look at whether the Arizona law conflicts with congressional objectives at the federal level."
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
Obama is playing Chicago style politics and is attacking the voters and US citizens who did not vote for him. Just like the Black Panther case, he is siding with the criminals. Mr. Obama---be a real President and enforce the laws for US citizens.
June 04, 2010
Obama had his "rent-a-mob" out in full force at the White House protesting the enforcement of law on our borders and the new Arizona law. Also, the Governor of Arizona was subjected to bus loads of protesters at her home, just like we experienced in Chevy Chase. Again, this is Chicago style Obama politics--target your enemy and bus in the community organizers. Fear works....
Why is the Montgomery County tax payer funded CASA downtown as the lead for protesting the Arizona law and not wanting to enforce the law? Why does Leggett and the Montgomery County Council continue to fund CASA when it is in full support of illegals and is breaking the law? It is time to throw the bums out and stop funding CASA? If the county budget is so bad, why fund illegals?
Will Obama help Arizona with its illegal immigration problems? Will he enforce our laws on our borders? Will the Congress do their job in protecting our nation from millions of illegals and criminals? I do not think so.
The meeting with Governor Brewer and Obama will not solve the border issue since Obama and his liberal Democrats want these illegals as voters. The hell with border security and the protection of US citizens. Inside the Oval Office on Thursday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer went head-to-head with President Obama as she demanded he take more steps to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, and they failed to make headway on the state's tough new immigration law.
Several hundred yards away, outside the White House gates, dozens of immigration rights protesters denounced Arizona's new immigration law and chanted, "Jan Brewer, shame on you." This protest was lead by CASA.
In signing her state's law cracking down on illegal immigrants in April, Mrs. Brewer instantly brightened her political fortunes in Arizona, angered Hispanic voters nationwide and became the focal point for the resurgent bitter immigration debate. "I feel very confident about what we have done in the past. It was the right thing to do," Mrs. Brewer told reporters after her meeting at the White House. "I believe that we are protecting the people of Arizona, and beyond that, I believe we're protecting the people of America."
The Oval Office meeting gave Mrs. Brewer her biggest stage yet as she argues that the federal government has failed in its job of policing the borders. The President's number one job is to protect American citizens and protect our borders.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Brewer agreed to try to deepen cooperation on the president's plan to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, but found little other common ground. We send troops to enforce the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not our own?
Mrs. Brewer said she requested construction on more fencing, and the White House said Mr. Obama asked her to try to persuade Republicans to support the president's push to pass a legalization bill for illegal immigrants. Why do we need to support illegals--just build the fence and enforce the law. Will Obama do away with the fence around the White House?
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Brewer were careful about discussing Arizona's crackdown that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they encounter in the course of a stop or check who they suspect might be in the country illegally. Mr. Obama has ordered his administration to consider challenging the law as a violation of civil rights. Mrs. Brewer said the president told her he wouldn't get into the details of his objections but would let the Justice Department conduct the review and make the final decisions on legal action.
"She's got a point of view that you have to do border security first. The president has a view that we have to have comprehensive immigration reform," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters when asked whether any progress had been made.
Obama's view of illegal immigration and enforcing our borders is the same as not wanting Israel to be able to protect its borders. He is wrong on both accounts.
May 23, 2010
The US Department of Justice must start protecting American citizens and stop the "Open-Border" Mexican groups like MALDEF, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, from targeting US citizens from false "racial" claims from illegal aliens. The below is an example of illegals and their front-organizations targeting Americans who are tryong to protect their property.
This is like the Obama administration bringing US Navy Seals to trial for "punching" a terrorist who had killed several American citizens after they were given the mission of capture or kill the terrorist. Our legal system is out of control when illegals and terrorists are given the same rights as US citizens.
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
June 16, 2009
Why is Obama not supporting the Iranian people who want democracy and thought they were voting in a contested election? Is it Chicago politics? Is it being afraid of the power brokers in Iran? Is it that he wants to deal with the hardliners concerning nuclear weapons? Why won't the President stand up to Ahmadinejad?
Last Friday's Iranian presidential election yielded a result that should surprise few who understand the regime's true nature: hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, by a landslide. The normal citizens who voted for change did not get change, but more oppression. Is it like our election where we are getting more socialism and big government and not the "hope and change" we thought?
Many Iranians had supported Mir Hossain Mousavi, whose foreign policy largely resembled Ahmadinejad's, albeit with less confrontational rhetoric. The apparent competition between incumbent Ahmadinejad and three other candidates led many foreign observers to believe that Iran's election would actually reflect the will of the voters. Iran's government is not a true democracy but a theocratic dictatorship that cloaks the rule of the ayatollahs with a facade of representative government so many are not surprised at this outcome.
Many in the US want our President to denounce the elections and indicate U.S. support for the demonstrators, but it is not happening. By having the people of Iran rise up and question this type of government, we will get change, but we have to support this change on an international level. Where is our CIA with covert operations?
Mousavi and his supporters are challenging the election's outcome on the grounds that the presidency was stolen from him by a state-controlled media and dictator. Even the French have come out in support of the Iranian people.
The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must be challenged by the President of the United States on the election and nuclear weapons.