Thanks...I wish I could take credit for those thoughts but I put them in quotes because they were comments from readers of the article listed.  I will make that is more evident in future postings.  However,  I obviously do agree with them.

 

Living in Arizona,  this issue is so, so frustrating.  We are fighting two countries, Mexico and our own, plus the UN, China and other countries are chiming in and trying to imply

International Human Rights and International Law.  I wonder what is up with that? Illegals get more entitlements and freebies than taxpaying citizens.

 

I thought we were a soveriegn State and Country.  Hmmmm.

 

Stay tuned...It it will be a very hot summer here.

 

 

 

You think that's a better solution than militarizing the border and enforcing with an iron fist? There needs to be no debate here. Obama is WRONG! Since this news hit, I'll wager that every car, rattletrap, truck, van, etc are loading up for the trek to El Norte to get in under the wire.

 

I know you support the guy, and I have to respect that, but dude, look at what's going on here. For someone as adamantly against illegal immigration as you are, surely you can see the writing on the wall. If he does this, we're going to have to deal with another exodus North. NOTHING but militarizing our border is going to prevent that.

 

The Governor of AZ should call out the National Guard.

FOXNews.com - Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law

 

Reader's Comments:

"I believe the framers of our constitution would be shocked and appalled at the very idea that one of our states is being invaded by criminal foreign nationals while the Federal government stands by and does nothing to enforce either its own laws or its constitutional mandate. They would find inconceivable the idea that other states and the Federal government itself would then attempt to punish that state for attempting to defend itself by means already allowed by Federal law and which have previously been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is particularly disturbing that the federal agency which is charged with protecting our borders is itself participating in a boycott of the state it is failing to protect. It is horrifying to realize just how far sighted the 18th century anti-federalist were in the fears they expressed."

Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Full Article and Comments

 

"It is very troubling when the federal government becomes involved in a boycott against our state," Rep Giffords (D-Ariz) said in a written statement. "Although I personally disagree with the immigration law, it came about because of growing frustration over the federal government's unwillingness to secure the border. The federal government's participation in this boycott only adds to that frustration." 

The Department of Education issued a statement to Fox News confirming that a program administrator, though not the Education Department itself, canceled a 2010 convention "at the request of one of our trilateral partners." 

----------------------------------------------------

 

 

 "How do people get from ILLEGAL ALIENS to RACISM AND RACIAL PROFILING? Is being against illegality racism? There are those that have perverted and twisted every word that has been spoken against being ILLEGAL. Soon it will end.Everyone will wake up and smell the coffee. Now the labor dept is advertising to help ILLEGAL ALIENS who arent being paid fairly,when it is blatently ILLEGAL to even hire someone without immigration documentation.This begs the question,"is the employer useing a false SS#?Even so,the US Govt.KNOWS WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE,AND DOES ABSOLUTLY NOTHING ABOUT IT,except spend tax payer dollars to advertise to them about being short changed! And if someone questions it,guess what? THEY'RE A RACIST! November cant get here soon enough." Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM

ALERT! Obama challenges (another) Arizona immigration law in Supreme Court! - Patriotic Resistance

 

 

One more article..............

 

ALERT! Obama challenges (another) Arizona immigration law in Supreme Court!

• Posted by Deanna Zohar on June 2, 2010 at 5:42pm
• View Deanna Zohar's blog

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): The Push For Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

 

 

The Push For Amnesty For
Illegal Aliens

 

The Obama Administration's defense of "comprehensive immigration reform" (a.k.a amnesty) was presented by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano in an address at the Center for American Progress on November 13, 2009. The following analysis uses statements made by the Secretary to identify the Administration's arguments and then discusses the logic or illogic of the statement.

Napolitano — "Everybody recognizes that our current system isn't working and that our immigration laws need to change."

Analysis — It is not so much that our immigration laws need to change as enforcement of our immigration laws needs to change. It doesn't matter what laws are on the books if DHS will not enforce them. Napolitano's statement implies that because foreigners continue to ignore our immigration laws they need to be changed. That sidesteps the real issue of how can foreigners and US employers be made to respect and comply with the law. The Administration's view appears to be that employers who want cheap labor and foreign workers who want jobs should be accommodated rather than defending the best interests of the American people. Illegal immigration will continue until there is widespread awareness that it will not be tolerated and neither illegal aliens nor their employers will be able to continue to flout the law. Besides, the change in the law that the Administration advocates is an amnesty for the current millions of illegal aliens and an increased level of legal immigration — both of which are rejected by the majority of Americans.

Napolitano — "I'm referring to what I call the "three-legged stool" that includes a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here."

Analysis — All should agree that there should be "serious and effective enforcement." Clearly, if anyone who wanted to work in the United States were allowed to come legally, there would be less illegal immigration, but this would not be in the interests of U.S. workers and the general public. That is an issue that must be faced and cannot be glibly sidestepped. "Improved legal flows" means increased legal immigration. With more than a million immigrants receiving 'green cards' each year since 2000, current immigration is swamping the nation's assimilation capacity and causing most of the rapid population increase that is jeopardizing the nation's environmental future. "A firm but fair way to deal with those already here" is a code term for amnesty. It means allowing illegal aliens to stay permanently unless they have a criminal record. Requirements to pay some back taxes and to learn English are meaningless, because past practice demonstrates that these requirements will be forgotten or waived in the process of granting legal status.

So, of the three legs of the stool, only one leg — law enforcement — makes sense and has broad public support, and support for even that leg depends on what law is to be enforced and whether the enforcement is effective.

Napolitano — "Americans value our identity as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

Analysis — Respect for the law, and valuing our immigration history does not mean that the United States must accept the never-ending millions who say they would like to come here, nor does it mean that employers, who would like to be hire millions of cheap foreign workers, must be accommodated. Legal immigration has soared from about a quarter million persons per year in the late 1960s to more than one million a year since 2000. Our immigration history unfortunately includes periods of severe exploitation of foreign workers in sweatshops and in agriculture. Our laws that restrict legal immigration and outlaw illegal immigration are intended to prevent such abuse. Unfortunately, the lack of will by recent administrations to enforce those laws is reigniting the immigration abuses of the past.

Napolitano — "The security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007"

Analysis — Border fencing has made illegal entry more difficult, as has the increase in Border Patrol personnel and resources — including the currently abandoned National Guard presence. But, the US borders are far from secure. And, most of the enhanced border security measures Napolitano cited were begun during the second term of the Bush Administration, such as the increase in Border Patrol agents and the passage of the Secure Fence Act. The Obama Administration has refused to let the National Guard be redeployed to the border despite requests from border states. Napolitano cites progress in stopping the flow of cash, guns and drugs across the border, but this does not translate into stopping the illegal flow of people. Our continued inability to control our border would not be improved by amnesty, because that would only increase the temptation to enter illegally. The only real way to effectively fight the people smugglers is by diminishing their clientele by shutting down the U.S. job opportunities that attract illegal entrants.

Napolitano — "We have replaced old [interior enforcement] policies that merely looked tough with policies that are designed to actually be effective."

Analysis — The opposite is the case. DHS under Napolitano has abandoned an enforcement effort that was resulting in prosecution of employers and removal of illegal workers and replaced it with a policy that is focused on employment document audits. That policy shift may inconvenience some employers and cause some illegal aliens to lose their jobs, but it leaves the illegal worker the opportunity to take another job that otherwise would be filled by an American worker. This new policy abandons any effective deterrence against hiring illegal workers through prosecution. Furthermore, DHS has cut back on one of the most promising interior enforcement operations. The 287(g) immigration enforcement program that assists local agencies in partnering with DHS has been restricted so that locally deputized police can no longer count on DHS to back them up when they apprehend illegal aliens.

Napolitano — "New biometric technology allows us to take the fingerprints of people coming into the United States and compare their prints against databases we couldn't access before."

Analysis — Napolitano would have the public believe that the nation now is safer because DHS is collecting the fingerprints of foreign travelers. But, that does nothing to solve the problem of our vulnerability to foreigners staying illegally and taking American jobs. Arriving illegal entrants get fingerprinted only if they are apprehended by the Border Patrol. Furthermore, it is dissimulation to claim that the fingerprinting of arriving foreign travelers will be an effective deterrent to illegal residence and working in the U.S. as long as there continues to be no record of the departure of foreigners that can be matched with entry data to identify foreigners staying illegally.

Napolitano — "DHS needs immigration reform."

Analysis — Napolitano states she wants tougher enforcement laws against smugglers and fines against employers of illegal workers. Congress could pass those changes in a heartbeat if it were not for the fact that the Administration is holding those reforms hostage to their efforts to leverage adoption of an amnesty for illegal aliens.

Napolitano — "We will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows."

Analysis — Effective immigration law enforcement and national security clearly require reducing the illegal alien population. But, rather than an amnesty that rewards illegal immigration - as was done in 1986 — true reform requires that the illegal alien population be reduced through enforcement. Effective denial of the jobs aliens come to take illegally is necessary to encourage them to return to their homeland.

Napolitano — "We have to make sure the immigration system works to support American families, businesses and workers."

Analysis — By "support American families," Napolitano appears either to be thinking that anyone living in the United States, without regard to their legal status, is an American family or is using that phrase to describe illegal alien families that contain a U.S. citizen. The children born here to illegal aliens — anchor babies — are U.S. citizens and cannot be deported even though they usually will also have the nationality of their parents, i.e., dual nationals, and that creates an emotional context in fighting deportation. But, Napolitano's statement ignores the fact that U.S. policy assists families to stay together by accommodating deported aliens in taking their dependent U.S. children with them. Secretary Napolitano's reference to supporting American businesses, boils down to allowing employers of illegal aliens, who have benefited from their willingness to work for lower wages than American workers, to be able to continue to have those services available by making the workers legal through an amnesty. The alternative, of course, is to deny the employers the continued access to the foreign workers so that they will hire unemployed Americans. By support for American workers, Napolitano appears to be thinking of illegal workers, because they are the only ones who would benefit by amnesty. Amnesty would permanently undermine wages and working conditions as well as undercut job opportunities for unemployed American workers, and it would perpetuate future illegal immigration.

Napolitano — "[Amnesty for illegal aliens] will strengthen our economy as these immigrants become full-paying taxpayers."

Analysis — Aside from the recognition that most illegal workers and their employers cheat by ignoring the tax laws, this statement is wrong. While more taxes might be collected from workers if they were using valid Social Security numbers, the alien workers would also gain a greater opportunity to apply for credits and refunds, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and child credits for poor workers with families. That would mean a drain on tax revenue rather than an increase. Furthermore, the greatest possible economic gain would result from putting unemployed Americans to work so that welfare and unemployment payments would decrease. In addition, illegal alien reduction through enforcement would reduce the flow of foreign remittances being sent out of the country. Those billions of dollars sent abroad cost the United States not only in the balance of payments debt, but also as a result of the impact on the U.S. economy from lost sales, production and jobs.

Napolitano — "Executives in Silicon Valley...want to increase their workforce and help get the economy moving again, but some of the major barriers they have to growing their companies are visa laws that make it difficult for high-skilled foreigners to stay here to work."

Analysis — High-tech employers continue to hire foreign workers while similarly qualified American workers are laid off.¹ There is no requirement that American workers be given preference before a company hires foreign high tech workers. More than 20,000 U.S. high-tech jobs were lost in July 2009.² Foreign workers are not smarter or better educated than U.S. workers, but they are more easily exploitable and accept lower wages. If high-tech employers really prized their foreign workers, they would sponsor more of them for immigrant visas at the end of the 6-year nonimmigrant visas. Instead they find it easier to replace those foreign employees — like they do American employees — with a new crop of younger foreign workers. It should come as no surprise that U.S. high-tech employers would like to expand the practice that already allows for more than 100,000 jobs a year to go to foreign professional workers through H-1B visas, intra-company transfer visas and NAFTA visas.

Napolitano — "We need to revise our current provisions for legal migration to help assure a legal workforce in cases where businesses can't find Americans to fill their jobs."

Analysis — This statement ignores the fact that businesses should never be allowed to discriminate against American workers by hiring foreign workers at lower wages. Our law already provides visa programs that allow U.S. businesses to hire guest workers until market forces can supply American workers. Unfortunately, however, agricultural and other employers have been allowed to become addicted to exploiting illegal alien workers, leading to depressed wages that now discourage American workers from taking these jobs. This merely perpetuates the employers' claim that Americans do not want the jobs and needs to be reversed. This practice of exploitation may be seen in the fact that most seasonal crop employers choose to hire illegal workers rather than use the legal guestworker program that has higher costs resulting from the protections for both the American and foreign workers.

Napolitano — "No one should have to wait in a line for years in order to reunite with a spouse or a young child."

Analysis — Immigrant visas allow a spouse and minor children to accompany the principal visa recipient with no wait. The new foreign spouse of a U.S. citizen similarly is not delayed by any numerical limits, and that applies to the minor children of that spouse if there are any at the time of the marriage. So, what is Secretary Napolitano talking about? She likely is referring to the immigrant from a country that already has a very large immigration flow and has run into per country limits — like India or China — who decides to return to the home country to find a spouse. In that narrow circumstance, spouses of immigrants may face a long wait for a visa. The alternative to the wait is for the immigrant to become a U.S. citizen before deciding to seek a foreign spouse.

Napolitano — "We must modernize our laws for the 21st century."

Analysis — What Secretary Napolitano describes as 'modernization' is really a pretext for adopting a new amnesty for illegal aliens. If DHS vigorously enforced the law, our current system would work infinitely better. Rather than adopt an amnesty to permanently accommodate millions of immigration lawbreakers, the country needs to restore a moderate level of immigration — far fewer than the more than one million legal immigrants arriving each year added to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, further added to by the more than 100,000 new guestworkers arriving each year. America in the 21st century has different needs than America in the 20th or 19th century. The country no longer depends on large numbers of manual laborers for our industrial production. Our country is now densely populated in our major cities that merge into one another. It makes no sense to expand immigration by legal or illegal means. U.S. law should recognize our current demographic limits and revert to a moderate level of legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the form of modernization that Ms. Napolitano supports.

 

1. "H-1B visa use by U.S. firms holds steady in '09," Computer World, December 14, 2009, (website consulted December18, 2009). "U.S. firms, despite cutbacks in their own staffs and an overall decline in IT employment, continued to hire people using H-1B visas. That list includes Microsoft, Intel and IBM's India operation."
2. "November Tech Job Cuts Take Dip, But Trend Is Still Up," BNET website consulted December 18, 2009.

 

Comments: 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

For Full Article

 

 

...taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages: continue reading......

 

...At a Latino voter registration project conference in Los Angeles many years ago, Solis asserted to thunderous applause, “We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not.”

 

....While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver’s licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union (see also Trevor Loudon’s profile of her radical far-left ties).

 

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Translating the Code Words of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

 

 

Translating the Code Words of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"

What the Illegal Alien Lobby Says Versus What They Really Mean

The illegal alien special interests are working overtime making their last ditch pitch for amnesty before mid-terms elections, robotically reciting how they want to "fix" our immigration problems. In today's media spin-cycle, consistency counts, repetition rules and the illegal alien lobby is true to form, all working from the same playbook, line by line, word for word. Whether it's the National Council for LaRaza, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, or America's Voice arguing for amnesty, you can rest assured that they will use any one, or any combination of, the phrases below:

"We need to fix our broken immigration system. We need a path to citizenship for undocumented workers so they can go to the back of the line, get right with the law, and implement an orderly flow of needed workers, and a policy which secures the borders."

For those in the know, of course, it's all nonsense — word play and empty promises. Fortunately, the code words can be deciphered and their true motives revealed with a minimal of effort:

Fix A Broken System: On its surface this sounds good, urgent and necessary, but as Plato said, "Everything that deceives is said to enchant." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been leading the amnesty lobby by repeating the phrase "we must fix a broken immigration system" and "we need 21^st century laws." When they say the system is broken they actually mean illegal aliens face deportation, and that America is not admitting enough legal immigrants fast enough. The fact is illegal aliens aren't supposed to be in the United States — by definition they do not have legal status. As regards our level of legal immigration, America currently allows in more than one million people a year, more than any other industrialized country on the planet.

The bottom line is that the only thing broken about our immigration system is an unwillingness to impose sensible limitations and enforce the laws. Truth in labeling might suggest that their version of "fixing a broken system" should be read as "making a broken system worse."

Path to Citizenship: Euphemisms for amnesty wear thin quickly so the new phrase "path to citizenship" and "earned legalization" has also entered the lexicon. We already have a "path to citizenship" and it starts with applying for a green card and getting in line. "Earned legalization" is kind of crafty. It implies that as long as illegal aliens actually have to do something, no matter how inconsequential like paying a modest fine, it is not really amnesty. Beware of both phrases. Substitute the word "amnesty" and remind yourself it applies to 13 million illegal aliens and the context and consequences become abundantly clear.

Go to the Back of the Line:To most people, going to the back of the line would mean returning home, visiting the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate, filling out the necessary forms, and then waiting for a reply. What amnesty advocates mean by going to the back of the line is that we create a brand new line for those who have broken the law right here in this country.

Get Right with the Law:This beguiling phrase is meant to imply that that amnesty recipients will follow the rule of law. If illegal aliens have already broken the law, what assurance do we have they will follow the law now? This phrase also suggests that administratively converting 13 million people from illegal status to legal status "gets them right with the law." Accommodating law-breaking by simply rewriting the rules to fit the circumstances is one of the most insidious aspects of amnesty.

Undocumented Workers: Given the huge sums of money the special interests have, one would assume their high-paid consultants would have told them that this euphemism expired years ago. We all know it means illegal aliens, but amnesty advocates believe that using the adjective "undocumented" magically erases the illegality, while claiming they are "workers" suggests all are gainfully employed, which they're often not. And very few who do work pay taxes. The proper reference is "illegal aliens." "Illegal" means prohibited by law. Yes, entry without inspection into the U.S is prohibited. And "alien" is a term defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101 and used by legal professionals across the board including the United States Supreme Court. It's ok to say illegal aliens. You'll be in good company.

Orderly Flow of Workers: This is a phrase that by its own definition assumes we actually need more workers. It refers to our foreign guest worker program. In addition to the 1.2 million legal immigrants the U.S. admits each year, and the 13 million illegal aliens currently living here, the U.S. also brings in another one million foreign nationals through work visas year after year. With a national unemployment rate of 9.9 percent and 25 million Americans either unemployed or working part-time involuntarily, any endorsement of our massive foreign guest worker flow, or a suggestion that we should increase it, should be challenged on the grounds that it is imposing unfair competition for scarce jobs. Instead of "orderly flow of workers" the proper translation is "more foreign labor to take your job."

Secure the Border: They save the biggest and boldest claim for last. Amnesty advocates promise to secure the border for no other reason than to make their plans for massive amnesty more palatable. The special interests don't mean it and they don't want to do it. After all, they have stymied every single piece of immigration enforcement legislation in recent years and relentlessly pressured the Obama administration to systematically dismantle most existing immigration enforcement. But, they remember all too well that the amnesty bill of 2007 was shot down because Americans could see that the borders were not secure and that meaningful interior enforcement was nonexistent. The amnesty lobby may remember 2007, but we remember 1986 when, in exchange for roughly 3 million illegal aliens getting their amnesty, the American public was promised more enforcement. That grand bargain rewarded illegal aliens with citizenship while the American public got squat. Promised enforcement was simply a deceitful bargaining chip to advance an amnesty agenda. Their repeated claim that they want to secure the border rings hollow given their record of working against it.

There is immigration enforcement and then there is amnesty. One has nothing to do with the other and true immigration reformers know this. Revealing the motives of the illegal alien lobby is an ongoing responsibility because as Burke said, "a very great part of the mischiefs that vex this world arise from words."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full Article

If 'Preemption' is the primary basis of the lawsuit against Arizona what about 'Sanctuary cities'?

 

 

 

 Sanctuary Cities

Several US cities have instructed their own law enforcement personnel and other city employees not to notify or cooperate with the federal government when they become aware of illegal immigrants living within their jurisdiction..... The measures violate federal law as the cities are in effect creating their own immigration policy, an area of law which only Congress has authority to alter.^[94]  Wikipedia

"Excuse me, Sanctuary cities are a direct violation of United States Immigration Law. What exactly is meant by sanctuary anyway. There is no war in Mexico or south of the border. Mexicans aren’t being persecuted in Mexico. American taxpayers are being persecuted by their politicians. Illegal immigration, is nothing more than a humongous distribution of money scheme, from what’s left of the American middle class to the illegal foreign nationals. This persecution business and the people who bring it up, have their thinking a bit inverted."  Comment

http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/02/24/sanctuary-cities-bill-ready-for-debate-on-house-floor/

-------------------------------------------------

Feds Sue Arizona…But, What About Rhode Island?

by Publius

No Concern For U.S. Unemployed In President's Big Amnesty Speech This Morning | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels

 

 

No Concern For U.S. Unemployed In President's Big Amnesty Speech This Morning

 

Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border

 

 

 

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Myrick — a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the GOP’s Deputy Whip — was asked what is known about Hezbollah’s threat to America.

“Our intelligence sources have really clarified that they are in Mexico, that there is an operation that is quite large in place there, and it’s very frightening to me because this is national security,” says Myrick, who was first elected in 1994.

“Yes, immigration’s a problem too, but this particular situation [involves] people who don’t like us for various reasons.

“We know some of them have gotten across the border in the past, and now we know that there are people from Iran who are going to Venezuela. They are actually learning Spanish, and then they come up through Mexico to cross our border. So they’re working in cahoots with Venezuela as well.”

About Hezbollah’s intentions in the U.S., Myrick says: “We don’t know. It used to be that most of those groups did not really target the United States. They were targeting other countries or they were staying inside their own area of influence. Now they are starting to target the United States and that’s my concern.

“I do want a task force of both U.S. and Mexican officials. Let’s get to the bottom of this and find out what is going on.

“The response I have received was a call that they would like to give me a private intelligence briefing because I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I said that would be fine, but I would like an answer about the task force first because once I get a briefing, I can’t talk about it.”

Sen. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, has said he met privately with President Barack Obama and implored him to secure the border. Kyl claims Obama told him that if he did secure the border it would remove the incentive for comprehensive immigration reform or amnesty for illegals. Myrick says that “makes no sense whatsoever.”

She tells Newsmax: “It’s obvious that’s what he wants, amnesty. He’s said it over and over again. I don’t see it that way.

“Our responsibility at the federal government is to make sure that our borders are secure. Once the border is secure, like it is in some other places where we don’t have the problems that we do in the areas where it’s porous, then we’ll know who is in the country. We can control who comes into the country.

“It makes no sense to me whatsoever that you can’t secure the border because you can’t get amnesty.”

Myrick takes issue with Attorney General Eric Holder, who has filed suit against Arizona’s tough new law to battle illegal immigration.

“The federal government has not done its job,” she declares.
“Arizona is only trying to do what a state as the right to do, and that is to protect themselves.”

Turning to Iran, Myrick charges that the Obama administration is dragging its feet on dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

“I think we should take a tougher stance and work harder with our partners in the world to make sure they do too,” she says.

The United Nations in its attempts to deal with Iran is “just a joke,” she adds. “They aren’t doing their job.”

Asked about the possibility that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own, Myrick responds:

“I think Israel has the right to defend themselves. That option is there.

“I hope it does not come to that, but there needs to be something done to have a tougher stand with Iran.

“They aren’t going to be our friends. You can’t convince them they’re going to be our friends. They don’t operate that way. They don’t want to be friends. They want to conquer the world.”

© Newsmax.

 

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns and 850 Illegal Aliens | Center for Immigration Studies

 

 

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns and 850 Illegal Aliens

New Zeal

 

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/  Check out this site.............

 

Obama Adviser, Eliseo Medina, on Exploiting Immigrants for Socialist Power  -  Please Click to See Videos

Cross posted from KeyWiki Blog

Eliseo Medina, SEIU Vice President and Democratic Socialists of America Honorary Chair, was the lead speaker at last weekend's 2010 Netroots Nation discussion of Civil Rights in the Modern Era.

Here Medina tugs on the heartstrings and plays on the emotions as he urges the gathered, mainly young "progressives" to unite behind the illegal illegal immigrant community. Medina is very careful to blur the line between illegal immigrants and Latino Americans.

His message is that by exploiting the Latino vote, "progressives" can carry several key states in November. To do that, the left must portray any resistance to illegal immigration as an attack on all Latinos.



Medina has more influence than most marxist activists.

In 2008 he served the the Obama campaign as a member of Barack Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. As a vice president of the D.S.A. dominated SEIU, Medina can put tens of thousands of activists on the streets to promote his socialist agenda.



Speaking at the 2009 America's Future Now! (click for Video) conference in Washington DC, Medina was more matter of fact, more honest. This was an older crowd of hard core core "progressives". They didn't need the violins, they just wanted the numbers.

Here Medina plainly states that his campaign is purely about votes. Medina is pursuing "immigration reform" for one reason only 8 million new Democratic voters.

His aim is to "create a governing coalition for the long term"



That is "caring" socialism for you. Illegals immigrants are not individuals with hopes and dreams. their plight, their personal tragedies, are irrelevant. They not the result of irresponsible politicians unwilling to police U.S. borders.

They are simply numbers to be exploited, in the socialist pursuit of power.

posted by Trevor Loudon at 7/27/2010 11:42:00 AM 0 Comments Links to this post 

On Arizona and Immigration: Judge Ignores Rule of Law | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.