Getting Out the Illegal Vote

Allow millions of illegal immigrants in through the back door to sway the 2012 election?  Obama would never do that, you say.  Well, he just took the first step towards doing that yesterday, and scolded a reporter for questioning him about it in the bargain.  He claims it’s not a back-door method.  But then, he’s Obama, and he just violated the U.S. Constitution (Section 1, Article 8-Powers of Congress. “The Congress shall have the Power To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”) by issuing this fiat.

The new policy he announced yesterday will allow young undocumented immigrants between the ages of 16 and 30 to remain in the country without fear of deportation.  They had to have been brought here as children, have no criminal record, and have a high school diploma.  The announcement already complicates the issue of Arizona’s immigration law, Senate Bill 1080. 

The policy is similar to the Dream Act (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors), which was first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, by Dick Durbin (D) and Orrin Hatch.

The Dream Act would provide conditional permanent residency to certain undocumented individuals of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment. If they were to complete two years in the military or two years at a four-year institution of higher learning, they would obtain temporary residency for a six-year period. Within the six-year period, they may qualify for permanent residency if they have “acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States” or have “served in the armed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit challenging SB 1070 as early as Monday, and many believe the court will allow at least some enjoined parts to go into effect.

Most likely among those is the portion that requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally. Another portion penalizes immigrants for not carrying registration papers.

According to Arizonacentral.com, “Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer described the new policy as ‘backdoor amnesty’ and criticized Obama for making what she said was a preemptive strike against the anticipated court ruling.

“’The crux of SB 1070 is documentation. (The president is) going to give documentation to nearly 1 million people who have arrived in the country illegally,’ she said. ‘The timing is unbelievable.’”

“Legal experts say that while Obama’s policy doesn't directly address SB 1070, it could impact it.

“Under SB 1070, if authorities arrest or detain someone because of questions of legal status, local law enforcement would then notify federal immigration officials and the federal officials would then decide which next steps, if any, to take against the person.

“’What the federal government is now saying is: 'If you turn over to us a young person who has grown up in the United States who is what they call a “dreamer,” we are not going to do anything against them,'" said Evelyn Cruz, an immigration-law professor at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

“Also, under SB 1070, individuals can prove their legal status by showing various documents, including an Arizona driver's license.  Immigrants who fall under Obama's new policy can apply for a work permit. Cruz said that work permit will allow them to get an Arizona driver's license.”

David Martin, a University of Virginia School of Law professor who served as deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2011, echoed that.

“I suspect the documents these people get will count as registration documents, so there would no longer be a basis for charging them," he said. “And, even if police stopped and checked, the proper response from (federal immigration authorities) would simply be they are not going to take action against them.”

“’This was an outrageous announcement ... that intends to grant back-door amnesty,’ Gov. Jan Brewer said. ‘It doesn't take a cynic to recognize this action for what it is, blatant political pandering.’”

Clearly, Obama is pandering to the Hispanic-American base for votes.  What’s more worrisome is that such an influx of immigrants legalized by fiat – especially young immigrants armed with driver’s licenses – would tip the upcoming election in his favor.  In fact, it would transform the American electorate forever.

The illegal immigration issue has been Obama’s trump card.  He’s counting on Moderate Republicans’ fear of the Hispanic base – such as it is within the GOP – and younger voters to prevent a challenge to his fiat.  All he needs to do now is follow-through on his promise to legalize marijuana and freedom could be finished, unless there are enough legislators and judges with spines to stand up to this would-be tyrant.

These people are not, as he says, “effectively Americans.”  They’re here illegally, to do nothing more than take advantage of the socialist goodies they’ve been offered – free health care, free education, and free housing.  That’s their idea of “freedom.”

If you have a different notion of freedom, get on the phone to your legislator and volunteer for your state senator’s campaign, before we’re completely overrun and freedom is forever trampled.

Global Wind Day

Today is Global Wind Day.  Environmental extremists throughout New Jersey will be "celebrating" by flying kites at beaches along the Jersey Shore and calling for more and more of our tax dollars to be used to subsidize their crazy offshore wind pipe dreams.

Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner reports that, “Diplomats at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Conference in Rio de Janeiro next week will consider proposals that would levy taxes on American families and energy industries in order to support international efforts to combat global warming, according to a draft agenda for the conference.

“We recognize that subsidies for non-renewable energy development should be eliminated and replaced with a global tax on the production of energy from non-renewable energy sources," the

the UN draft agenda, amended by non-governmental organizations at the invitation of the UN, says.

“The income of this tax should be allocated to renewable energy development."

 

The draft agenda was obtained by the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a group

skeptical of the UN's position on global warming.

“Another proposal would spread the cost of investing in other countries throughout society.  That plan

would cost $1,325 for an American family of four, according to CFACT.”  What’s more, Obama has

signed an Executive Order instructing the United States to pay obeisance to this obscenity disguised as

largesse.  Hard-working Americans must pay for Europe’s laxity, Africa’s violence, and Asia’s

corruption, at a time when our real unemployment rate is at 15 percent.

Who’s paying for this kite-flying expedition at the Jersey Shore?  Who’s sponsoring it?  Americans for

 Prosperity is on their way to the Jersey Shore this morning to counter it, armed with signs, petitions,

and plenty of sunscreen, bless their hearts.

New Jersey has already authorized a $100 million taxpayer subsidy to install windmills off our coast.

This scheme would be a disaster for the state, raising rates and killing jobs.  The Beacon Hill Institute's

economic analysis of this wealth-redistribution, communist boondoggle showed it could cost New

Jersey as much as $4.137 billion, drive electricity rates up 4.2 percent in 2017, and result in as many as

4,440 lost jobs.

More recently, outside consultants for the State said that a proposal to complete this boondoggle would

result in “The Most Expensive Offshore Wind Power in The World.”  If implemented, the plan would

cost New Jersey:

·         A staggering $946.1 million in economic activity over 20 years;

·         Almost 30,000 jobs; and

·         $286 million in increased electricity rates.

Contact your state representative, or Gov. Christie.  Ask them to tell the U.N. to go fly a kite!

Flag Day, 2012

Times are good for the American flag, if not for the flagging American economy. The resurrection of flag-waving began just after September 11^th, 2001.  Although the surge dipped a little during the 2004 election, the flag made a come-back with the advent of the Tea Parties.

Still, it’s tough finding people to defend her.  A group of Coney Island kindergarteners were forbidden from singing God Bless the U.S.A., the Lee Greenwood song, at their graduation because it might offend other cultures.  Dedicating a song to the flag, and to the men who died to give the kindergartners the right to sing it, was just too much freedom for the principal of P.S. 90 and Nanny Bloomberg.

Even our band has a problem with finding people to defend the flag as we march down the street.  Heck, we have a problem just finding someone to carry the Stars and Stripes.  At our last parade, our flag-bearer went down the street unescorted, undefended.  These are hard times, though, and we didn’t want to discourage the volunteer who carried it ahead of us.

The ultimate photograph of a flag-raising is the famous Iwo Jima photo, taken by Joe Rosenberg.  What’s most interesting about the picture, among many interesting things, is that the soldiers all have their backs to the camera.  Their names were finally discovered, although according to the book, Flags of Our Fathers, they would rather their names hadn’t been published.

They were probably right.  Anonymous, they stand for all the soldiers who’ve ever fought and died for the flag.  Without the flag, we’d have no identity as a free people.  Under this flag, people live freely.  If it were to be torn down, burnt, desecrated, and abolished, where would free people go?  How could they prove that they’re free? 

Other free peoples have had flags, and they were taken down or changed.  This is a flag that has a license (The Declaration of Independence) and an owner’s manual (The U.S. Constitution).  This is a flag that guarantees there will be no monarchs, tyrants, or dictators.  This is a flag that says, “You can relax; you’re in a free land.”

We mustn’t take the flag for granted, though.  Many men died to keep it flying.  Many men perished protecting it.  Many men wish they lived under its protection.

Remember to salute the flag today, and when you do, think of all those who gave their lives defending it.  Many gladly carry it and wave it, but what would you do to defend the American flag?

Made in the U.S.A.

According to a report in the Washington Times, the World Trade Organization wants to eliminate country-of-origin labels and replace them with “Made in the World” labels.  Their justification is that we need to “reduce public opposition to free trade” and “re-engineer global governance.

We didn’t even know there were any Made in the U.S.A. labels left anymore.  I saw one – I think it was on one of my Tea Party tee shirts.  Apparently, the WTO has heard the Tea Party message, or listened to GBTV, and is concerned about global discrimination.  We’re so used to seeing labels that say “Made in” everyplace from China to Timbuktu, that it’s a shock to see a “Made in the U.S.A.” label.

Americans aren’t opposed to free trade; they’re opposed to unfair trade and trade imbalances, something for which we can thank the private unions who drove manufacturing from America’s shores.  But hey; they got theirs.  Look for the union label, not the “Made in the U.S.A.” label.  General Motors’ union members are sitting pretty.

Then there’s the part about re-engineering global governance.  Eliminating the country of origin label robs American consumers of their ability to make a choice about whether to buy a product.  “Made in Bangladesh”?  Hey, wait a minute; they’re a Muslim country, albeit an extremely poor one.  Worse still, “Made in Pakistan”; that’s a label in one of my garments.

“Made in China” is the most ubiquitous label.  For generations, it’s been hard to find any product, whether it be clothing, shoes, toys, pet food, that isn’t made in China.  China has a centuries-long history of not playing fairly in international trade.  She’s famous for her lack of conscience when it comes to intellectual property rights.  Anyone doing business there knows they must do so with a caveat:  China recognizes no trademark or copyright laws, and it’s very difficult to set up a business there, unless you’re related to someone or have enough money to bribe someone.  The Chinese people are fine; their government is something else again.

The Washington Times warns, “As the saying goes, information is power, and at a time of increased globalization when an increased number of products are imported to America from countries few of us would consider friends or allies, Americans should be able to steer the global economy in a direction that best benefits America with the consumer power that would come with more information on product labels – not less.

“An America that prides itself on independence and celebrates that independence every year on July 4 should want absolutely no part in allowing the advancement of global governance that aims to eliminate the one thing that allows American consumers to know from where the products they buy originate: The “Made in USA” label.”

This news comes hard on the heels of Obama’s latest Executive Order.  On May 1st, he signed a new Executive Order which opens the door for the United States to give up economic and environmental sovereignty through the promotion of a single international regulatory system.

This regulatory system would seek to globally streamline cooperation between nations for trade, environmental, and legislative processes on the international stage.

Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.

The new Executive Order implements the order of Jan. 18, 2011.

It’s going to take Mitt Romney most of his first term just to undo all the damage Obama has done to our country.  Those of who were “Made in the U.S.A.” need to do everything we can to make sure that that label sticks.

God Bless the U.S.A.

A Brooklyn school principal, Greta Hawkins of P.S. 90 in the Coney Island section of Brooklyn, decided to ban the singing of “God Bless the U.S.A.” at a kindergarten graduation ceremony after she decided that the song would offend other cultures.

The students had already spent months learning the song.  Instead, she ordered them to sing a wildly age-inappropriate song by Justin Bieber – “Baby”.  After a public outcry and a Facebook campaign by Queens councilman Peter Vallone to reinstate “God Bless the U.S.A.”, Hawkins pulled “Baby.”  Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor insisted they had not pressured Hawkins in any way, and both expressed “support for our principals.”

Well, Mayor Bloomberg, how about support for our principles, instead? You seem to be on a mean streak.  First you banned outdoor smoking.  Well, maybe that wasn’t so bad.  But then you went on a tyrannical rampage, limiting what people could eat and drink.  Now you want to tell them what they can sing.

Is it because the song has “God” in its title?  Or is it just that it’s patriotic?  Brooklyn is well-known for its sizeable Muslim population.  Is that the culture we’re supposed to be afraid of offending?

Even though “Baby” was removed from the song list, “God Bless the USA" will not return to the program.  Lee Greenwood, the song’s author, composer, and artist, has been singing the song for the last 30 years and finds it baffling that his popular song would be censored. Greenwood told the N.Y. Post, which broke the story, that he thought Hawkins was confusing allegiance with worship and was disappointed that she chose not to include it in the ceremony.

“I don't think it's a religious issue to salute the flag. You always respect the flag,” Greenwood told the Post. 

“The flag still stands for freedom, and they can’t take that away,” he sings in the song.  “And I’m proud to be an American where I at least I know I’m free.  And I won’t forget the men who died who gave that right to me.  And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.”

If I had children in that school district, and especially if I was a veteran with grandkids in P.S. 90, I’d go to that school and stand up for the right to be free and sing that song.  You can’t expect five year-olds to take that kind of risk.  But the adults certainly can.  The song means nothing if you can’t do exactly what it says and stand up next to your friends and neighbors and defend her.

Veterans, of all people, should know what standing up for freedom means.  If you could face the Nazis, or the kamikaze, or the Chinese, or the Vietcong, or the Muslim terrorists, surely you can stand up and sing a song.  Let us see just what freedom really means to all of us.

Let your children and grandchildren see what freedom means to you.  Set the example for them.

The End of Unionization As We Know It

Following up on the defeated, weeping union hack’s diatribe in Madison, Wisc., last week, that the victorious re-election of Gov. Scott Walker was the “end of Democracy as we know it,” former White House environmental advisor, Van Jones, addressed a Netroots Nation meeting.  Netroots Nation is a political convention for American Progressive political activists, originally organized by readers and writers of Daily Kos, a liberal political blog. It was previously called YearlyKos. The 7th Annual Netroots Nation conference was held in Providence, R.I. from June 7-10.

Van Jones said, “What happened in Wisconsin was awful.  Our grandparents got killed for going on strike.  Our forces created a miracle.  The labor forces, the African-American and Latin community exceeded every expectation.  The local forces did the maximum.  But they fought alone.  Where were the national Democrats?   And where were a lot of us?   We spent more time mourning the loss than energizing [for the next victory].  When we do the minimum and the other side does the maximum, we lose.  We lost the fight to 13 billionaires, none of whom live in Wisconsin.  The Civil Rights and Environmental movement never showed up in large numbers.  We munched the popcorn, but we didn’t jump onto the screen.

“We know we’re supposed to be fired up, ready to go, but we’re mad and we have reason to be.  We like this president, but we’re not in love with him like we used to be.  What are we going to do?  We don’t know how to get fired up again.  Then we look at the Tea Party, for those of us who no longer regard Obama as the Almighty but as the Alternative.  I’m going to teach Obama lesson.  I’m not going to vote.  They’re all the same.  It’s not you; it’s your friends.  If the Tea Party is allowed to score a trifecta, their ideas are already corrupting the Supreme Court.  They already have the Congress.  If they get the rest of it and the White House, if the Tea Party governs America.  If this time next year, you find that you’re living in America governed by the Tea Party, they might use power differently.  They will use power to decimate us.  We should be terrified of them.  [When they were in power they said,] ‘Perhaps we should make adjustments to labor law and they decapitated our unions.’

“They don’t like the EPA; its over reach.  And they’re going to eliminate it.  You think they’re joking.  But EPA saved more lives than the DOD.  If they have a Trifecta, they’ll use it to decimate us.  There’ll be no holds barred.  Now we have the power.  Now we’re going to be bipartisan.  ‘Is there something we can compromise on?’ (mockingly).  If they win, all the crazy stuff they say, they’ll do.  They will reward the worst behavior.  It will be absolutely the ultimate betrayal of the American people [by the Republicans].”

You heard it from the proverbial horse’s mouth, what the Progressives think of compromise and bipartisanship.  You can hear him say it in the video, for yourself.  Compromise, bipartisanship is for the other guy, the other party, not the Progressives.  Compromise and bipartisanship is for losers.  Compromise and bipartisanship are for the seneschals, not the leaders in power.  He very clearly stated that the Progressives want power.  He urges his audience to believe that that’s what Conservatives, the Tea Parties want power.  That we will “decimate” them in order to gain power.

There’s never been a single issue on which the Progressives have compromised and there never will be.  That’s why the partisan words on such a trap.  To use them in any of their forms is to put the compromise noose around your group’s neck.  It’s not that there’s anything wrong to listening to the other point of view – how else will one learn about one’s enemies?  It’s that they’ll use it to dominate the conversation and keep you from expressing your point of view.

Freedomworks needs to keep in mind that we’re a few years ahead of them in this fight.  They’re planning a Tea Party conference at the end of June, which is fine.  They’re a good organization.  They were of invaluable help in keeping Scott Walker in office.  But in their magnanimity, they’ve invited all sides to their table (it’s their table) in a spirit of non-partisanship.  Our experience with the partisan word is that it’s an invitation to microphone-grabbing censorship of the Conservative voice.

We made no apologies about our Conservative stance, which was an ideological, not a political stance, per se.  Of course, it’s political ideology.  Some Democrats may show up to Freedomworks’ party with doubts about their party’s ideology and may, after listening, decide to swing over to the Conservative side.  However, it will be very foolish of the Freedomworks organizers 0if they don’t prepare for subversives, whose favorite word is “bipartisan.”  They will hold FW to it and insist on spewing their propaganda, intimidating participants at whatever networking events may be planned.

There are ways of identifying them.  They’re rather obvious, actually.  There’s no way of stopping them, given our Constitutional freedom of speech.  However, as this is ostensibly a Conservative – or is it Libertarian – event, the hosts set the agenda, not the moles.   If it’s a Conservative event, I would advise the Tea Partiers to wear their partisan shields and listen carefully for the first sounds of subversion and walk away from the Conversation, or better yet, be prepared to stand your ground.  That is, if the Non-Partisan Police, aren’t patrolling, looking for Conservatives who are abridging a Progressive’s freedom of speech with partisan “backtalk”.

If it’s really a Libertarian event, then Freedomworks has been misleading in its advertisements.  Nevertheless, Conservatives should go and network with these global Tea Partiers.  It’s amazing that the Tea Party movement has turned into a global phenomenon.  It’s heartening to know that there are still people in other parts of the world who prize freedom.

Even more heartening is the fact that a clearly trumped Progressive – namely, Van Jones – has to use our tactics to “energize” his allegedly depleted base in order to convince them to vote for Obama in November.  It may be a ploy for our benefit to deceive us into thinking Romney has more of a chance than reality would indicate, and so, not putting all our energy into his election.

Van Jones is right – we do intend to “decimate” the public unions.  We absolutely intend to do some “crazy stuff” – like end democracy as they know it, and restore our country to the federated republic, using democratic means, to its original state.  We will take the reins of power – and limit it, per the U.S. Constitution.  We will be the government of the elected, not the appointed, the land of the free, not the freeloaders, as the Founding Fathers intended.