Awesome: Ray Stevens song about how our illegal immigration laws are compared to the rest of the world

Awesome: Ray Stevens song about how our illegal immigration laws are compared to the rest of the world

Posted by iusbvision on May 22, 2010

The song is pretty accurate, did you know that the USA is the only country that has the anchor baby law? It was passed to make sure that the children of slaves could never be deported so now it has outlived its purpose.

Ray Stevens – Caribou Barbie

Ray Stevens – Throw the Bums Out

Ray Stevens – We The People –

Ray Stevens- Thank you


Phoenix mayor blames new immigration law on talk radio, lack of Fairness Doctrine

Phoenix mayor blames new immigration law on talk radio, lack of Fairness Doctrine

2010 May 22

And not, like, the crime wave that’s earned his state the dubious designation of “kidnapping capital of America.

Despite the fact that most of his fellow citizens apparently support that new immigration enforcement law, Mayor Phil Gordon not only condemned it, but blamed its passage on … talk radio, and the absence of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Instead of requiring both sides of a debate to be aired, only one side was given the chance,” Gordon told one audience. “Language that was never acceptable became mainstream, and those deemed to be in disagreement with those on radio or TV were demonized as traitors and extremists.”

Brian Jennings, author of Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio, shot back, “Phil Gordon is nothing more than a liberal whiner who doesn’t get how free speech must work in order to be truly free. … I hope the good citizens of Phoenix bounce Gordon from office the next time he’s up for election.”

Internet Freedom Challenged by Obama FCC

Internet Freedom Challenged by Obama FCC

May 21st, 2010

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, ExposeObama

 Obama wants to control the internet like they do in China

House Minority Leader John Boehner recently accused the Obama Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of pursuing a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Specifically, Boehner said that the FCC is engaging in an action that “amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, and yet another government takeover of a large portion of the private sector by the Obama administration.”

The scheme amounts to an online “Fairness Doctrine” but it goes under another equally benign name: “network neutrality.”

Can you imagine what would happen if we were required under penalty of law to “balance” all the information on the Internet? Well that’s exactly what Barack Obama wants.

Recently, the effort suffered a major setback when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals put up a road block to the plan. Fox News’ Phil Kerpen reported: “That effort suffered a major setback when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the FCC’s regulatory proposals in Comcast v. FCC.”

But Obama’s not going to let the court get in his way. He’s going to “go nuclear” and defy the courts.

Kerpen continued: “President Obama and his close friend and FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, however, refuse to back down. Instead they’re escalating to the regulatory equivalent of a nuclear attack on the free-market Internet: Chairman Genachowski will announce today his intention to reclassify broadband Internet as an old-fashioned telephone system as a pretext for pervasive regulatory control.”

The key phrase in Kerpen’s report is “pretext for pervasive regulatory control.” That means, once they have their foot in the door — once they have control — Obama and the FCC will go about instituting their own version of the “Fairness Doctrine” on the Internet.

According Contributing Editor Neil Stevens of “If the FCC is allowed to put the Internet in the U.S. under those powers, then the Obama administration will have total power to tax internet users, regulate content on internet servers, and even institute price controls on internet services.”

Of course, Obama and the FCC don’t really have the authority to do what they are setting out to do, but they don’t really care. The authority over regulation actually rests with Congress, but that means that Congress must act and exert its authority to stop this plan.

Obama’s FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski may be the man who will attempt to implement this plan to take over the internet but there’s more to this story. One of the shadow organizations that is joined-at-the-hip to Genachowski and is driving this plan is a Marxist-run organization ironically called Free Press.

FOX News’ Glenn Beck has already alerted his viewers to the plot saying: “Free Press has [had] three confirmed meetings now with Obama’s FCC to work on new Internet regulations…. The FCC chairman, not to be confused with the diversity ‘czar’ – this is the chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski – chose Free Press spokeswoman, Jen Howard, to be his press secretary.”

In another venue, Beck said: “The FCC is being inundated by a special interest group ironically named Free Press, whose goal it is to limit America’s free press and freedom of speech. This special interest group also claims that it’s due to special interest groups that it has become necessary for them to intervene on our behalf.”

Seton Motley, contributing editor of, has also addressed what is going on behind the scenes: “The groundwork for government information totalitarianism – favored by people like Hugo Chavez-loving FCC ‘Diversity Czar’ Mark Lloyd and Marxist ‘media reform’-outfit Free Press founder Robert McChesney – is being laid in the (p)lan being crafted by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.”

And just in case you may still doubt the motives of the folks creating this plan, consider these four past statements by the man-behind-the-curtain, Free Press’ founder Robert McChesney:

1.       “Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.”

2.       “There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

3.       “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimalize it and perhaps even eliminate it.”

4.       “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Wow, no need to do more than quote their own statements

Obama and the New Normal

Obama and the New Normal

May 22nd, 2010

By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker

 Obama is defining our culture with his vindictive assaults on individuals

The human brain is a complicated organ. It can be infinitely pliable but also maddeningly rigid.

Humans can be slow to recognize signs of imminent disaster. While red flags are flapping wildly in the wind, the person ignores any and all warnings.

But the brain can be highly suggestible, too, easily controlled and shaped by advertisers and spin doctors. Thus, after countless ads, a person associates soda with Coke, search engines with Google. And after having “Yes we can,” burned into their neural pathways, all hope and change is connected to Obama.  

That’s why it’s crucial to notice all the “firsts.” Because once something is repeated often enough, it becomes the New Normal.

Decades ago, the first rap song that celebrated beating “ho’s” and shooting cops was shocking. But after the umpteenth song, the lyrics may no longer startle. 

But while things have been going downhill for decades, ever since Obama arrived on the scene, the assaults have come fast and furiously. First it was the trashing of Hillary. When her abuse was pooh-poohed by those who could have done something about it, like Obama himself, that just emboldened the radicals. Their getting away with (soul) murder led to even more sexually threatening behavior toward Sarah Palin.

Another example: It used to be off-limits for the president and Congress to target private citizens. Not any longer. It’s now open season on anyone who dares to disagree.

Read More:

ICE Chief: I may not Process Illegals From Arizona He’s going after the illegals in illinois

ICE Chief: I may not Process Illegals From Arizona

May 22nd, 2010

By Oscar Avila, Chicago Tribune

 isn’t that part of your job?

In the midst of an outcry over illegal immigration and Arizona’s new crackdown, a top Department of Homeland Security official visiting Chicago on Wednesday said his agency intended to step up enforcement in places such as Illinois.

John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency intends to expand the Secure Communities initiative, which gives police and sheriff’s departments access to a Homeland Security database that includes fingerprints. The initiative recently grew to include most of Chicago’s suburbs.

Morton, a former prosecutor, also said the agency intends to increase scrutiny of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

“If we’re going to bring about meaningful changes in behavior, you have to do that by focusing on the employer,” he said during a meeting with the Tribune editorial board.

Read More:

Enemies of Arizona

Enemies of Arizona

May 22nd, 2010

By Andrew Cline, American Spectator

 united in attacking Arizona

When he was running for president, Barack Obama presented himself as a man who could restore America’s reputation in the world. Since becoming president, though, Obama has given the impression that he is working overtime to tarnish it.

Let’s grant for the sake of argument that Obama was right and President Bush’s cowboy swagger made non-Americans dislike our country. Even if that were 100 percent true, it doesn’t follow that the best way to correct that is to have a president badmouth his own country at every possible opportunity.

Speaking in Strasbourg in April of last year, Obama said to the people of Europe, “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

The Telegraph of London wrote, “His speech in Strasbourg went further than any United States president in history in criticising his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.”

Read More:

Obama’s Thugocracy

Obama’s Thugocracy

May 22nd, 2010

By Andrea Tantaros  –

This past Sunday, in one of the most aggressive and offensive intimidation tactics to date, hundreds of members of the largest union – the SEIU – stormed the front yard of Bank of America deputy general counsel Greg Baer’s home. The angry mob had bullhorns, signs and even broke the law by trespassing to bully Baer’s teenage son, the only one home at the time, who locked himself in the bathroom out of fear.

This is what unions do. They pressure politicians into spending too much. They push government into bad policy decisions. They sacrifice the private sector for the public sector. And now, they trespass and break the law only to scare the children of private citizens to get their way.
If you think the unions are working along, think again.

These protests, the ones storming Wall Street bank lobbies and now the private homes of bankers, are likely being carefully coordinated with the White House to increase their profile against the financial fat cats and help pass disgraced Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd’s financial regulatory bill.

Remember, when the White House visitor records were finally made public, it was SEIU boss Andy Stern who was the most frequent guest.

There are also no coincidences in politics. The bill passed the Senate last night.

Read More:

Mexico Tourism Promoter Running Threatening Ads in Arizona Newspaper?

Mexico Tourism Promoter Running Threatening Ads in Arizona Newspaper?

By Doug Powers  •  May 22, 2010 01:05 PM

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

It seems that “Visit Mexico” bought an ad that ran in yesterday’s Arizona Republic (how long it’s been running and if it’s in there today, I’m not sure).

I got the heads-up about it after seeing this Twitter post from Sheriff Joe Arpaio:


So I clicked on the link and checked out the ad.

If you live in Arizona (or anywhere else in the US for that matter), does this make you want to visit Sonora, “Arizona’s Neighbor”?


The ad certainly doesn’t imply that somebody in Mexico is on the lookout for you so they can bring over the welcome wagon, does it?

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

Scott Brown shows his true colors

Scott Brown shows his true colors

Ann Kane

Voting against Obamacare was Sen. Scott Brown’s strategic way to gain the confidence and money of conservatives and independents in his special election bid last January, but that is where the similarity between him and the Republican Party ended.  He signed off on the Jobs bill in February with no apparent consternation about joining the Democrats, and yesterday, along with three other Republicans, voted for the Senate version of the financial reform bill slated to be passed next month

From Politico:

In January, he broke the Democrats’ lock on the Senate.

On Thursday, he gave it back. 

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) effectively became the 60th vote to cut off debate on Wall Street reform Thursday – a far cry from when Republicans were hailing him as the 41st GOP-er who was going to stand up to the Democrats’ agenda. Brown also voted yes on final passage.

In April, Brown had appeared on CBS Face the Nation and talked about filibustering the bill along with Republicans, unless the Democrats made changes to it.  In my April 19 AT post on this same topic, I wrote how he was setting the stage for an inevitable conclusion:

Notice how Brown indicates, “unless Democrats make improvements to it.”  Classified as a Republican in name only, Brown is showing his willingness to compromise with the likes of Tim Geithner, and thereby dashes any hopes that he will make good decisions for America in the future. 

The lesson to be learned from the feckless Scott Browns of either party is this:  Voters cannot consider viable anyone who goes along to get along; not in this political climate where leftist ideology has threatened to collapse the economic structure of the world’s greatest nation.  Conservative American voters must vet politicians based on the candidate’s willingness to buck the system in order to come to his or her own conclusions on the merits of a piece of legislation. 

2012 won’t come fast enough for Massachusetts voters.

In God We Trust… In Government? Not So Much

In God We Trust… In Government? Not So Much

By Jim Yardley

According to the Pew Research Center, nearly 80% of Americans don’t trust their own government. Could it really be that Americans actually do trust their government…to do the wrong thing with remarkable consistency? Trust is based on an assumption that the person or thing in whom one places trust will act predictably and responsibly. It appears from the poll results that came out in early April that the government does neither, at least in the minds of four out of five citizens.
When we speak of “The Government,” we are really describing the people we employ to operate the government — to pass the laws, raise the taxes needed, and so on. People, not some vague creation called government, are the real source of this distrust. 
By using a vague, collective term such as “government,” we give the individual legislators, administrators, regulators, and millions of drones in the government who both actually cause our problems and are the cause of our distrust a free pass.
Many people believe that we could solve part of this dilemma through the passage of a term limits amendment. But why do we need one? Every two years we get a chance to replace every member of the House and a third of the Senate. Within a six-year span, every House member, every senator, the president, the entire cabinet, and thousands of senior appointed officials could be gone. 
Again, why do we need a term limits amendment? We, the citizens, can create our own tidal wave of change in our government. Passing a term limits amendment is akin to the amendment that made the consumption of alcohol illegal. It’s saying, “Please pass a law to stop me from doing something stupid.” So how did that whole Prohibition thing work out for us? Not too well. 
Why rely on the amendment process to solve what might be called term limits by the electorate? We can implement de facto term limits at the box. If you just can’t stand the idea of voting for the Democrat opponent of the Republican incumbent (or the Republican opponent of a sitting Democrat, just to be bipartisan), but you know that he or she needs to go thanks to too much time in Washington, recent events have shown that an angry citizenry can use the primary system to nominate new candidates regardless of what the party Brahmins desire. Just ask Senator Bennet (R-UT) or Congressman Mollohan (D-WV1). There is no need for a super-duper amendment. We can just do it. Again. And again. Until they are all replaced. Although he didn’t mean to apply it in this context, President Obama, in his classically narcissistic phrase, said it best: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” 
And this nominating process is critical. Every effort must be made to nominate, and elect, candidates who understand that their job in Congress is to act within the limits established in the Constitution. The Founders set out very clear limits for the federal government’s authority and sphere of actions. If the president and Congress feel that there is an area where they should be allowed to act which is not allowed by the current language of the Constitution, they always have the amendment process to expand their authority. Any nominee for either the House or Senate should make an affirmative statement acknowledging the limits on what Congress can do without such an amendment before asking for our vote.
As for the bureaucrats in the federal government, it becomes clear that positions of power, with a total lack of any responsibility or accountability, are very attractive to certain personalities. We can very simply add both to their jobs. Congressional staffers who actually write the legislative drafts should be required to append their names, official positions, and a résumé of their expertise to the draft for public review. Then the media, assuming it decides sometime in the near future to go back to work as journalists, can report to the rest of us whether the person drafting the legislation has even a passing understanding of the subject at hand. If not, does the term “political reliability” (as it was used in the old Soviet Union) apply to his or her selection to draft laws that will impact every citizen, except those favored by his or her party’s hierarchy?
The same method should be used to identify the staff members who actually draft those reports that are carried into congressional hearing rooms by the various cabinet secretaries to give weight to their preening before the cameras. 
In addition, Congress must reassert its authority, and responsibilities, under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. Only Congress is empowered to create the laws under which we live. Allowing them to sub-contract the job to regulators who are never named, seen, or held responsible should itself be classed as unconstitutional and a dereliction of duty. It goes without saying that there are innumerable precedents for Congress to delegate drafting regulations to the various executive branch departments, but just because the Supreme Court determines that such delegation by Congress to the Executive is allowed under the Constitution, there is one court which can reverse that finding. The court of public opinion, and the coercive power to abruptly end the political career of offending members of Congress, will have much more impact than a Supreme Court ruling that essentially says, “Well, we can’t really figure out a reason why you shouldn’t do this.”
Demanding that Congress affirm that they have actually read and understand the language of regulations that have been drafted in various departments of the Executive branch would certainly encourage them to send a message to those branches: “If you can generate 10,000 pages of regulations that I have to read and swear that I understand, you obviously have too many people with too much time on their hands. Your next budget will be cut!”
The Constitution begins “We, the People…”, not “We, the elected officials…” It is our government to control, it is our government to direct, and it is our fault if we continue to allow temporary employees to manage the government to suit themselves. The first step in fixing what we, the people have allowed to drift in an unacceptable direction is to prove in November to these temporary employees that they truly are temporary — and that their services are no longer required.