The Dream of Amnesty

indyfromaz|

The wet dream of Liberals, just like their slobbering for government control of Health Care that they’d been dreaming of for 70 years, here comes Amnesty again!
But it’s not straightforward, oh no, never. That hasn’t worked. So now we have to be sneaky again.
The Wolf is trying to sneak in the back door under a false guise. And it’s not even Halloween yet!
As if the Justice Department and ICE office simply not prosecuting illegals for any reason was bad enough, now in a highly cynical and political way, Senate Majority Harry Reid has re-proposed the DREAM ACT (aka Amnesty) but not in the way anyone should think.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has hit a new low by slipping an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants into a defense funding bill. In effect, he’s holding U.S. troops hostage to advance his own political career.
Longtime members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are shuddering at the way the defense budget has become a Christmas tree for political ornaments. Since last year, Democrats have used appropriations for U.S. troops in Afghanistan to attach riders that couldn’t otherwise pass muster.
Now Reid has hung the ugliest ornament of them all — the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act — and has scheduled a vote on it next week.
“This is an all-time low for me being in the Senate, and that’s saying something,” committee member Lindsay Graham told Foreign Policy magazine. “The one area that’s been kept off limits from partisan politics has been the defense of our nation. To say that you’re going to bring up a defense bill and put the DREAM Act on it … to me is very offensive.”
But Reid, D-Nev., apparently couldn’t care less. He sees a political payoff — for himself — by offering amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants via the DREAM Act in a bid to energize the Latino vote.
As representative of the state with the highest number of illegal immigrants (as well as the highest unemployment rate at 14.2%), Reid is hoping he can break away from Republican challenger Sharron Angle in his own dead-heat reelection race by delivering amnesty to that constituency.
He’s also betting that Republicans will be forced to go along because of their strong support of the military. Reid has also slipped in a second rider, this one for ending the Pentagon’s “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy on gay servicemen without waiting for the military’s input.
Both riders stand to wreak havoc in the U.S. if this bill passes. The act is outright amnesty for the children of illegal immigrants, and offers a no-penalty path to citizenship for anyone connected with them.
It says that any child of an illegal who arrives in the U.S. before age 16, spends five years here and completes two years of college or military service in a six-year span without felonies gets a green card ahead of others who have waited patiently for their papers.
They will have access to taxpayer-funded loans and grants, and may crowd out children of U.S. citizens at state and community colleges. They are not required to pay back the loans, learn English or maintain a decent GPA. They can start the process up to age 35, and get six years to finish a mere two years of college or military service.
And once they’ve been granted citizenship, they can bring all their relatives to the U.S. in what will be the mother of chain migrations.
Even worse, there’s no cutoff date on when an illegal immigrant can begin the process, so the bill becomes a dinner triangle to would-be immigrants everywhere to ship their teenagers to the states before they turn 16. Mexican cartels that smuggle illegals for $10,000 a pop must be slavering at the possible new business.
Thanks to an effective propaganda campaign based on sob stories from immigrant lobbies, most of these facts about the DREAM Act aren’t well-known. But make no mistake: The legislation as written amounts to amnesty for almost everyone.
This may be why, despite the measure being around the Senate for seven years, it has never garnered enough votes for passage. It has come close, but public opposition has stopped it when the facts are made known. That should be the result when Reid selfishly tries to get away with it again next week.
But you don’t want to say no to troops, now do you?


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama assured Hispanics on Wednesday he was not walking away from immigration reform while expressing disappointment that he had not delivered on a 2008 promise to overhaul U.S. policy.
Aka Amnesty.
He blamed Republicans for backing away from reform and urged Hispanics — an important and growing voting bloc — to continue giving him the support they gave during his presidential campaign.
“Now, I know that many of you campaigned hard for me, and understandably you’re frustrated that we have not been able to move this over the finish line yet. I am too,” he told a gala dinner for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, referring to immigration reform.
“But let me be clear: I will not walk away from this fight. My commitment is getting this done as soon as we can. We can’t keep kicking this challenge down the road.”
Be we can utterly cynical and manipulative to benefit ourself and our party, isn’t that right, Mr President?
The Democrats want poor, hispanic voters as a bloc to fight over the rest of you “racists” who don’t want to recognize the magnificence, grandeur, and magnanimity of THE ONE.
In other words, they want SUCKERS!

“But don’t forget who is standing with you, and who is standing against you. Don’t ever believe that this election coming up doesn’t matter. … Don’t forget who your friends are.”
Anyone with a (D) next to their name is not your friend. And many with “incumbent” aren’t either.
Be Involved. Be Informed. Vote.

We The People

It has often been a theme in my blog for this nearly first year about the dishonesty of this administration, the Orwellian Tactics, and the Alinsky maneuvers. How the dripping contempt for the ‘little people’ from the political Elite Class has boiled over and how the Ministry of Truth (The Mainstream Media) is both a partner, a sucker, and a toadie for it all.
How the Left like to define everything in their own terms and you aren’t allowed to disagree with them.
Leaving you and me, the average citizen, hung out to dry.
Now Thomas Sowell, a evil abomination that liberals don’t want to exist – a black Conservative- a great piece today.

‘We the people” are the central concern of the Constitution, as well as its opening words, since it is a Constitution for a self-governing nation. But “we the people” are treated as an obstacle to circumvent by the current administration.
One way of circumventing the people is to rush legislation through Congress so fast that no one knows what is buried in it. Did you know that the so-called health care reform bill contained a provision creating a tax on people who buy and sell gold coins?
You might debate whether that tax is a good or a bad idea. But the whole point of burying it in legislation about medical insurance is to make sure “we the people” don’t even know about it, much less have a chance to debate it, before it becomes law.
Did you know that the financial reform bill that’s been similarly rushed through Congress, too fast for anyone to read, has a provision about “inclusion” of women and minorities? Pretty words like “inclusion” mean ugly realities like quotas. But that too isn’t something “we the people” are to be allowed to debate, because it too was sneaked through.
Not since the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French, for an English-speaking nation, centuries ago, has there been such contempt for the people’s right to know what laws were being imposed on them.
Yet another ploy is to pass laws worded in vague generalities, leaving it up to the federal bureaucracies to issue specific regulations based on those laws. “We the people” can’t vote on bureaucrats. And, since it takes time for all the bureaucratic rules to be formulated and then put into practice, we won’t know what either the rules or their effects are prior to this fall’s elections when we vote for (or against) those who passed these clever laws.
The biggest circumvention of “we the people” was of course the so-called “health care reform” bill. This bill was passed with the proviso that it would not really take effect until after the 2012 presidential elections. Between now and then, the Obama administration can tell us in glowing words how wonderful this bill is, what good things it will do for us, and how it has rescued us from the evil insurance companies, among its many other glories.
But we won’t really know what the actual effects of this bill are until after the next presidential elections — which is to say, after it is too late. Quite simply, we are being played for fools.
Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won’t see it, because what they see could affect how they vote. But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the people will see electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.
If you are not in that “rich” category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else’s higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don’t see this, so much the better for the administration politically.
This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called “the rich.” Incidentally, most of those who are called “the rich” are nowhere close to being rich.
A couple making $125,000 a year each are not rich, even though together they reach that magic $250,000 income level. In most cases, they haven’t been making $125,000 a year all their working lives. Far more often, they have reached this level after decades of working their way up from lower incomes — and now the government steps in to grab the reward they have earned over the years.
There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a “fair share” of what others have produced.
The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation’s soul. That is what this administration is doing.

I would add in the socialist corruption of the Education process so that even if they can’t destroy you they can destroy the future and the little darling brains full of mush will never know because they will never tell them.
It starts in grade school where you just don’t mention certain things, events and concepts and moves on through college life. So that by the end of 16 years of “education” you’re effectively a mindless idiot willing do what the government says because “it’s fair” and “it’s sensitive”.
And you wouldn’t want to be “unfair” and “insensitive” now would you?


A central goal of these programs is to uproot “internalized oppression,” a crucial concept in the diversity education planning documents of most universities. Like the Leninists’ notion of “false consciousness,” from which it ultimately is derived, it identifies as a major barrier to progressive change the fact that the victims of oppression have internalized the very values and ways of thinking by which society oppresses them. What could workers possibly know, compared to intellectuals, about what workers truly should want? What could students possibly know, compared to those creating programs for offices of student life and residence, about what students truly should feel? Any desire for assimilation or for individualism reflects the imprint of white America’s strategy for racial hegemony.
Planning for New Student Week at Northwestern University, a member of the Cultural Diversity Project Committee explained to the Weekly Northwestern Review in 1989 that the committee’s goal was “changing the world, or at least the way [undergraduates] perceive it.” In 1993, Ana Maria Garcia, assistant dean of Haverford College, proudly told the Philadelphia Inquirer of official freshman dormitory programs there, which divided students into two groups: happy, unselfish Alphas and grim, acquisitive Betas. For Garcia, the exercise was wonderfully successful: “Students in both groups said the game made them feel excluded, confused, awkward, and foolish,” which, for Garcia, accomplished the purpose of Haverford’s program: “to raise student awareness of racial and ethnic diversity.”
In the early 1990s, Bryn Mawr College shared its mandatory “Building Pluralism” program with any school that requested it. Bryn Mawr probed the most private experiences of every first-year student: difference and discomfort; racial, ethnic, and class experiences; sexual orientation; religious beliefs. By the end of this “orientation,” students were devising “individual and collective action plans” for “breaking free” of “the cycle of oppression” and for achieving “new meaning” as “change agents.” Although the public relations savvy of universities has changed since the early 1990s, these programs proliferate apace.
The darkest nightmare of the literature on power is George Orwell’s 1984, where there is not even an interior space of privacy and self. Winston Smith faces the ultimate and consistent logic of the argument that everything is political, and he can only dream of “a time when there were still privacy, love, and friendship, and when members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason.”(reason.com)

Let’s take that a step farther. The liberal left says that you are “insensitive” to muslims if you object to the mosque being built next to Ground Zero.
But you also “insensitive” to Latinos if you want the border secured. That’s “racial profiling”. You’re a “racist”.
But yet, if you’re a devout Christian who doesn’t believe in Gay marriage, because of your religion, You’re an insensitive, homophobic bigot!
So you’re insensitive to the Muslim religion if you object, but if you object based on your Christian religion you’re also insensitive.
And if you tell the proponents of the mosque that building it there is “insensitive” they will shoot back that you’re stereotyping all Muslims and that the Constitution protects there right to build it there.
So they can tell you you’re “insensitive” but you can’t tell THEM they are “insensitive” because they are your Insufferably Moral Superiors and you can’t even begin to judge them.
Orwell couldn’t do much better than that. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

O’Brien’s re-education of Winston in 1984 went to the heart of such invasiveness. “We are not content with negative obedience…. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.” The Party wanted not to destroy the heretic but to “capture his inner mind.” Where others were content to command “Thou shalt not” or “Thou shalt,” O’Brien explains, “Our command is ‘Thou art.’” To reach that end requires “learning… understanding [and] acceptance,” and the realization that one has no control even over one’s inner soul.

The school must become a therapeutic and political agent of progressive change. For your own good. But especially, before you figure out you’ve been had.
And the liberal media is there to reinforce it.
Look at how they frame the Ground Zero Mosque issue, for instance.
It’s all about Constitutional Right to worship as they please. The fact that this is a perversion of the First Amendment aside, it’s a clever little Alinsky tactic. Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
So you wouldn’t want to go against The Constitution now would you?
The fact that that isn’t even the real issue isn’t even the point. It’s a tactic. They don’t care about the Constitutionality of it. They know that’s irrelevant.
But they also know they can off-put you by pushing it. Just like when they call you a “racist” when you object to illegal immigration.
And if that’s the only argument you hear, then that’s they only argument you know.
If the free speech and religious freedoms protected in First Amendment are suddenly so sacrosanct, why is it that Obama and his left-wing allies continuously push for a return of the fairness doctrine and for getting religion (except islam) out of schools and everywhere else??
And if the Constitution is so all important to Liberals all of the sudden why do they continuously push for gun bans (aka The Second Amendment)?
And where in the Constitution does a Health Care Mandate come from? And what other Mandates can they come up with if they think there is??

And then you get the counter. It’s not the Imam and the Mosque next to Ground Zero that is the problem, it’s YOU who object to it, you’re the problem.
Speaker Pelosi on a radio show: “There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”
Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million “Cordoba House” have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as “un-American.”(Washington Times)

The only thing the majority of American opposed to this haven’t been called yet is…. RACIST!
But I’m sure it’s coming. It’s always coming…
And have you noticed, the proposed memorial to the victims of 9/11 hasn’t been finished 10 years later?
And a Greek Orthodox church crushed by the twin towers falling can’t get the zoning and building permits to rebuild?
Funny that.


And the final word today goes to former Obama Communication toadie Anita Dunn on MSDNC when challenged by Pat Buchanan on “tolerance”,“Anita, let me ask you about this word tolerance. I mean, what about tolerance for the views of the thousands of families of those who died on 9/11, the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who are saying, ‘Please, you have a right to move the mosque there but please don’t do it. It doesn’t belong there,’ and the vast majority of Americans who say the same thing?” Buchanan said.
“They have a right to build a mosque, but for heavens’ sakes given the fact that the terrorists were Islamic, it was crucial to their identity and their mission, please don’t put an Islamic mosque just two blocks from where this happened. What about tolerance for the vast majority of Americans and their opinions?” he said.
Dunn responded: “Well, you know, I have to ask, it’s two blocks … It’s a center that is supposed to be about promoting interfaith, and really reaching out, which in many ways is I think what President Bush back in those horrible days of 2001, really tried to promote.”
“And how many blocks is ok? Is nine blocks okay? Is 10? I don’t know where you go with this argument,” Dunn said.
“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski ended the segment with a non-sequitur.
“And Anita, they have, like, other things that a lot of people have issues with, like peep shows. So, I mean, I think you bring up a really good point,” Brzezinski said.
Last impression: it’s about peep shows, not “sensitivity”.
Doing Orwell proud.

Ignoring the 800lb Elephant in the Country

The Talking Point that sounds similar coming from different people, so they can hammer it: “We have never, ever deported so many people from the country as we are doing now,” says Douglas Massey, an immigration expert at Princeton University in New Jersey.
“No administration in the history of this nation removed more illegal immigrants from the country than we did last year.”–ICE Director John Morton

It’s a shiny object and we want you look over here, ignore the 800 lb illegal elephant in the room…
In 2009, the United States deported a record 387,790 people – a 5 percent increase over 2008. Nearly two months before the end of the 2010 federal fiscal year, the deportation rate is down slightly from 2009, but the number of removals is still likely to be more than triple what it was in 2001.
The numbers come from a recently released study by Syracuse University in New York. Among the other significant findings: An increasing share of deportees are immigrants who have been convicted of a crime, reflecting President Obama’s desire to reorient the deportation process toward targeting criminals.
Critics of Mr. Obama worry that the focus on criminals could mean a pass for most noncriminal illegal immigrants. They also note that deportation alone does not represent a comprehensive immigration policy. But the deportation trend does run counter to many perceptions in border states and beyond about federal anti-illegal immigration efforts.
In 2008 and 2009, for instance, the majority of removals were people who had not been convicted of any crime, according to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data. Through Aug. 2, 51 percent of the 294,230 people deported or forced out this fiscal year were convicted criminals.

If you’re not a criminal the Obama Administration does care if you’re illegal. So what if you BECOME a criminal while here, say killing Catholic Nuns for instance?
Or better yet, Mexican drug cartels who come in and go back out routinely like it’s a trip to the Quik-E Mart?
And what if you deport them and because of a porous border they come back repeatedly?
I guess that’s one way to pump up your stats and ignore the real problem.
Oh, and because they are so “tough” that’s why we need Comprehensive Immigration Reform (cough…cough…AMNESTY).


Just don’t tell that to the people at the border with those lovely signs the government put up to warn you about the drug cartels and gang members and human smugglers in YOUR OWN COUNTRY!
For the right price, human smugglers can bring anyone from any country and transport them to any city in the U.S. Certainly there’s no shortage of sanctuary cities in which to hide.
California and New Mexico are great places to hide. They have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy so what better place to stay.

And did you know : A new report from the Pew Hispanic Center finds that 8 percent of all babies born in the United States in 2008 are the children of illegal immigrants. That’s roughly 340,000 out of 4.3 million births.

So if you have 340,000 new births a years and you have 2 parents who gave birth to the darling little anchor baby, you have 680,000 illegal alien parents. But ICE says they can’t handle more than 400,000 criminal aliens a year.
So even if they were all criminals (in ICE’s eyes) and you deported them all, you have a net gain of 280,000 a year!
And that doesn’t even count the non-anchors or the non-criminals (in ICE’s eyes)!
No problem here, just move along…. “No administration in the history of this nation removed more illegal immigrants from the country than we did last year.”–ICE Director John Morton.

Great, instead of a biblical flood, we just have a 500-year flood. I know I’m impressed!
These are people who don’t even want to acknowledge the full extent of the problem to begin with, but want to focus on the 2 trees in the forest fire that aren’t burning and say how great they are that they saved 1 more tree than the last crew did…
The study also found that while illegal immigrants account for four percent of the adult population of the United States, the children of undocumented immigrants account for seven percent of the population under 18.
And this has absolutely no economic and social impact of any kind!


That’s why we need Comprehensive Amnesty!  So that problem will just go away!
After all, it’s only the “criminal” ones ICE wants. Well sort of…
In a reprehensible move for an agency charged with protecting the nation, the Department of Homeland Security has released nearly 500 illegal immigrants—who remain fugitives—from terrorist-sponsoring countries and others known to present a danger to the U.S.
They caught them and then they RELEASED THEM!

When asked how such individuals, considered deportable, could be released on their own recognizance to disappear inside the U.S., an ICE spokeswoman said it’s impossible to detain every illegal, so only those meeting mandatory detention requirements, such as having a criminal record, are kept in custody. Merely being from a state sponsor of terror or even a country of interest is not enough.
The appalling information was revealed this week by a conservative news publication that obtained government records under the Freedom of Information Act. The records show that from 2007 to 2009, the Department of Homeland Security caught and released 481 illegal aliens from nations designated by the State Department as sponsors of terrorism or “countries of interest.”
The dangerous illegal immigrants remain fugitives whose whereabouts are unknown, according to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) database accessed by the news group. All came from four nations that sponsor terrorism—Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba—or countries determined by the U.S. government to present a threat. Those include Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.
The information obtained in the public records request includes the date that each illegal immigrant was taken into custody by the federal government, which ICE jurisdiction arrested them, the date they were released, the status of their case and other personal details about the alien. The records specifically state that there are 481 “active” cases for “fugitives” from the four state sponsors of terror and nine of the 10 “countries of interest.”
Cuba has the most with 137, followed by Nigeria (97), Pakistan (87) and Lebanon (34). Iran and Iraq have 29 and 26 respectively and Somalia 22. The rest include Somalia (22), Sudan (14), Syria (13) and Yemen and Algeria with eight each. Afghanistan has four and Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, has two.
Now that’s “racial profiling” for you…

ICE justifies their release by explaining that the immigration detention system can only accommodate a portion of the 1.6 million aliens being processed in the country. Everyone can’t be detained, so “we have to prioritize who we put in detention,” says an ICE official. Apparently the U.S. government doesn’t consider it a priority to keep undocumented nationals from terrorist-sponsoring nations from roaming freely throughout the country.(CNS)

Want to know why the feds would be “overwhelmed” as Judge Bolton put it in her decision on SB1070, well, now you have the answer:
The new guidelines are outlined in a June 29 memo from Assistant Secretary John Morton, who heads the agency, to all ICE employees regarding the apprehension, detention and removal of illegal immigrants, noting that the agency “only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal-alien population in the United States.”
Mr. Morton said ICE needed to focus wisely on the limited resources Congress had provided the agency and would “prioritize the apprehension and removal of aliens who only pose a threat to national security and/or public safety, such as criminals and terrorists.”
So that’s why they let the 481 potential terrorists go.

“With this prioritization, we will ensure that our work has the greatest possible impact and most effectively advances our mission,” Mr. Morton said, adding that the new guidelines were necessary “in light of the large number of administrative violations the agency is charged with addressing and the limited enforcement resources the agency has available.”
One high-ranking ICE official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the memo publicly, said agents at a major field office who inquired were told, “Arresting and deporting aliens was administrative work, and that as ICE criminal investigators, they were not going to do administrative duties.”(Newsmax and IBD)

So what they are saying is that the problem they’ve been ignoring for a generation is now so big they can’t deal with it, but they are going to tout how much more of the broken dike he is sticking his finger in and touting how great it is that he has 3 fingers in instead of one!
And because of that, we need amnesty.
No! what we need is secure border, then when you deport them, they stay deported!
They don’t come back multiple times. You don’t have signs on the border warning people to stay away from THEM.
Then you talk about what to do with the non-criminal ones. BUT ONLY after you have an army of little dutch boys plug up every hole in the dike FIRST!
10 Years ago we could not conceive of a group of men flying planes into the Twin Towers (unless you remember that “Lone Gunmen” pilot 7 months before that is– but that was fiction ) and shoe bombers and panty bombers and the like.
So why do we lack the imagination to think that terrorists will just stroll across the border and blow something up??
Because the administration and the political elites don’t wanna go there.
And if you go there, you’re a “racist”.
Meanwhile, if you’re a non-criminal alien from a terrorist country, come on in, the climate’s fine. Don’t do anything to get noticed until you blow up a building or kill 3000 more people. ICE won’t bother with you.
They have priorities, after all!!

Border security is national security.

The Democrat Strategy for 2010 Part 1: History & Media Bias

November 2010.

The most important election in American History.
And the Democrats know it.
So, get ready for anything goes.
Because after all, the end justifies the means.
There will be all out Nuclear Race War.
Class Warfare.
Bush Derangement Syndrome will be epidemic.
You’ll up to the sky in kitchen sinks.
Nothing will actually be off limits.
Everyone of you who even hints at disagreeing with them is a Racist or an Uncle Tom.
You know who you are.


And The Mainstream Media will be right there in their propaganda roll as the Ministry of Truth.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Think how underplayed the greatest lie of the Obama administration is being ignored, That of the Health Care Mandate as a Tax then you get the idea.
Then it came out this week that many in the News Media (not just “commentators”) actively and with political forethought deliberately ignored, suppressed or actively worked against the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story when it broke and actively worked to get Obama elected in general by hook or by crook.
Absolutely no “objectivity” or “journalism” need apply.
Did you notice how fast it disappeared?  And anyone who brought it  after that was…<>…A RACIST!
And if you disagreed with Obama, you were de facto a Racist?
Then after he was elected the Tea Party sprung up, and guess what, they were Racists too!!
It was no accident. I was a calculated plan by the very journalists themselves.

Someone found a forum where “journalists” hung out and said what they really think.
But don’t expect to here it on the Mainstream Media, the very people who were saying it.
Daily Caller: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Specifically, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
ABC being the “tough questions” asked of the President about Rev. Wright in April 2008, just after it broke.
How dare they! That must be stopped!
The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”
Karl Rove played down the notion that members of the mainstream press agreed with Ackerman but he said he found it curious that such talk was tolerated within the group. It was important, he added, not to judge the motives of members who chose not to respond.
“I thought it was a revealing insight in the attitude of one minor player in the D.C. world of journalism,” Rove said of Ackerman’s comments. “It’s an even more important insight into a broader group of more prominent journalists that they seem to be willing to tolerate the suggestion that they should all tell a deliberate lie or that they should take somebody’s head and shove it through a plate glass window. I would hope that somebody would say, ‘Mr. Ackerman, do you really believe we ought to fabricate a lie about people just because we don’t agree with them?’”
Barnes added that even if there was an effort on the left to smear opponents as racists, the plan wouldn’t work.
“The charge has been made so often without any evidence that it has lost its sting,” he said. “It has become the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.”

Interview on FOX: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/publisher-neil-patel-chats-with-megyn-kelly-about-journolist/

And Now Part II: The Enemies List

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”
“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”
On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.
When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air…
“If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

A comment on the website after the stories summed it up beautifully:
This expose simply confirms what many of us have known all along. Liberals in the MSM are rigid idealogues who write for each other. They passionately believe they are on the side the angels while conservatives are just plain evil. In their world the ends justify the means and advocacy journalism is their contribution to advancing the cause. They are no better than the “journalists” who wrote for TASS or PRAVDA and their mindset is as rigid and narrow as what you would find in areas where the Taliban has complete control. 

Excerpts: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/

Tomorrow, the question will be how do you fix voters…CHEAT like You have CHEATED before!

One Hint: The Electoral College is Evil and must be stopped!

What is Old, Is New Again

First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation’s largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically,” according to the proposed resolution.
“We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made,” NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. “We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.”
Mind you Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of this earlier in the year.
In the environment where practically everything has a video recorder in it, he got bumpkiss.
It’s just fear mongering, inflammatory and more, well, racist on it’s face.
But since the Media is in bed with them, it will not be pointed out. It’s just accepted as fact that Tea Partiers are racists.
Simple.
Disagree with this president, you’re a racist.
Period.
“We see it as a threat to democracy. We see it as a threat to human rights. We certainly see it as a threat to civil rights,” McDowell said, adding that the resolution will likely pass when it’s voted upon Tuesday.
Mind you, the whole thing is baseless racism in of itself. But will the media care, No.
Hell, even the Justice Dept. won’t care, after all they won’t prosecute the New Black Panthers case in Philadelphia but will prosecute Arizona and they brought up the specter of “racial profiling” again this week.
And the media is ignoring it.
The resolution reportedly will call on “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and stand against the movement’s attempt to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”
Reached for the Barf Bag yet?

The NAACP wants to “create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors,” he added. “This is very much what the liberal agenda is about.” The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former president of NAACP’s Garland, Texas, chapter who is now a leading Tea Party activist said the idea that the Tea Party is racist or is trying to instigate a racist climate is “simply a lie.”
But end justifies the means.
The liberals want to motivate the blacks and hispanics to come out in November and crush the racist whitey.
This is their strategy to stop the expected massive losses in House and possibly the Senate.
Be as racist as possible by preaching that the “other guy” is a racist!
And you’re racism is sanctimonious!!
A Race War against an alleged Race War against the people the raging the Race War.
Orwell would be proud.
“We have to close the enthusiasm gap,” NAACP president Ben Jealous said in an interview with the Associated PressTea Party is that people see them and think about periods in history when groups like them were much more powerful than they are now, and so a lot of what we spend energy doing is explaining to people what reality is, and that the reality is that the majority from 2008 still exists.”
The KKK, maybe??
The “enthusiasm gap”? So ginning up racist hatred and division is “enthusiasm”??
They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.
“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.
Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.
“You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is “not about a black or white issue.”
“It’s not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint,” she told The Associated Press. “All of us are taxed too much.”
“I’ve gotten the statement, ‘How can you not support the brother?’” said David Webb, an organizer of New York City’s Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.
Since Obama’s election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.
“I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions,” he said. “They don’t agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community … Why can’t we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?”
Because it’s politically incorrect!
And your “brothers” will discriminate against you.
That’s Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, folks!
If you disagree, you’re a racist.
Simple.
Even the ridiculous Lebron James bore-a-thon has been dragged into the racist arena by none other than Race-Baiter extraordinaire the Rev. Jesse Jackson:
Jesse Jackson criticized Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert on Sunday, saying Gilbert sees LeBron James as a “runaway slave” and that the owner’s comments after the free-agent forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger. “His feelings of betrayal personify a slave-master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship — between business partners — and LeBron honored his contract.”
Good Grief…
Nothing is sacred.
Nothing is out of bounds.
When you will do anything, because the end justifies the means.
Even inflame a Race War that isn’t a Race War against an alleged but wholly-created-out-of-nothing Race War against you that doesn’t actually exist but it works for you if  the people think it does…

Where Mexico Stands

Where Mexico Stands

June 3, 2010 · Leave a Comment · Edit This

Just in case you wanted to know where Mexico stands in regards to “helping” with Border Security and the flood of  Illegal Aliens into the US, just read the following. Try not to pull your hair out (I don’t have a lot left to worry about).
The Mexican government is opening a satellite consular office on Catalina Island — a small resort off the California coast with a history of drug smuggling and human trafficking — to provide the island’s illegal Mexican immigrants with identification cards, The Washington Examiner has learned.
The Mexican consular office in Los Angeles issued a flier, a copy of which was obtained by The Examiner, listing the Catalina Island Country Club as the location of its satellite office. It invites Mexicans to visit the office to obtain the identification, called matricular cards, by appointment.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, said handing out matricular cards will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.
“Handing out matricular cards to Mexicans who are not in this country legally is wrong no matter where it’s done,” he said. “But on Catalina it will do more damage. It’s a small island but there’s evidence it’s being used as a portal for illegals to access mainland California.”
Rohrabacher added, “If there were a large number of Americans illegally in Mexico and the U.S. consulate was making it easier for them to stay, Mexico would never permit it.”
Mexican officials with the consular office in Los Angeles could not be reached immediately for comment. The matricular consular identification card, is issued by the Mexican government to Mexican nationals residing outside the country, regardless of immigration status. The purpose is to provide identification for opening bank accounts and obtaining other services. But the cards are usually used to skirt U.S. immigration laws, since Mexicans in the country legally have documents proving that status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said.
In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI officials called the card an unreliable form of identification. The agency said that Mexico lacks a centralized database for them, which could lead to forgery, duplication, and other forms of abuse.
Officers with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said their agency was asked by Mexican officials not to enforce U.S. immigration laws on the island while the cards were being issued.
“It amazes me every time that the Mexican government has the gall to tell us what to do,” said an ICE official, who asked not to be named. “More surprisingly is how many times we stand by and let them. This is just an example of one of hundreds of requests we’ve had to deal with.”
Well, you’re a “racist” if you don’t do exactly as the Mexican Government says, or La Raza, or the Hispanic Caucus, et al.
In April, Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies seized a boat carrying large quantities of marijuana and detained three Mexican nationals who said they were being smuggled into the United States.
The island has a sizable Mexican migrant population. Most are undocumented low-income workers. (Washington Examiner)
But if you do anything about it, YOU”RE A RACIST!!
Well, when reports show that Mexico’s 2nd largest economic engine is illegal alien patronage money you get the idea that they have no incentive to do anything about it.
Which should gall you even more when you consider what ass kissing the media and Obama did when Mexican President Calderon came here and berated us!
But I’m just a humble “racist” “teabagger”…

Arizona Strikes Back

Before beginning, here’s the warm-up act, our own “Sanctuary City” Phil, Phil Gordon, the Mayor of Phoenix:
Mayor Phil Gordon was interviewed by “ThinkProgress.org.”  Gordon says “The last thing we want in this country is an individual like J.D. Hayworth in the Congress who is full of racism, will talk forever, and use every means to push his hate.” (KFYI)
But this diatribe is not full of hate, no….not at all…


The Pre-Show:
SAY NO TO SAN DIEGO
Arizona tourists are biting back against San Diego for its city council’s decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State over its immigration law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month.
Arizona tourists are biting back against San Diego for its city council’s decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State over its immigration law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month.
Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
According to the newspaper, the convention bureau has received about 25-30 emails from Arizona residents, with some saying they are canceling their reservations and taking their money elsewhere.
That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.

Poor babies….

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”
“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancelations from Arizona guests,” Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper.
Roughly 2 million Arizonans visit San Diego each year but the recession has taken a toll on the hotel industry that was hoping for a comeback this year. Hotels are offering deep discounts to fill up their undersold rooms while the tourism board spends $7 million this spring and summer season to promote travel to the area.
San Diego Councilwoman Donna Frye said she believes some Arizona residents are acting out of a misunderstanding.
“The City Council did not pass a resolution boycotting Arizona, and I would hope that the good citizens of Arizona understand that and will continue to visit San Diego,” Frye said.
School board President Shelia Jackson said that while she was disappointed to hear of people opting to stay away from San Diego, she doesn’t regret her vote.
“It’s sad that people would cancel their plans to come here in reaction to that, but I still think we did the right thing,” Jackson said. “Certainly, we know how important tourism is to San Diego, and it wasn’t my intent to impact the tourism trade.”
The message: Don’t do as I do.
We pass sanctimonious proclamations intent on hurting Arizona tourism but don’t you dare turn around and hit us back!
That’s not fair!
San Diego to Arizona: “Look, just because we called you racist bigots…doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t visit:”
BOYCOTT THE BOYCOTTERS!
Tit for tat!
What’s good for the Goose is good for the gander!
Then we’ll see how sanctimonious they are!

And then there’s this ditty I found in a Seattle paper:
The Federal Way School District will not follow a new state requirement for collecting data on students’ ethnic backgrounds.
Starting this fall, parents of Federal Way students will have 57 race and/or ethnicities to choose from when filling out their enrollment and registration card.
However, for students who do not fill out the card, the school district has been ordered to do so on behalf of those students — and guess their ethnicity.
“Perhaps you or someone else at OSPI or (U.S. Department of Education) could help me understand how I train my staff to visually recognize the differences between a Hmong or Vietnamese, or between a Fijian and a Samoan, or between a Lummi and Makah,” Murphy wrote in a letter. “In the era when all school districts are struggling mightily to make our organizations open and welcoming to the vast variety of immigrants entering each year, we are now required to simply guess at who they are, what they are, from whence they came. There may be no more insulting an act that we could perform for incoming families.”
Some of the changes have come from the federal government, while others have been brought about by the state’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).
“Perhaps you or someone else at OSPI or (U.S. Department of Education) could help me understand how I train my staff to visually recognize the differences between a Hmong or Vietnamese, or between a Fijian and a Samoan, or between a Lummi and Makah,” Murphy wrote in a letter. “In the era when all school districts are struggling mightily to make our organizations open and welcoming to the vast variety of immigrants entering each year, we are now required to simply guess at who they are, what they are, from whence they came. There may be no more insulting an act that we could perform for incoming families.” (seattlepi-Federal way mirror)

Except maybe are you an Illegal alien?
But don’t lose sight of the fact that the Federal & State governments are asking.
But Arizona is racist for asking after a legal stop if you have any identification?
And finally:
So if a cop stops you for violating the law? say speeding.
And when he comes up to your car and ask for your ID and Insurance that they are racist, nazi pigs.
But a Census work worker comes to your house because you did answer the census and asks you all kinds of personal question, like what race you are.
They aren’t racists only because they won’t be calling ICE if they come across a Drop House.
Huh?


Now on to the main show.
Sarah Palin, the lighting rod of hate for the Left was just here and she this to say…
As calls spread for an economic boycott of Arizona, the state’s governor enlisted the help of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday to defend a new law cracking down on illegal immigration.
Jan Brewer and Palin blamed President Barack Obama for the state law, saying the measure is Arizona’s attempt to enforce immigration laws because the federal government won’t do it.
“It’s time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say, ‘We’re all Arizonans now,’” Palin said. “And in clear unison we say, ‘Mr. President: Do your job. Secure our border.‘”
The former Alaska governor appeared with Brewer at a brief news conference on Saturday. The event launched a website that Brewer said was an effort to educate America about border security and discourage an economic boycott of the state.
The site, funded by Brewer’s re-election campaign, shows pictures of Brewer and Palin and invites visitors to sign a petition opposing boycotts. It includes a list of politicians and organizations calling for the boycotts and asks visitors to call or e-mail to “let them know that you support Arizona.”
“Our purpose today is to help the rest of the nation understand the crisis which confronts our state,” Brewer said, citing the presence of human and drug smugglers.
The immigration law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by pending court challenges. It requires police enforcing another law to ask a person about his or her immigration status if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally. Being in the country illegally would become a state crime.
“I think for most American people the reaction to this would be, ‘Why haven’t the police already been doing that?’” Palin said.
Obama and some city, state and foreign governments have condemned the law, which critics say will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. Brewer on Saturday reiterated her assertion that profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated.
“The president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience,” Brewer said.
Arizona Democratic Party spokeswoman Jennifer Johnson said Brewer’s the one who has divided people, which she’s done by signing controversial bills, and “puts her political survival first every single day.”
“Every word she said today was crafted with her Republican primary in mind,” Johnson said. “Arizona is just an afterthought.”
And Democrats never ever do that. Like Obama pandering to Hispanics. No, they are as pure as the driven snow.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has had enough with the left-wing attacks on her state after its legislature passed a now controversial law to curb illegal immigration. She was especially irritated by a joke President Obama made about this law at the recent White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
Back then Obama said, once again proving he has sense of humor: “We all know what happens in Arizona when you don’t have ID — adios, amigos.”
“It’s fair to ask whether he intends to be the Commander-in-Chief or the Comic-in-Chief,” Brewer shot back yesterday when announcing the launch of a website aimed at educating the United States about her state’s new law. “Since the president’s joke was so inappropriate, I suppose, if I wanted to join in the comedian game, I could suggest that he should not give up his day job.”
Although the above made perfectly clear what she thinks of Obama, Brewer wasn’t quite done yet. “Unfortunately, though, he isn’t doing very well at that one, either,” she added as a punchline.
The president, Gov. Brewer said, apparently sees this all as “a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political gain.” It goes without saying that she – rightly – considers this a terrible tactic. “This isn’t an immigration crisis but a border security crisis,” she said to loud applause from those present. Although she’s certainly right that the Obama’s use of the race card is contemptible, I wonder what else she expected from a disciple of the infamous Saul Alinsky. Obama’s simply doing what his teacher taught him. He’s using Alinsky’s rules for radicals against his opponents, including the governor of Arizona. Is it despicable? Sure. Is it surprising though? Certainly not.(David Horowitz)


Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”:
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

And Boy do the Democrats just love to call everyone who disagrees with them a Racist. They really do.
Show your support for Arizona:
http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/622/05/622_1273195142.jpg
And a website for keeping up with the boycotters:
http://www.buycottarizona.com/Boycott_the_Boycotters.html