de dos mentiroso enfrentado

Translation: Two Faced Liar. 🙂

REPUBLICAN PARTY BUSTED—
The Grand Old Party (Of Establishment Elites) promised amnesty in their Spanish version of the State of the Union response.
And they thought they’d get away with it.

4/8 US-MEXICO-IMMIGRATION    "LEFT BEHINREPUBLICAN PARTY BUSTED—
The Grand Old Party promised amnesty in their Spanish version of the State of the Union response.
And they thought they’d get away with it.

Unreal.

And if you think this is a “conspiracy nut” thing or an “extreme” thing. Consider this:

Rachel Maddow points out that for the second year in a row, the Spanish-language version of the Republican response to the State of the Union Address has included mentions of immigration reform that are not in the English-language version. (MSNBC)

Rachael Maddow, MSDNC, The MInistry of Truth, says its there. 🙂

And one of the faithful on the twitter board on that very page:

Thanks, Rachel, for exposing the sneakiness of the GOP. The Hispanic GOP rebuttal is a sneaky attempt to sway gullible Hispanic folks. 

Liberals are so dishonest and so stuck on their partisanship they don’t even see this forest for it’s trees! And I won’t even mention all the intolerant, non-diverse, non-inclusive racist remarks… 🙂
Conservative Treehouse reported:

There is a bigger controversy about to break wide-open that’s potentially far more significant than Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell approving Nikki Haley’s non-subtle attack on GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. That bigger controversy is the Spanish version of the GOP State of the Union rebuttal containing an “amnesty pledge“.

Governor Haley gave the English version, Miami Representative and party-insider Mario Diaz-Barlat delivered it in Spanish. Here’s a (paragraph by paragraph) comparison as translated by the Miami Herald (emphasis mine):

English (Via Haley): No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.

Spanish (Via Diaz-Barlat): No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love the United States should ever feel unwelcome in this country. It’s not who we are.

English: At the same time, that does not mean we just flat out open our borders. We can’t do that. We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.

Spanish: At the same time, it’s obvious that our immigration system needs to be reformed. The current system puts our national security at risk and is an obstacle for our economy.

Secret Decorder ring:”Comprehensive Immigration Reform”=Amnesty

English: We must fix our broken immigration system. That means stopping illegal immigration. And it means welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion. Just like we have for centuries.

Spanish: It’s essential that we find a legislative solution to protect our nation, defend our borders, offer a permanent and human solution to those who live in the shadows, respect the rule of law, modernize the visa system and push the economy forward.

Secret Decorder ring:”Comprehensive Immigration Reform”=Amnesty

It is important to remember the backdrop to this current dual narrative (one the GOPe leadership want to say publicly and one they wish to keep hidden).

Back in June 2014 Speaker John Boehner was only two days away from calling up the vote on the Senate “gang-of-eight” amnesty bill, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in the Virginia Primary.

Mario Diaz Balart along with Paul Ryan and Luis V. Gutierrez were in secret negotiations throughout the spring/summer of 2014 planning the pathway for comprehensive immigration reform.    John Boehner asked Kevin McCarthy to “whip the house” and identify if they had votes for passage:

[…]  On Tuesday June 10th Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor (Majority Leader) and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip) had lunch together discussing timing the vote Thursday night or Friday Morning.

However, later that same night the results from the 2014 Virginia primary showed an unknown conservative outsider, Dave Brat, had defeated (primaried) Eric Cantor.   At 7:00pm Tuesday night the first word went out that Cantor had lost.

~ Full Back Story

So this hidden narrative within the 2016 Republican State of the Union Rebuttal should come as no surprise.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform is the GOPe agenda they continue to hide from the electorate.

The RINO Elite is just a Power Elite who aren’t any different realistically than the Democrats.

You should remember that if Trump of Cruz start winning primaries and the RINO set out to sabotage them for their own selfish reasons.

Don’t think the RINOs will sacrifice you to Queen Hillary if it means keeping their power?

Power Corrupts. 🙂

 

 

 

 

It’s zir way or the highway

A New Years Gift brought to be the fine people of the “Tolerance”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” crowd.

The morally superior Left. 🙂

Did you call a transsexual person “he” or “she” when they preferred to be called “zhe?” According to a newly updated anti-discrimination law in New York City, you could be fined an eye-watering $250,000.

In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.

Incidents that are deemed “wilful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.

It’s not as simple as referring to transmen “he” or transwomen as “she,” either. The legislation makes it clear that if an individual desires, property owners will have to make use of “zhe,” “hir” and any other preferred pronoun. From the updated legislation:

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles.

Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir

Other violations of the law include refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities such as bathrooms that are “consistent with their gender identity,” failing to provide employee health benefits for “gender-affirming care” and “imposing different uniforms or grooming standards based on sex or gender.”

Examples of such illegal behaviour include: “requiring female bartenders to wear makeup,” “Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewellery or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair,” and “permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.”

So, Klinger on M*A*S*H could not get Col. Blake or Col. Potter fined $250,000 for objecting to him where a dress to work. (Military Protocols aside because after all, that just government sanctioned discrimination anyhow).

Not mention that Klinger being of Middle Eastern descent could also charge him with Islamophobia!

Yeah, that make perfect sense! 🙂

In other words, if a bar owner prevents male bartenders from wearing lipstick and heels, they’ll be breaking the law. They’ve now got a choice between potentially scaring off customers, and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Regardless of the establishment’s clientèle or aesthetic, every property owner will be forced to conform to the same standard.

This is the latest in what Spiked Online editor-in-chief Brendan O’Neill calls “The Crisis of Character” in the west, in which identities become grounded in subjective interpretation rather than objective reality. The state is now forcing society to recognise the subjective identities of individuals, regardless of how absurd or surreal they may seem. In New York City, recognising someone’s identity is no longer a matter of case-by-case common sense and courtesy. It’s zir way or the highway. (Breitbart)

And in Orwellian Language Manipulation and Reality Control along with Moral Relativism (where the  only moral thing is do the Leftist Politically Correct thing or be a “bigot”, “racist” or both).

The Left: We want to do whatever the fuck we want to do, and when we want to do it, because we want to do it and you heathen mongrel Neanderthals who aren’t worth of kissing our ass will just have to shut and do as you are told or else.

We are the superior beings and we will rule over you with an iron fist of “social justice”.

We are your Superiors in every way possible, now and forever.

You do as your told when you are told, or else!

<<insert maniacal laugh here>>

Welcome to end of 2015, The Year of Orwellian Madness.

Here comes 2016, the End of The World Vote.

You will bow down peasants to your new Monarch, Queen Hillary The First.

That is the only choice you will be given to avoid punishment.

Or Else, The Scarlet “B” (BIGOT) be ‘tattooed’ on your forever!

the scarlett b
You will burn in Liberal Politically Incorrect until you are re-educated and renounce your unenlightened non-diversity, non-inclusion and intolerant heathen ways.

INFIDEL.  🙂

 

 

 

The Ruling Elite Exposed

One of the biggest scandals in American politics is waiting to explode: the full story of the inside game in Washington shows how the permanent political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, yet it is routine among members of Congress. Normal individuals cannot get in on IPOs at the asking price, but politicians do so routinely. The Obama administration has been able to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to its supporters, ensuring yet more campaign donations. An entire class of investors now makes all of its profits based on influence and access in Washington. Peter Schweizer has doggedly researched through mountains of financial records, tracking complicated deals and stock trades back to the timing of briefings, votes on bills, and every other point of leverage for politicians in Washington. The result is a manifesto for revolution: the Permanent Political Class must go.
For the Palin Deranged, let it be known he has worked for her and shares her ideas so you may want to consult your Thought Police Manual before continuing…Thank you.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
The Point is not that it’s the Democrats or The Republicans doing it, it’s both!
The fact is NEITHER of them should be doing it is the point!
Martha Stewart went to Jail for “insider trading”.
Congress does it as matter of course. It’s a normal part of the day. Nothing special.
Perfectly Legal. They wrote the laws that say so! 🙂
They get opportunities that would send us normal people to jail, they can do it with abandon.
It turns out that it is not illegal for member of Congress to make stock trades using inside information they learn while working on legislation.
So they can use, say, the passing of Health Care Laws to buy and selling stocks that would be effected by it to enrich themselves.
Or an earmark for a major road to be built conveniently near property you just bought.
They could get out of the Stock Market before it crashed in 2008.
You could buy IPOs not available to normal people (Nancy Pelosi).
Conflict of Interest is not illegal for Congress. Everyone else, yes, Congress, No.
Political Intelligence groups data mine and gather the non-public info in Congress and sell it to Wall Street so they can all make money.
Yes, that evil Wall Street that is so “evil” and so is the subject of so much hypocritical demonizing.
Thus you may surmise that a political opposition to Big Brother Obama was psychologically necessary in order to provide an internal enemy posing a threat to the rule of the Party; the constantly reiterated ritual of the Two Minutes Hate help ensure that popular support for and devotion towards Big Brother is continuous.
So it’s Orwell’s  Hate Week is an event in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, designed to increase the hatred for the current enemy of the Party, as much as possible but now they have 24/7/365 newscasts and cable channels along with newspapers to keep it going ad infinitum!
But again, it’s Both Republicans and Democrats.
The Democrats tell the masses to hate Wall Street, but they are using Wall Street to get rich.
Rich people are evil.
Then they use info that would be a normal person a prison sentence to get rich.
They are the Political and Economic Elite.
They are in fact, the very thing they are saying is evil and that the class warfare is supposed to be about but they have re-directed it.
Class Warfare is a fraud. It’s a Diversion. It’s an Orwellian Hate ploy.
Fascinating. Disgusting. And perfectly Legal, for them.
One set of rules for the Ruling Elite. One set of rules for the peasants.
Is that Democracy?
No.
This is both Republicans and Democrats!
By the way: Mr. Warren “tax me more” ‘Darling of the Left’ Buffet is one of the major influences. Aw shucks…
One of the most damaging things reported by Schweizer is how Warren Buffett profited with millions from the government bailout programs he helped design. Wynton Hall, writing in Big Government says: In the wake of the $700 billion TARP bailout, Warren Buffett apparently shaped a plan to clean up toxic assets that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner later adopted–resulting in massive profits for Buffett.
Buffett proposed something he called a “public-private partnership fund.” For every $10 billion the private sector invested, Buffett said the government should put up $40 billion.
As the political debates surrounding the proposed $700 billion TARP bailout bill heated up, Buffett maintained an appearance of naivete, an “aw shucks” shtick that deferred to the judgment of politicians.  “I’m not brave enough to try to influence the Congress,” Buffett told the New York Times.
During the meeting, Buffett strongly urged Democratic members to pass the $700 billion TARP bill to avert what he warned would otherwise be “the biggest financial meltdown in American history.”
That soundbite sound familiar? 🙂
After Paulson’s exit, incoming Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tweaked the plan and rolled it out in March 2009. But according to quarterly reports from Buffett’s holdings company, Berkshire Hathaway, between the time the billionaire crafted his plan and Geithner adopted it, Buffett quietly purchased 12.4 million shares of Wells Fargo stock and 1.5 million shares of U.S. Bancorp. Once the government unveiled its “Public-Private Investment Program,” bank stocks jumped, resulting in large profits for Buffett.
In September of 2008, Buffett invested $5 billion in the over-leveraged investment house of Goldman Sachs, having obtained impressive terms: Berkshire Hathaway would receive preferred stock with a 10% dividend yield, and the option to buy another $5 billion at $115 a share.
Buffett had a strong financial interest in the bailout’s passage, says Schweizer. “If the bailout went through, it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway.”

Yet Buffett had little reason to worry; his insider political connections afforded him two guarantees. First, many members of Congress were themselves investing heavily in Berkshire Hathaway throughout the bailout talks–a move that may simply have been a good investment in an unsteady time, or else a shrewd exploitation of unique information. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), for example, snatched up $130,000 worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock.  Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also bought shares in Berkshire Hathaway, as did Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who purchased half a million dollars’ worth just days after the Wall Street bailout bill was signed.  Second, Buffett knew he had an ally in the surging Barack Obama. Buffett had backed Obama in 2008. And as Obama has himself conceded, “Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to.”

When the TARP bailout passed, Berkshire Hathaway firms received a staggering $95 billion in bailout cash from U.S. taxpayers. In total, TARP-assisted companies made up almost a third (30%) of Buffett’s entire publicly disclosed stock portfolio. The payoff:  by July 2009, Buffett’s Goldman bet and his congressional jawboning had yielded profits as high as $3.7 billion.

Incredibly, in a breathtaking public relations move, Buffett publicly complained that the government bailouts had put his company at a disadvantage,  because funders “who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government’s umbrella–have money costs that are minimal.”  Rolfe Winkler of Reuters best captured Buffet’s audacity: “It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.”

Still, despite Buffett’s apparent, and brazen, display of crony capitalism and political manipulation to produce billions in profits, Schweizer says that the most egregious part is that his behavior appears to have been entirely legal. Buffett merely leveraged his unique and powerful political connections to turn taxpayer money into massive private profits.

Now, with the 2012 presidential election right around the corner, Buffett plans to back President Obama again. In August 2011, the two men vacationed together in the plush surroundings of Martha’s Vineyard. Shortly thereafter, Buffett hosted an Obama fundraiser in New York City where contributors spent $35,800 for VIP tickets and the chance to discuss the economy with the Berkshire Hathaway CEO.

If Buffett’s political track record is any indication, his time spent alongside President Obama was an investment intended to yield a high rate of return–at taxpayers’ expense. (Big Government.com)

Aw shucks, Tax me More Warren is part of the disease, what a shock. And of Course, Obama has his ‘full support’ $$$$

In January, Obama specifically said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

We were told to change our rhetoric, to have a new “tone” of civility free of violent references.

Fast forward to now, and Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden, is telling unions they “fired the first shot” at a campaign events.

“Folks, you fired the first shot. It’s not about Barack Obama. It’s not about Joe Biden. It’s about whether middle-class people are going to be put back in the saddle again – because you are the people who make this country move,” Vice President Joe Biden said at a campaign event in Ohio today.

Thanks for leading by example, Biden.

But then again, The Unions are the Brownshirts, the army of this Adminstration and as has been chronicled in this blog many times, the incestuous $$ partners of Democrats.

So the Circle of Sleeze continues. But don’t worry, it’s <fill in the blank>’s Fault! 🙂

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

The Not-War War

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Orwell at it’s finest:

The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”

It depends on what your definition of War (or “hostilities”)  is is. 🙂

A Democrat will scream and yell when a Republican is President, but now, eh, so what…

And the Media? They are ok with it.

But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.” There are no U.S. ground troops in Libya.

President Obama declared last week that the three-month-old Libyan campaign should not be considered “hostilities.” That word is important, because it’s used in the 1973 War Powers Resolution: Presidents must obtain congressional authorization within a certain period after sending U.S. forces “into hostilities.”

Obama’s reasoning was that he did not need that authorization because U.S. forces were playing a largely supportive and logistical role, and because Libyan defenses are so battered they pose little danger. U.S. drones are still carrying out some strikes against Libyan targets.

Overall, the White House reasoned, “U.S. military operations [in Libya] are distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the resolution.”

Imminent Danger Non-Hostilities are bombing Civilians and Military on foreign soil but it’s not a War because the Left says so.

I want to see the next Republican President get away with this. 🙂

Orwell’s “blackwhite”: Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

Doublethink: To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

First, the mainstream media is irreparably slanted in its coverage and story selection.  Hypothetical: Let’s say President Bush had conspicuously dismissed typically-binding legal analyses, opting instead to stack the deck in favor of cherry-picked opinions, all in an effort to justify carrying on a war he’d started without Congress’ consideration, let alone approval.  Would the media treat such an audacious power play as anything other than a Constitutional crisis of the highest order?  He’s trampling on the Constitution!  Imperial presidency!  Lawlessness!  Separation of powers!  But this president is named Barack Obama, and he’s a Democrat. (townhall.com)

So if a Republican, Like George W. Bush goes to Congress and get approval for War and gets it he “lied to Congress” as in “Bush lied people died” and it’s an “illegal war”.

But a Democrat President starts a war on people who haven’t attacked us and we have no interest, that War is not a war because they say it’s not a war. It’s not even “hostilities”.

But spending $1 Billion dollars to drop drones and kill people in a foreign country is not War!

Why? because a Democrat started it.

Orwell would be proud of you my son.

On a message board I posted a question, “If George Bush would have just lobbed missiles at Saddam and that was all he did would they have been happy with that like they are with Obama?”

Response: crickets. Then I was attacked as “repuke” (the far left’s term for a republican).

It was predictable.

This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the Office of Legal Counsel as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t.

Just like he won’t go to Congress for authorization because he will fail and he knows it.

So lets obfuscate and play word games. And the Liberal media is happy to go along with it.

Second, forget the media for a moment and consider the precedent Obama is embracing.  According to his reading of the law, a president can initiate hostilities against a foreign nation, deploy American troops and resources abroad for months, hand off operations to a virtually wholly-owned US subidiary (NATO), then have his political team issue a ruling that the hostilities aren’t really hostilities, thus circumventing any checks from the people’s branch.

“Frankly, I think cutting off funding in the middle of a military operation when we have people engaged is always a mistake,” Defense Secretary Gates told “Fox News Sunday.”

But it’s not a War! it’s not even “hostilities” but it is a “military operation” that is not subject to oversight by anyone. Well, at least it was upgraded from what it used to be: A time- and scope- limited kinetic military action. 🙂

Rejoice.

And these are the guys you want in charge of your Health Care!! 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Amnesty Bandwagon 2011

What is old, is new again. It’s not like Liberals actually care what you think. They just want to force you to think their way.

In his speech, Obama referred to “immigrants” six times and “immigration” seven times and said the United States is a “nation of laws.” But he did not use the words “legal” or “illegal” in his speech.

“It can be tempting to think that those coming to America today are somehow different from us,” Obama said. “And we need to not have amnesia about how we populated this country.”

Obama said we should “look at that migrant farmer and see our own grandfather disembarking at Ellis Island, or Angel Island in San Francisco Bay,” he said, “and to look at that young mother, newly arrived in this country, and see our own grandmothers leaving Italy or Ireland or Eastern Europe in search of something better.”

Notice the Orwellian use of language (or lack of it- like legal and illegal). Classic Orwell.

Notice, that Ellis Island was Legal Immigration and crossing the border without permission, documentation or any kind of screening at all, is made to be the equivalent.

Illegal Immigrant= Immigrant. Not distinction.

So if you think there is one, it must be because of race. 🙂

So when did you stop being a racist? 🙂

And you can never, ever be too hyperbolic if you’re a liberal…Case in point:

illegal immigration t-shirt

The public relations campaign for President Obama’s latest revival of “immigration reform” makes one thing crystal clear: This is not, and never has been, about homeland security. This is not, and never has been, about economic security. It’s about political security, plain and cynical.

In conjunction with Tuesday’s renewed White House push in Texas for a “new pathway to citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants, disgruntled Latino activists are ratcheting up their radical anti-enforcement rhetoric. Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez — a persistent critic on Obama’s left flank — lambasted federal workplace enforcement raids this weekend. On Sunday, he repeated his hyperbolic attacks on homeland security agents “terrorizing” neighborhoods and ripping babies from the breasts of nursing moms. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made no public effort to defend her employees.

On campuses across the country, unhappy ethnic college student groups have turned up the heat on Democrats to resurrect the “DREAM Act” nightmare for the 12th time in a decade. The legislation — persistently rejected by a bipartisan majority on Capitol Hill — would provide illegal aliens (not just teenagers, but students up to age 35) federal education access and benefits, plus a conditional pass from deportation and a special path toward green cards and U.S. citizenship for themselves and unlimited relatives.

Obama argues that his comprehensive amnesty plan would boost America’s bottom line. But the open-borders math doesn’t add up. The Congressional Budget Office score of the last DREAM Act package estimates that “the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021.” And that doesn’t include the costs of the unlimited family members the millions of DREAM Act beneficiaries would be able to bring to the U.S. A separate cost analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies concluded that the illegal alien DREAM Act bailout would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year and “crowd out” U.S. students in the classroom.

To help gloss over those sobering realities and blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration, Obama summoned Latino celebrities such as actresses Eva Longoria and Rosario Dawson. The starlets — deemed important “stakeholders” in the immigration policy debate by the celebrity in chief — have served as glamorous distractions from the vocal complaints of Southwest governors, ranchers, farmers and other victims of continued border chaos. These are the real stakeholders whose lives and livelihoods are at risk. But none had a seat at the Hollywood-filled table.

While proudly emphasizing her ethnic loyalties, Dawson (an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law) insists immigration reform “isn’t just a Mexican” or Latino issue. But for more candid liberal strategists, the illegal alien amnesty bandwagon is nothing more than a tool to motivate current and future Latinos to protect the Democrats’ grip on power. Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of Obama’s deep-pocketed backers at the Service Employees International Union, laid out the stakes in an interview with MSNBC:

“Clearly with immigration reform and any other kind of reform that would benefit the Latino community, we have to make sure that our voices are heard in the ballot box. There are approximately 23 million Latinos that are eligible to vote, yet only 10 million voted in 2008.”

SEIU’s goal: “If we increase the turnout from 10 million to anywhere between 12 and 15 million, we’re going to have an outsized impact on the election in 2012.”

If, as widely expected, Obama fails to deliver amnesty through the legislative process, there’s always amnesty by executive fiat. White House insiders first floated the idea in June 2010 to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. This administration has accomplished its major policy agenda items through force, fiat and fraud. Immigration will be no different.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding, there is no Hollywood-Washington-Big Labor lobby to speak for them. While Obama’s homeland security officials hang their “mission accomplished” banner over the border, the feds have barely made a dent in the three-year naturalization application backlog or the 400,000-deportation fugitive problem.

Meanwhile, law enforcement witnesses told a House subcommittee last month that border smuggling has grown so out of control that federal prosecutors are simply declining to pursue cases. Cochise County, Arizona, Sheriff Larry Dever testified about the feds’ so-called “Turn Back South” policy — which includes lowering thresholds for drug and smuggling prosecutions, and permitting border-crossers at least seven strikes before being charged with immigration misdemeanors. And just last week, the General Accounting Office reported another massive 1.6 million illegal visa overstayers backlog — a problem exposed by five of the 19 September 11 hijackers who benefited from systemic failure to enforce visa regulations.

So much for “never forget.” (Michelle Malkin)

There’s a lot of wrestling today over what Barack Obama’s immigration speech means. I would submit it means about the same thing it did the last time he gave it— in July 2010.

Here is the transcript of one Obama immigration speech. Here is the text of another immigration speech. Without looking at the dates, I dare you to tell them apart.

Below are the pertinent parts of, well, both speeches. Remember when the 2010 speech kicked off a serious, concentrated effort to move comprehensive immigration reform through Congress through the heroic efforts of Obama, the bipartisan zen master? Yeah, me neither. Often, an Obama speech is just a kick-off for…more Obama speeches.

2011: At times, there has been fear and resentment directed towards newcomers, especially in hard economic times.

2010: Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.

2011: And then when I think about immigration I think about the naturalization ceremonies that we’ve held at the White House for members of our military.  Nothing could be more inspiring.  Even though they were not yet citizens when they joined our military, these men and women signed up to serve…

Another was a woman named Perla Ramos who was born and raised in Mexico and came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and joined the Navy.  And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history we write day by day.”

2010: This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces. Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”

2011: What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.  (Applause.)  All of us deserve our freedoms and our pursuit of happiness.  In embracing America, you can become American.

2010: …and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

2011: We can point to the genius of Einstein, the designs of I. M. Pei, the stories of Isaac Asimov, the entire industries that were forged by Andrew Carnegie.

2010: The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.

2011: That’s the promise of this country — that anyone can write the next chapter in our story

2010: That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

2011: That’s one reason it’s been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system.  When an issue is this complex, when it raises such strong feelings, it’s easier for politicians to defer until the problem the next election.

2010: Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

2011: Today, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States.  Some crossed the border illegally.  Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas.  Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families.

2010: The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.

2011: Also, because undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, where they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses that skirt taxes, and pay workers less than the minimum wage, or cut corners with health and safety laws, this puts companies who follow the rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime or just a safe place to work, it puts those businesses at a disadvantage.

2010: Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. (Mary Katherine Ham)

So what if they were defeated the last time and the time before that. Liberals don’t care.

As Charlie Sheen would say, “winning!” 🙂

By Any Means Necessary

The most liberal court in the land has struck again. The Ninth Circus Court of Liberal Appeals has ruled that you’d don’t have to prove you’re a citizen to vote!

The very law they upheld and has been on the books for 6 years they tossed out the week before the election where liberals are going to get creamed.

Coincidence? Not with Liberals.

And this same circus is going to take up SB 1070 next week also.

Can you say the liberal fix is in!

And guess who’s helping them out, Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Anyone for revoking anything with her name on it?

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement. So all the Illegals need is their fake IDs to vote for Democrats. Gee, that makes me feel so much better!

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration.

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

So I guess if you want to intimidate voters you’d better be black and liberal so Eric Holder & Co will not prosecute you or else!!

To protect the integrity of the democratic process we have to protect the illegal voters if they want to vote for Democrats.

So a State law that “supersedes” and “goes beyond” Federal Law is struck down. Gee, that argument sounds familiar somehow? 😦

Perales (MALDEF Lawyer) compared Proposition 200 to the oft-called SB 1040, a controversial Arizona law that allows police to ask the immigration status of people stopped for other reasons, which critics call racial profiling.

“Basically, you have a state law superseding federal law,” she said of 1040. “Arizona is creating an independent scheme, whether it’s immigration or voter registration, in violation of known law.”(SA.com)

The dingbat liberals can’t even get their facts straight! It’s SB1070 you progressive liberal twit!!

“Once again, we have activist judges ignoring the rule of law and the voters, that is citizens, they apparently are ok with illegal votes or non-citizens voting. This absolutely flies in the face of common sense,” says Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa the author of Proposition 200 in 2004.

“The Justice Department gave Proposition a thumbs up and found no conflict with the voting rights act.  I also had 7 court rulings, including a 9th Circuit Court all upholding the law just 3 years ago. Judge O’Connor has also violated the canons about political activity when she did a robo call in Nevada on the Proposition to merit select of Judges, apparently another example of her lack of trust and respect of We The People.

So now, in the age of Obama and Eric “Social Justice” Holder we just toss out or legal precedent and go with what works for our ideology now.

Gee, that make me feel so much better about the courts.

“So what is the message from these judges? If an illegal alien is trying to register to vote, it is okay to ask them if they are a citizen, just don’t make them prove it. You have got to be kidding!” says Sen. Pearce.

Danny Ortega, a Phoenix attorney who helped challenge Proposition 200 on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. “It will protect their right (the poor) to vote. That’s what this is all about.”

Where’s my Barf Bag!??

So do you think Eric Holder’s Social Justice Dept will use this against Arizona next week when they come after us again?

Oh, and On Dec. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear appeals against Arizona’s 2007 employer-sanctions law, which prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Employer sanctions was something the President himself has advocated for,at least in public when it suited him politically. Not so much now.

Do you think this was coincidence? 🙂

Don’t you feel better now? 🙂

So by the end of the year Illegal Aliens could have more rights than you do.

Why More?

Because, if you try to stop them from doing anything illegal that benefits the Progressive Liberal Agenda the courts and the Social Justice Police will be there to STOP YOU.

You evil, disenfranchising racist you! How dare you want them to follow the law.

Shame on you!

Go to the Back of the bus!! 🙂

Political Cartoon by Glenn McCoy

The Constitution 2010 Edition

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

The following apparently has been around for about 10 years and I may have used it in the past but I still love it. (Which means a liberal would hate it-which is another reason to love it).

So, not for the first time ever, What I’m Calling the The Constitution Update 2010 is presented with full editorial comments along the way. 🙂

“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”

Class Warfare Liberals are tedious,evil, and need to be stopped.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

Addendum: Nor a house with a cheap mortgage just because you want one and the liberals want you to have it, health care paid by someone else, A mandated “penalty” tax if you don’t agree, or a vacation in Fiji every year.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave t he room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

Addendum:  That includes Islamophobia, Homophobia, and any other phobia the liberal Politically Correct can come up with to try and make you as guilt-ridden and as cowed they want you to be.

It also means that you’re not a racist if you disagree with a Liberal.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy..

Addendum: Tort Reform is not evil. And if you spill your hot coffee, don’t go looking for a lawyer to sue someone almost immediately.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes …

Addendum: 99 weeks of unemployment is ok. But not raising taxes in a recession is evil. Now that’s a liberal for you.
Illegal Immigration still means ILLEGAL. Period.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

Addendum: See NHS.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

Addendum: But if you’re a minority and your the perp, Call The US DOJ, ask for Eric Holder, I’m sure he can get you off.

If Illegally here in the first place: Call Gloria Alred. She use you for her own ego stroke , but everyone will know who you are.

And if that doesn’t work, Hilda Solis wants to hear from you.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
Addendum: Unless you get elected to Congress that is…then it’s practically a pre-requisite that you lie, cheat and steal.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

Addendum: 99 weeks of unemployment? Turning down job offers because unemployment pays better? WTF!

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Addendum: But boy will the Liberal try to spend your way to happiness with your money. It will be a colossal failure. But don’t worry, it won’t be their fault. After all, they are perpetual victims even if they are the perpetrator!

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly….)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution.

Addendum: The Classroom is not a socialist test kitchen where you indoctrinate kids to your political philosophy so that when they reach voting age they have no idea what the real history and traditions of this country are and are easily manipulated into doing their Master’s bidding.

Addendum:  Christianity is basically good. Unlike what Liberals think (unless they are trying to convince you that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim then they are useful).

Blowing people up if you disagree with them seems to be tolerable to Liberals as long as it’s not them.

The separation of church and state works for liberals only in destroying God, because their God is Government. We the People, disagree.

And I’m an agnostic to boot! So there! 🙂