Arizona Senator Jon Kyl met with the North Tempe Tea Party on June 18 and revealed some Washington inside baseball — a fact that we’ve known all along. At 3:40 in the video below, Kyl remarked, “Here’s what the President said, ‘The problem is if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform’ [audible gasp from audience]. In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.
“I explained, you and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation; it also has potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform… That’s why it isn’t being done. They frankly don’t want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.”
(Senator Kyl apparently believes that eventual amnesty is a “benefit.”)
Update June 21: Fox is all over this story. The White House denied the charge, although not very convincingly since the mouthpiece felt compelled to mention the importance of “comprehensive reform.” Senator Kyl stands by his statement.
“The president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”
But Kyl’s office stood by the senator’s account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, “There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them.” He said Pfeiffer’s call for comprehensive immigration legislation “only confirms” Kyl’s story.
America to White House: the people want the feds to defend the borders against anarchy, not attack state governments that are doing the job.
That seems to be the sense of the latest Rasmussen poll, where a strong majority object to the President’s decision to take Arizona to court over its immigration law.
The Obama administration has reportedly decided to challenge Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court, but a recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. voters oppose such a challenge.
Just 26% believe the Justice Department should challenge the legality of Arizona’s law in court. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided in the survey conducted May 26 and 27.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.
When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.
Arizona voters support the state’s new immigration law more than ever, with 71% in favor of it. […]
Supporters of the law say it’s necessary because the federal government is not enforcing immigration policy and illegal immigrants are an increasing budget and public safety burden on the state.
President Obama, the president of Mexico and others including several major Hispanic organizations have complained that the law may lead to racial profiling.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the federal government by failing to enforce immigration law is more to blame for the current controversy over Arizona’s new statute than state officials are for passing it. Only 27% blame Arizona officials more for passing the law. Continue reading this article
The immigration policy page on her campaign website promises that a Gov. Whitman would eliminate sanctuary cities, pursue workplace enforcement, prohibit the dispensing of drivers licenses to illegal aliens, defend English immersion in schools and recoup prison costs from the feds, among other things.
But now that the general election beckons, Whitman thinks she can checkbook her way into hispanic support. She has already spent over $71 million of her own money just to win the primary, and is now making Spanish media more wealthy, including very expensive ads running during the World Cup soccer tournament.
Meg Whitman launched two ads on Spanish-language television stations Thursday, part of an effort to woo Latino voters turned off by the Republican gubernatorial nominee’s tough talk about illegal immigration during the GOP primary.
One of the ads highlights Whitman’s opposition to a controversial Arizona law that compels police to check the immigration status of those stopped on suspicion of a crime. It also says Whitman opposed Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot measure that would have denied taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants. The other focuses on jobs and the economy.
When asked by reporters, Whitman has consistently expressed her opposition to Proposition 187 and to the Arizona law, which became an issue during the closing weeks of the primary.
But she did not broadcast those stances in tens of millions of dollars in ads in her primary battle against Steve Poizner, who made illegal immigration a central issue. Instead, Whitman’s ads emphasized that she would be “tough as nails” on illegal immigrants, and condemned amnesty, sanctuary cities and some taxpayer benefits.
“Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal,” she said in an ad that featured her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson.
Wilson is viewed as a pariah by many in the Latino community because he was the most visible supporter of Proposition 187. In a recent Los Angeles Times- USC poll, only 16% of Latinos felt favorably toward him.
Strategists say Whitman, a billionaire who has put $91 million of her personal wealth into her campaign, must secure substantial support among Latinos if she hopes to prevail over Democrat Jerry Brown in November.
“Unless she gets over one-third of the Latino vote, I don’t care how much she spends, she’s not going to win,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who publishes the California Target Book. “She was pushed further to the right on that issue than she wanted to go, but the one key thing she remained steadfast on, even though she whispered it during the primary, was that she opposed the Arizona law.”
Whitman would do better to forget about hispandering and support law and borders without apology. Opposing Arizona on immigration enforcement is not a vote-getter among the majority population, who continue to support the state according to every mainstream poll.
Below, a Whitman ad in the language of the invader — for “una nueva California”!
And what is the reaction of the White House when border anarchy is worsening daily? Instead of sending the troops Obama promised two weeks again to Arizona Governor Brewer, the President intends to sue the state for standing up against foreign invasion. No good deed goes unpunished in the Obama administration.
Border-area parks are the front lines and an easy entrance point for illegal aliens and drug smugglers because laws designed to protect land and animals make it easier for the bad guys.
Four years after federal officials quietly surrendered thousands of acres of America’s border to Mexican drug gangs and illegals, there still are “no plans to reopen” the taxpayer-owned national park lands.
Roughly 3,500 acres of taxpayer-funded government land in Arizona have been closed to U.S. citizens since 2006 due to safety concerns fueled by drug and human smuggling along the Mexican border, according to a statement posted on the website for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
The section of land — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre refuge — has been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when “there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking,” according to the statement released Wednesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The closed area extends north from the international border for roughly three-quarters of a mile; a notice of the area’s closure has been posted on the refuge’s website since 2006. The remainder of the refuge remains open to the public for recreational activities.
“At this time there are no plans to reopen this southernmost 3/4-mile portion of the Refuge,” the statement continued. “However, since 2006 the Refuge has experienced a significant decline in violent activity in the area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
In a statement to FoxNews.com on Thursday, the director of law enforcement for the Bureau of Land Management said the agency takes visitor and employee safety very seriously.
“We have posted these signs to inform visitors to this part of Southern Arizona of the ongoing public safety issues in this area,” William Woody said in a statement. “We are committed to working with everyone engaged with public land management to ensure that all visitors and users have a safe experience on our public lands.”
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News on Wednesday that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, further underscoring the need to keep the area off-limits to Americans.
“It’s literally out of control,” Babeu said. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in the area to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. In a statement posted at the time of the closure, Mitch Ellis, manager of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, said conditions in the zone reached a point where public use of the area was not prudent.
Below, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu explained how lawless and violent the border area has become:
The military historian and classicist spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in May.
VDH thinks that going to war is largely irrational, like a lot of human activity. In the words of Thucydides, the impetus is “honor, fear and self-interest.”
Funny how the well being of citizens always falls at the bottom of the list of political leaders, if it shows up at all.
Austin, like many cities, is struggling to stretch its budget with less tax money coming in from the crappy economy. It put up a website where citizens could choose which city services they would like cut. The big brains at city-central didn’t include the day laborer center, even though it has annual price tag of $357K and caters mostly to illegal alien job thieves.
As the City of Austin tries to close anywhere from an $11 to $28 million budget gap for the FY 2011 budget, everything remains on the table. One idea that is gaining support is not coming from city leaders, but from an Austin resident.
The idea gaining traction was posted online on the city’s budget website. A citizen suggests eliminating the City’s Day Labor Center in North Austin, and it’s getting support from other residents.
Everyday about 100 people come to the City of Austin’s Day Labor site looking for work.
“I found three jobs out of here that help me pay my bills and keep my apartment and stuff,” said day laborer August Holland.
It costs tax payer $357,000 to keep the center open at 51st Street and I-35 in North Austin. City staff did not put it on the cut list.
But some Austin residents believe it should be.
The City of Austin’s budget website asks residents what to cut and what to save for next year’s budget. Paul G wrote, “Close the day labor site for illegal aliens looking for work. Closing it saves money and promotes jobs for Americans.” He seems to have struck a chord with some residents.
“I’d be curious how many people have social security cards that go in there,” said Johnny Gerace.
In 1997, Austin passed a resolution declaring the city a safe haven. It guarantees anyone coming into the city access to programs and services without being asked about their immigration status.
The City points out how valuable day laborers are to the Austin economy, saying they contribute about $1 million a year.
It’s curious how these virtuous liberals aren’t ashamed to brag on how financially advantageous it is to oppress illegal aliens. My analysis: the libs’ morality is skin deep.
Anyway, slavery lasted a long time with a another familiar argument, that the oppressed people did jobs no American wanted: “Who will pick the cotton?” slaveholders asked in 1850. Today’s willing slavettes beg to be cuffed, because they are more fortunate being ripped off in America than being an average worker in dear Mexico.
In recent weeks, the Oklahoma legislature has become even more pro-active, seeking to put a sharia-prevention initiative before the voters. Apparently some wise legislators have observed the rapid ingress of hostile Islam into European society with alarm. For example, Islamic sharia courts have been operating in Britain for several years, and the Archbishop of Canterbury thought that “constructive accommodation” with Islamic legal traditions would be a fine multicultural thing.
No one thought decades ago that Muslim immigrants would bring a completely separate society with them, rejecting the Western culture that created the freedoms they enjoy. Muslim immigration is incompatible with our values, and Oklahomans want to benefit from Europe’s mistake by sending a clear signal that they are not interested in submission.
As the late Enoch Powell remarked, “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”
Oklahoma lawmakers are asking voters to weigh in on a proposal that would ban local courts from considering Shariah or other international law in their rulings.
The unusual measure calling for an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution was approved in late May by the state Senate, sending the issue to voters in the fall in the form of a ballot question.
Though the question’s supporters have not pointed to any specific outbreak of Shariah, or Islamic law, being considered in the U.S. judicial system, they describe it as an encroaching threat. State Rep. Rex Duncan, author of the measure, has called the ballot question a “preemptive strike” against Shariah coming to his state.
Duncan said in a statement after the vote that he hopes other states will soon follow Oklahoma’s lead.
“Judges in other states and on the federal bench have increasingly turned to citing international law in their court decisions, something I and others feel is grossly inappropriate in a sovereign state such as our own,” he said.
In an interview with The Edmond Sun, Duncan said the courts’ willingness in Britain to consider Shariah has become “a cancer upon the survivability of the U.K.” He said the ballot question “will constitute a preemptive strike against Shariah Law coming to Oklahoma.”
And if you still think that worrying about sharia law in America is silly, consider this: The current nominee for the Supreme Court did not object to $20 million from Saudi Arabia in 2005 to establish a center for the study of sharia at Harvard:
Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the strength of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s moral principles today. Sessions argued that Kagan’s opposition of military recruitment on the Harvard campus – which she called a discriminatory group due to its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy – was hypocritical as she did not also protest against the creation of a new Center for Islamic Studies “and Sharia Law.”
Sessions, who spoke on Kagan as a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attacked Kagan for being “less morally principled in her approach than has been portrayed,” and questioned why she did not speak out in 2005 when a Saudi prince donated $20 million to the creation of a Center for Islamic Studies at Harvard. This showed a double-standard, he argued, because some Muslims follow Sharia Law literally, in which homosexuality is sometimes punishable by death.
One symptom of a failing state is the inability of the government to enforce the rule of law over territory, a problem that has been growing in Mexico for some time.
So it’s disturbing to see the United States officially throwing in the towel on some real estate near the border. Why do we spend $515 billion annually on the military and not be able to defend our own perimeter? What’s wrong with this picture?
(I remember being surprised after the 9/11 attacks when government officials said we needed a new agency for “homeland” security. Silly me; I thought the Pentagon was supposed to protect the nation. Actually, I still think that job should be in the hands of the military.)
About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona have been closed off to U.S. citizens due to increased violence at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.
The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.
“The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent,” said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.
“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. ”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.
“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”
How long does it take for hostile Muslims to get semi-Sharia instituted in Paris thanks to feckless legal authorities?
Not that long, as we see in this depressing example of police servilely submitting to Muslims.
The French are made of sterner stuff than their cowering officials. A few months ago, a group of non-Muslims residents of Lyon wearing pig masks entered a fast-food restaurant that had gone halal, and protested being segregated in their own country.
Perhaps the Parisians will organize some appropriate response to this disappointing decision from officials.
French police have banned a street party whose organizers planned to serve alcoholic cocktails and pork sausages in a heavily Muslim neighborhood of Paris, authorities said in a statement Tuesday.
Police said the party, called “Sausage and Booze,” could have been viewed as a provocation in the Goutte-d’Or neighborhood of northern Paris, where many Muslims pray on the streets because there are not enough mosques. Alcohol and pork are forbidden by Islam and the party had been slated for just after Friday’s main Muslim weekly prayers.
Organizers said they were holding the party to protest Islam’s encroachment on traditional French values in the neighborhood. Muslim groups had announced a counterparty serving halal, or religiously approved, food.
Police banned both events.
“Because of the organization, location, day and timing chosen, as well as the counterparty plans, this event … creates grave risks of public trouble,” the police statement said. Police also said they met at length with organizers on Tuesday before announcing the ban.
French rights group SOS Racisme praised the ban on the party, which they called it a “flagrant call for hatred.”
The woman who organized the party on Facebook and gives her name as Sylvie Francois denies any ties to the extreme right. She told the free daily Metro newspaper on Tuesday that she had launched the party as a way to “express exasperation.”
She complained that the “Islamization” of her working-class neighborhood was “more and more ostentatious,” and complained that Muslims now block several streets during Friday prayers.
“It offends my concept of the republic’s secularism, I feel increasingly excluded in the neighborhood,” Francois said.
Obviously Francois and her Facebook friends don’t like Muslims effectively taking over part of Paris. It’s still all France.
And what about the complaint that “Muslims now block several streets during Friday prayers” — is that really a problem?
Today’s example of ruinous immigration took place as British troops were being welcomed home from Afghanistan. A group calling itself “Muslims against Crusades” shrieked calumnies as the solders marched through town, calling them “murderers” and “crusaders.”
Look carefully to see the sign reading “Sharia will be in London before Democracy will be in Afghanistan.”
Violence erupted as more than 200 heroic members of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment marched through a town centre after returning from Afghanistan to vile taunts and jibes.
A new group of fanatics — who call themselves Muslims Against the Crusades — branded our brave boys “the death squad” and chanted “go to hell”.
Incredibly, the extremists were allowed to protest at the same time, and in the same street in Barking, Essex, as the soldiers’ welcome home parade.
Trouble flared as they waved placards which read: “return of the butchers”, “baby killers” and “what are you dying for? 18k.”
They chanted “wicked soldiers go to hell”, “murderers, murderers” and “sharia for UK”.
Riot police were forced to step in as they clashed with angry locals who draped themselves in England flags, belted out the national anthem and retaliated with chants of “scum” and “we pay your benefits”.
Eggs, glass bottles and pork sausages were also thrown at the group of around 40 protesters. […]
The hour-long parade was delayed as the vile extremists clashed with members of the far-right English Defence League.
Moments after the soldiers passed tensions reached boiling point and they charged through a police barricade to exchange punches with the Muslim group.
Cops piled into the mob to separate them. One man was wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and led away as the police surrounded the extremists.
Assadullah claimed the officers were more “heavy handed” with his followers but onlookers were left stunned as police circled the fanatics protecting them from angry bystanders.
Dee McEvoy, 50, from Barking, stood in front of the protest group waving two union jack flags as the soldiers passed.
She said: “I’m here for the army and the British forces. The protesters are entitled to their opinion but they are taking it out on the wrong people. They should be taking it out on the Government. This is not the reception these boys and girls deserve.”
Following is a Fox News report from this morning.
Once again, why can’t America learn from immigration mistakes overseas and end the entry of Muslims into our communities? It seems a no-brainer.
The Stop Islamization of America organizers of the terrific D-Day event have compiled a collection of segments from the many excellent speeches that inspired the thousands of participants. It’s definitely worth watching.
Much of the non-USA world is going gonzo over the the soccer World Cup now taking place in South Africa. The sport is nearly universally popular because it requires very little in the way of equipment and is easy to play.
However, in Somali territory run by al Shabaab, the Jihadist enforcers are telling local fans to enjoy at their peril:
Somali militants have threatened football fans they will be publicly flogged – or worse – if they are caught watching the World Cup on TV.
Gangs of Islamists are reported to be patrolling the areas they control looking for people watching games.
Dedicated fans are watching matches in secret, or in the few areas controlled by government forces.
On Saturday militants killed two people as they attacked a house where people were watching a game.
Militant group Hizbul-Islam also arrested 10 others at the house north-east of the capital Mogadishu where fans were watching the game between Argentina and Nigeria.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
It didn’t take long for the blond billionaire to flip-flop. In California’s 
Oklahoma is proving the opinion of many smart people that the states lead the way in protecting sovereignty.
