Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (and author of numerous immigration enforcement laws) discussed the two pieces of E-verify legislation in Washington, the Smith bill versus the Grassley Senate version. (E-verify is the federal program by which businesses can quickly check online whether a prospective employee is a legal worker.) The talk was held at a meeting of the Missouri Eagle Forum, where Jessica Vaughan of CIS also commented on E-verify, speaking favorably of the Smith proposal; Watch here.
Many agree with Tom Tancredo who warned, “States should not be barred from employment-related enforcement.”
Kobach went on to voice distrust of legislation where the Chamber of Commerce apparently had the final say, after the organization has been one of the most dogged enemies of border and workplace enforcement.
Immigration is the easy way to invasion in the 21st century, thanks to the political correctness that is deeply entrenched in elected officials and the willing idiots in the liberal media. Elites have learned nothing from the experience of Europe, where multicultural immigration (aka Muslims) is now admitted to have been a failure there by top political leaders. Elites in this country naively hope that the Islam-connected violence which Europe has experienced won’t happen here.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. – The proposed mosque at Ground Zero has sparked a heated national debate in recent months. But just a few miles away in Brooklyn, another mega-mosque controversy is brewing.
Sheepshead Bay is “old school” New York. It’s the kind of place where generations of Italians, Irish, Russians and Jews have settled, drawn by the quiet charm and waterfront view of the working class, south Brooklyn neighborhood.
Voorhies Avenue — with its tidy, well-kept row houses– is typical of Sheepshead Bay, except for one major difference: a gaping hole where a very expensive mosque is planned to be built.
Many of the residents of Voorhies Avenue were born and raised on the block. They brought up their families and planned to retire there.
But now they say that’s all up in the air, thanks to the proposed mosque construction, smack dab in the middle of their residential street.
The Bay People
“We’re basically fighting for our quality of life. People invested in their houses, in their life here,” resident Victor Benari told CBN News.
Benari is a member of Bay People Inc., a local group opposed to the building of the three-story mosque on tiny Voorhies Avenue. Continue reading this article
The states continue to lead the way in defending America from the assault of multicultural immigration. The good news today is from Tennessee, where it is now the law that towns be informed when a passel of refugees are about to be dumped, er resettled by mooch agencies like Catholic Charities. The law also allows local communities to put out the unwelcome mat when they believe they cannot absorb refugees given their economies and infrastructure.
In addition to the straight news item posted below, Act for America has information about its local members who assisted with the authorship of the legislation. The group, started by Brigitte Gabriel, focuses on the national security threat posed by hostile Muslims.
Up to this point, communities have had no tools to use against unwanted refugee dumping from Washington. It will be interesting to see how well this approach works out.
Naturally the Refugee Industrial Complex is making loud complaints that Tennessee is no longer welcoming, while the diversity cultists have made a specific assault on the Bible belt. In fact, the traditional citizens behind this law merely want to protect American culture from Islam. Immigration was never supposed to destroy the nation’s values.
A bill that originated from the desk of State Sen. Jim Tracy has been signed into law that would make sure that local communities would be able to absorb refugees.
But a state immigrant rights group has blasted the new measure, calling it an “unprecedented attack on refugees.”
Called the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, the new law, signed by Gov. Bill Haslam on May 27, will require Catholic Charities, the state’s refugee program agency, to meet four times a year with local governments to plan and coordinate “the appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival …”
A number of refugees from a variety of countries, such as Somali, Burma and Egypt, have moved to Shelbyville in recent years to be closer to jobs at the Tyson Foods facility.
Tracy told the T-G in February that there has been “a lot of discussion across the state about this, particularly in Bedford County … but other counties also.” He explained at the time that the law would require resettlement agencies to let local governments know when a large number of refugees are coming “because it puts a burden on the local community.”
“Absorptive capacity” refers to a community’s ability to meet the existing needs of its current residents, the availability of affordable or low-cost housing, including existing waiting lists, and “the capacity of the local school district to meet the needs of the existing or anticipated refugee student population.”
The law also refers to “the ability of the local economy to absorb new workers without causing competition with local residents for job opportunities, displacing existing local workers, or adversely affecting the wages or working conditions of the local workforce.”
It also states that a local government can request a moratorium on new resettlement activities, by documenting that the community lacks the absorptive capacity and that further resettlement would result in an adverse impact to existing residents.
The bill passed the state house by a vote of 86-10 with passage in the Senate side by a vote of 22-9-1.
The new law has drawn the ire of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Right Coalition, which has labeled the measure the “Refugees Not Welcome Act.”
According to a statement on TIRRC’s website, “we are concerned that it will encourage local governments to pass symbolic resolutions to discourage further refugee resettlement.” Continue reading this article
The Fourth of July has gotten a lot of bashing this year from the dinosaur media. US News & World Report warned its liberal readers that taking your children to an Independence Day celebration could turn them into (gasp!) Republicans (Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing). Plus, traditional yummy foods are both unhealthy and damaging to the planet, or so we are told.
On top of that, HBO has chosen the 4th of July to roll out their “patriotic” documentary filmed by former Speaker Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra which traveled around the country to film naturalization ceremonies. Nice, huh? The immigrants came the right way, and now they are getting their just reward.
I appreciate foreigners who immigrate legally and actually like the freedoms this country offers. That’s a relief after the endless demands of millions of foreign grifters.
However, America is full, environmentally speaking, and the period of massive legal immigration needs to end just as the frontier did in 1890. Otherwise the quality of life for all will suffer. The proper number now is ZERO. The people now waiting in the legal pipeline should be welcomed with open arms but then no more.
In addition, Pelosi Jr. seemed to have a strong diversity component in her film, at least from what has been shown in advance. She said that immigrants were moving out from the big cities into the countryside and were making America a “melting pot,” so eventually there will be no escape from diversity anywhere. Pelosi asked newbie citizens what they liked best about America and an Afghan guy answered, “Girls.” A Filipino said she loved 911 on the phone: “You dial and they come right away and rescue you.” Underwhelming.
Nobody was so tasteless as to say they loved the extensive welfare system and free food for the kiddies at school. Ms Pelosi also did not ask whether the new citizens were merely grateful to be out of the third world sewer where they were unluckily born.
America has been binging on immigration for decades and it’s long past time for a national diet. Citizens are tired of being the world’s flophouse where the doors never close. Enough already.
Finally, if one is going to make a film celebrating America, then viewers might expect that Americans would be the subject. It seems that Pelosi Democrats only like foreign-born Americans, not the home-grown traditional variety, who self-identify as conservative by two to one.
HBO’s new documentary “Citizen U.S.A.: A 50 State Road Trip” is such an unabashed love letter to the country that you almost expect fireworks to burst through the TV screen at the end.
Yet the Alexandra Pelosi project also comes with so many layers of political baggage — her background as the daughter of former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the charged issue of illegal immigration and a discomfort with patriotism — that it will be hard for people to take it at face value.
Alexandra Pelosi, maker of a series of documentaries starting with the 2000 presidential campaign narrative “Journeys With George,” traveled across the country to film ceremonies where immigrants were sworn in as new U.S. citizens. New citizens explain why they took the oath and what they like about their new country in the film, which debuts at 9 p.m. EDT on July 4.
“The purpose of this journey was to show people all of the things that people in America take for granted,” Pelosi said in an interview.
It was born of personal experience. Pelosi’s husband, Michiel Vos, moved from Holland to New York when they married. The realization that he could be thrown out of the country without his wife and two children at any time prompted him to pursue citizenship. Pelosi brought her camera to film Vos’ naturalization ceremony, and followed him to other states when he had speaking engagements at similar occasions.
The film opens with Vos reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance” together with President Barack Obama. (Although Obama appeared in the film, the administration nixed one promotional idea. Pelosi appeared on Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report” last week, where host Stephen Colbert revealed that the show wanted to air a live ceremony of new citizens being sworn in. The White House said no because it didn’t think a comedy show was the right place for such an important event in the lives of new citizens.) Continue reading this article
Supervisor Jeff Stone is disgusted by liberal leaders’ crazed spending in Sacramexico and irresponsibility regarding immigration enforcement, among other things.
His new state (map shown) would include most of southern California, but with the hopeless Los Angeles County snipped off. (Nobody wants LA, particularly northern Californians who are sick of decades of water grabs.)
RIVERSIDE (CBS) — Is the state of California about to go “South”?
Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone apparently thinks so, after proposing that the county lead a campaign for as many as 13 Southern California counties to secede from the state.
Stone said in a statement late Thursday that Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties should form the new state of South California.
The creation of the new state would allow officials to focus on securing borders, balancing budgets, improving schools and creating a vibrant economy, he said.
“Our taxes are too high, our schools don’t educate our children well enough, unions and other special interests have more clout in the Legislature than the general public,” Stone said in his statement.
He unveiled his proposal on the day Gov. Jerry Brown signed budget legislation that will divert about $14 million in 2011-12 vehicle license fee revenue from four new Riverside County cities. Continue reading this article
Senator Sessions has been a long-time leader in defending American sovereignty in the Senate, a place where patriots are in short supply.
In earlier memos of analysis, he has used the list format, which is a helpful way for readers to grasp the critical details of complex legislation. The Senator excoriated the 2007 Senate amnesty bill with a list of 20 loopholes. He issued a memo last fall blasting the lame duck amnesty legislation titled Ten Things You Need to Know about S.3287, the DREAM Act.
Senator Sessions is back with another explanatory list, this time to elucidate the most recent DREAM Act, which he characterizes as worse than the previous version, which was pretty bad.
The bill is a Christmas tree of goodies for millions, including dangerous criminals, gangsters and drunk drivers (see #5). The open-borders gang in Washington is perfectly happy to endanger public safety to reward foreign lawbreakers whom the Senators dishonestly portray as innocent young people.
The DREAM Act is not going anywhere in this Congress, but the deep corruption of the legislation reveals what evil of the open-borders bunch is trying to palm off as acceptable public policy.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has issued a statement highlighing 10 things Americans need to know about the newly introduced DREAM Act. On Tuesday, the Senate Immigration Subcommittee held its first ever hearing on the DREAM Act, but few Senators were in attendance because of conflicts with other committee meetings and votes on the Senate floor.
In the release, Sen. Sessions said that the bill “would offer amnesty to over 2 million illegal aliens” and according to the Congressional Budget Office would add “more than $5 billion to the federal deficit”.
Sen. Sessions 10 points include:
1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “children.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.952 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many could be much older before petitioning for status—hardly the “children” the Act’s advocates talk about. The bill’s 35- year-old age cap on “children” applies only to the date of enactment, and the registration window will remain open indefinitely regardless of future age.
2. The DREAM Act Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard-Working, Law-Abiding Americans Proponents of the DREAM Act still have failed to acknowledge previous CBO estimates that its enactment would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion. But the number is likely to be dramatically higher, as CBO estimates failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including increased unemployment of U.S. citizens, public education costs, chain migration, litigation and fraud. Nor did the CBO account for what history has proven: passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. In addition, the CBO assumed a large portion of those who receive amnesty will obtain jobs, but there is no surplus of job opportunities. According to a June 2011 Report by the Center for Immigration Studies, the employment situation for U.S.-born workers and citizens who are young and less-educated – those most likely to compete with illegal aliens – is already bleak, with unemployment rates for those who have not completed high school at 34.6 percent. Furthermore, previous scores failed to account for those who cannot get jobs because of this competition and will claim unemployment benefits.
In addition, DHS/USCIS will have to process DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) though S.952 accounts for no fees to handle processing. This increased burden would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the costs of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and would force taxpayers to pay for amnesty.
Though the DREAM Act does not mention fees, the CBO previously assumed all illegal aliens will pay a $700 fee to submit an application. USCIS, however, recently implemented a formal process whereby fees can be waived for hardship. It is likely that most of those petitioning for status under this bill will fall within a hardship exception and not pay any fees at all. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants, and states would be on the hook for in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
3. The DREAM Act Provides a Safe Harbor for Any Alien, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly S.952 protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status”—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for millions. Though the bill requires a modest “prima facie” showing of eligibility, this is the lowest standard of legal proof and could likely be satisfied by the alien’s signature. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent an illegal alien’s removal from the United States. Such delays will increase the number of those released on bail and will increase the number of absconders. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
4. Certain Inadmissible Aliens and ALL Deportable Aliens, Including Those From High-Risk Regions, Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act Certain categories of criminal aliens who are inadmissible to the United States will be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members. The DREAM Act allows the following illegal aliens to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in document fraud, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, and aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States, even after being previously removed.
The exemption for fraud is particularly troubling because it creates a potential loophole for unknown terrorists who have defrauded immigration authorities—as was the case with the 9/11 hijackers. At the same time, limited federal resources that are better utilized tracking down such fraud will have to be directed towards reviewing potentially fraudulent claims on millions of DREAM applications. Making matters worse, the DREAM Act allows all aliens subject to deportation, including criminals and terrorists, to be eligible for amnesty.
5. Certain Criminal Aliens—Including Drunk Drivers—Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act Certain categories of criminal aliens can qualify for status under the DREAM Act. The bill includes a 1 felony/3-misdemeanor rule, similar to the 1986 amnesty rule. As a result, criminal aliens who have less than 3 misdemeanor convictions will remain eligible for legal, permanent status through the DREAM Act. Some misdemeanors can be extremely serious, such as driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, gang activity, some charges of sexual abuse of a minor, assault and battery, and even prostitution. Continue reading this article
Down in the middle paragraphs of a recent Rasmussen survey is an important point about what traditional Americans expect from new immigrants in this time of trendy (but increasingly discredited) multiculturalism: nearly three-fourths of voters queried thought that old-fashioned assimilation to this nation’s laws, language and culture is still a requirement.
The social contract of America being a welcoming society is based on newbies getting with the program of learning English, embracing American values and becoming loyal to this country. It’s not much to ask really, although the raza types busy themselves trying to insinuate Spanish into American society, aka bilingualism, along with other assaults on US culture like amnesty and hispanicization.
Most voters continue to believe U.S. society is generally fair and decent, but they aren’t quite as convinced that President Obama shares their views.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters say, generally speaking, American society is fair and decent. Twenty-six percent (26%) believe society is unfair and discriminatory. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The latest findings show little change from last month. Voter beliefs that society is fair and decent have ranged from a low of 54% to a high of 74% since early November 2006. In those same surveys, perceptions that society is unfair and discriminatory have ranged from 17% to 33%.
When it comes to the president, just 43% think he views U.S. society as generally fair and decent. Almost as many (38%) feel he sees society as unfair and discriminatory, while 19% are not sure. Voters have remained relatively divided on this question since Obama assumed office in January 2009. [. . .]
An overwhelming majority (73%) of voters say people who move to the United States from other parts of the world should adopt America’s culture, language and heritage. Only 16% say those people should maintain the culture of their own country. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided. These findings show little change for several years now. Continue reading this article
Below is a clip of Obama responding in Wednesday’s presser to a hispanic reporter’s questions about the ATF gunrunner scandal and whether he would make universal E-verify the law of the land.
Reading closely, it seems he would not sign either the Smith or Grassley version of mandatory E-verify into law unless it was part of a large amnesty package. Plus he continued the myth that E-verify is “riddled with errors” to denigrate a highly accurate program.
Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. First, if you receive a mandatory E-verify bill only without legalization, are you planning to veto that deal?
And second, on Fast and Furious, members of Congress and the government of Mexico are still waiting for answers. Are you planning to replace ATF leadership? And when can we expect the results of the current investigation?
THE PRESIDENT: On the second question, as you know, my attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into Mexico. The investigation is still pending. I’m not going to comment on a current investigation. I’ve made very clear my views that that would not be an appropriate step by the ATF, and we got to find out how that happened. As soon as the investigation is completed, I think appropriate actions will be taken.
With respect to E-verify, we need comprehensive immigration reform. I’ve said it before. I will say it again. I will say it next week. And I’ll say it six months from now. We’ve got to have a system that makes sure that we uphold our tradition as a nation of laws and that we also uphold our tradition as a nation of immigrants. And that means tough border security, going after employers that are illegally hiring and exploiting workers, making sure that we also have a pathway for legal status for those who are living in the shadows right now.
We may not be able to get everything that I would like to see in a package, but we have to have a balanced package. E-verify can be an important enforcement tool if it’s not riddled with errors, if U.S. citizens are protected — because what I don’t want is a situation in which employers are forced to set up a system that they can’t be certain works. And we don’t want to expose employers to the risk where they end up rejecting a qualified candidate for a job because the list says that that person is an illegal immigrant, and it turns out that the person isn’t an illegal immigrant. That wouldn’t be fair for the employee and would probably get the employer in trouble as well.
So I think the goal right now is to let’s continue to see if we can perfect the E-verify system. Let’s make sure that we have safeguards in place to prevent the kind of scenarios that I talked about. But let’s also not lose sight of some of the other components to immigration reform. For example, making sure that DREAM Act kids — kids who have grown up here in the United States, think of themselves as Americans, who are not legal through no fault of their own, and who are ready to invest and give back to our country and go to school and fight in our military and start businesses here — let’s make sure that those kids can stay.
We need to have a more balanced approach than just a verification system.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t have an answer as to whether the investigation is completed yet, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on the investigation if I don’t — if it’s not yet completed.
Kobach also detailed his concerns with the Smith E-verify bill (HR 2164) that specifically pre-empts state jurisdiction, which would be “a stab in the back to the states right after Arizona wins this big victory in the Supreme Court paves the way for other states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, you name it, then all of a sudden there’s this bill proposed by Lamar Smith which gives us e-verify nationally which is a good thing — it mandates all businesses use it — but the price is too high; you push the states off the field, they’re the only ones actually aggressively enforcing the law. And that why the Chamber of Commerce, which is a pro-amnesty organization, that’s why they support the Smith bill, because it’s not going to be enforced and it’s going to force the real enforcers off the field.”
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, chaired by Dick Durbin, held a hearing to promote the DREAM Act. See written witness statements here. Senator Durbin cooed that perhaps an illegal alien would become President someday, which tells you where he is coming from.
However, Senator Cornyn’s suggestion that every foreign graduate of a US university get a work visa is wrong-headed to say the least. Public policy should encourage the education of American young people, not aliens. Education analysts wonder why US students pursue law and business degrees while avoiding technical fields, but they are behaving rationally within a system that imports thousands of H-1b visa holders annually in science, engineering and IT. Cornyn is also naive for not understanding the espionage threat posed by foreign students, some sent from Red China et al for long-term burrowing.
BTW, the DREAM Act has a snowball’s chance in this Congress, but the open borders gang wants to be stroked periodically by their Democratic pals to show the love in hopes of eventual reward.
That said, I’m not convinced that a future Republican President won’t embrace the DREAM Act as a “reasonable” compromise to pick up some imaginary hispanic support. Well paid political advisors hector candidates on the advisability of diverse outreach (aka hispandering), but such amnesties rewarding lawbreakersare futile attempt to hold off the demographic tsunami that is unfriendly to values of law and borders.
Below, DREAMers dressed as graduates marched around Hollywood last year.
There’s been a lack of interest in the media about what Darrell Issa found out when he visited Mexico on Friday as part of his continuing investigation of the ATF gunrunner scandal. So it was interesting to hear a brief report from him on Tuesday.
I remember my first visit to the Abercrombie & Fitch store in downtown San Francisco some years back. The large stuffed leather rhinoceros just inside the doorway made the impression of entering a safari kind of place, where one could purchase proper equipment for a great adventure in the African bush. My shopping was limited to comfy Clark’s desert boots however.
Since then, the Abercrombie image has changed considerably to a more youthful look, shall we say. Advertising shows hunky young men and desirable young women, separately and together, some wearing clothes. The company encourages sales staff to wear outfits that epitomize the lifestyle it wants to sell. They are models; it’s part of the job.
Below, Abercrombie jeans.
Now a Muslim woman hired to work in the stockroom is suing the company because superiors told her to ditch the hijab (the headscarf which shows an Islamo-female’s submission to Allah and her husband or father).
Anyway, why would a properly docile Muslima want to work in a store where selling sex is part of the business plan? Did she mean finagle herself into a lawsuit situation to make some easy money? Or did she hope hasten the devolution of American via hijabification? (One thinks of the Muslim woman who sued for not being hired by a trendy London haircut salon where pink hair and assorted tattoos were the look: “How I nearly lost my business after refusing to hire a Muslim hair stylist who wouldn’t show her hair”).
When I see a hijabbed human working in a business, my reaction is to leave. A woman in the Islam-identification uniform is voicing a rejection of women’s struggle for equality in America, which insults everyone from Susan B. Anthony to Michele Bachman. If the Muslima wants the full sharia non-equality lifestyle, then she should live somewhere among the like-minded ummah, e.g. Saudi Arabia. The United States has a different idea.
Muslim immigration has been a disastrous policy for all Americans, but women citizens who love freedom have the most to lose.
A former stockroom worker for Abercrombie & Fitch Co. sued the clothing retailer in federal court Monday, saying she was illegally fired after refusing to remove her Muslim headscarf while on the job.
Hani Khan said a manager at the company’s Hollister Co. store at the Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo hired her while she was wearing her hijab. The manager said it was OK to wear it as long as it was in company colors, Khan said.
Four months later, the 20-year-old says a district manager and human resources manager asked if she could remove the hijab while working, and she was suspended and then fired for refusing to do so.
It’s the latest employment discrimination charge against the company’s so-called “look policy,” which critics say means images of mostly white, young, athletic-looking people. The New Albany, Ohio-based company has said it does not tolerate discrimination. Continue reading this article
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.