Warning: Constant WPCF7_VALIDATE_CONFIGURATION already defined in /home2/ltg37jq5/public_html/wp-config.php on line 92 Search Results obama illegal « Limits to Growth
According to the mainstream media, the conviction of an illegal alien Mexican for multiple instances of unlawful voting was a one-off case — no reason for the citizens to worry their little heads about widespread foreigner voting. The no problema characterization was favored by the Obama administration of course because of its open-borders policies.
On the contrary, there is a real problem, according to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has investigated the crime locally. He discussed the results of his inquiries into voter fraud in Kansas on Monday with Fox News. The shockeroo headline: 18,000 illegal aliens registered to vote (or attempted to register) in Kansas, population 2.9 million.
Also, President Trump is engaged on this issue and how to fix it.
BRIAN KILMEADE: You got a Mexican citizen living in Texas sent to prison for voting at least five times here in America. So why are so many in the media working to cover up these stores? Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach joins us right now live. Kris, you saw a lot of the dust-up over the weekend between the administration and various talk show hosts. They don’t believe there’s anything to it, there’s no proof that this happens.
KRIS KOBACH: There’s tons of proof that it happens. In Kansas we’re fighting the ACLU in a number of lawsuits so we have actually been presenting cases like this to a federal court and you mentioned the one case in Texas — we’ve got 115 cases of known non-citizens who either got on our voter rolls in Kansas or who attempted to get on our voter rolls, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg because you can’t discover most of the cases. We had a statistical analysis done of our entire voter rolls and it looks like we have as many as 18,000 cases of aliens on our voter rolls or people who attempted to get on the voter rolls and are not citizens.
And we’re just a small state. Brian, population-wise so if you take those numbers, you extrapolate to a state like Texas or California, you’re probably talking about hundreds of thousands of non-citizens on the voter rolls, and you’re absolutely right — the media on the left wants to just ignore it and say oh there’s no proof. No, we’re presenting proof in federal court, but they don’t want to put any attention on it. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, Senators Tom Cotton and David Purdue introduced their bill that would end chain migration and the diversity lottery in order to make immigration less harmful to American citizens. As America’s Senator Jeff Sessions has declared, “Immigration should serve the national interest.”
The two senators held a press conference to discuss the legislation. The initial description given by Senator Cotton was direct and well presented:
SENATOR TOM COTTON: Senator Purdue and I are unveiling what we’ve named the RAISE Act which stands for Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment. The title should give you an idea of why we’re offering this bill. Over the last 40 years we’ve seen a huge increase in immigration. As you can see in this first chart, in the past 25 years alone we’re running an average of one million immigrants per year which is far above historical norm. It’s like adding the population of Montana every year or the population of Arkansas every three years.
As the second chart shows, only one out of every 15 immigrants is coming here for employment reasons. If we really needed all of these people because of their skills, because they help the economy grow, they be coming here on say, an EB-1 or an EB-2 visa, but they’re not. Instead we let them in without consideration of our workforce’s needs. Put those two together and what do you get?
A sharp decline in wages for working Americans, as you can see here. Those with college and professional degrees are doing just fine but those with a high school diploma have seen their wages fall by two percent since 1979 and for those without one, it’s 17 percent. Now, is automation a factor? Is globalization? Sure, but there’s no denying this generation-long surge in low-skilled immigration has hurt blue-collar wages. It’s pulling the rug out from underneath them and unless we reverse this trend, we’re going to create a near-permanent underclass for whom the American Dream is always just out of reach.
Senator Purdue and I think it’s time for our immigration system to start working for American workers. The RAISE Act would help increase wages by returning immigration levels to their historical norms and rebalancing the system toward merit-based immigration. There are three main parts of the bill.
First, we reprioritize immediate family members: we keep immigration preferences for spouses and unmarried minor children of citizens and green card holders but eliminate them for extended relatives like parents, adult siblings and adult children. Second, we eliminate the 50,000 visas and the diversity lottery which is rampant with fraud provides no discernible economic for humanitarian benefits and doesn’t even promote diversity. Third, we limit the number of green cards offered to refugees to 50,000 per year which is in line with historical averages under Presidents Bush and Obama and consistent with President Trump’s recent guidance.
The net effect will be the cut annual immigration in half from 1,000,000 to 500,000 green cards per year. This approach is broadly consistent with past reform measures and it would begin to move us towards a more merit-based system like Canada and Australia have. Most important, it would promote higher wages on which working Americans can build a future whether your family came over on the Mayflower or whether you just took the oath of citizenship.
It is unconscionable for New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio to be so dangerously ignorant about drunk driving. During a discussion with CNN’s Jake Tapper about the city’s sanctuary status, the mayor asserted that drunk-driving illegal aliens are not a danger to citizens.
DE BLASIO: So, we differentiate. Anyone who is violent, anyone who is a serious threat to society, we agree we will work with the federal partners and they get deported. But we are not going to see, with a half-a-million undocumented people here — this would be true for 11 to 12 million undocumented folks in this country, the vast majority of whom are law- abiding — we are not going to see families torn apart over a very minor offense.
TAPPER: But is grand larceny or drunk driving a very minor offense?
DE BLASIO: Drunk driving that does not lead to any other negative outcome, I could define as that.
In an executive order issued on Wednesday, President Trump directed the Homeland Security Department to release periodic lists of crimes committed by illegal aliens residing in sanctuary cities:
(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.
One of the more appealing aspects to the candidacy of Donald Trump was the seriousness with which he approached illegal alien crime and his obvious compassion toward families who had lost a loved one in crimes that would have been prevented by real borders. Relatives of crime victims were invited to speak at Trump’s Republican convention.
Last April, Jamiel Shaw, standing at the podium, told a Trump campaign audience about the 2008 murder of his teenaged son who was shot and killed near his home by an exceptionally violent illegal alien gangster who nevertheless had been released onto Los Angeles streets instead of deported. Others on the stage are holding pictures of their relatives also killed by unlawful foreigners: one is Sabine Durden who is standing closest to Donald Trump.
Although this information should absolutely be made public — because the extent of illegal alien crime has routinely been hidden by authorities — it’s unclear how much effect the information will have. In certain locales, protecting illegal alien criminals is practically a religion. In San Francisco, the murder of Kate Steinle by a career alien criminal deported multiple times caused officials no regret about their sanctuary policy at all. In fact, the city doubled down on its criminal shielding program because apparently immigration diversity is the peak value of liberals.
Interestingly, during a KQED radio show on Thursday discussing sanctuary in San Francisco, Angela Chan (senior staff attorney for the Asian Law Caucus) condemned the “hysteria” surrounding the Steinle killing, which she called a “horrible tragedy” rather than a preventable crime. Funny how citizens’ deeply felt concern about injustice and public safety looks like “hysteria” to leftist political operatives.
President Trump on Wednesday ordered the Homeland Security Department to begin releasing a name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities, listing the specific crimes such as murder or robbery committed by those who have been released back into their communities under the sanctuary policies.
That was one of a number of less-noticed but potentially far-reaching moves tucked inside two new executive orders erasing decades of previous immigration enforcement policy and replacing it with the Trump plan, which calls for aggressive enforcement of existing laws.
Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents have been unshackled from the limits imposed by former President Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump said he wants to see them doing the jobs they were hired for.
He said he wants to enlist those local police and sheriff’s offices that are eager to enforce immigration law, and will punish those that throw up roadblocks — including the new name-and-shame list.
Some 279 cities and counties refused to cooperate on at least some deportations in 2016, accounting for 2,008 immigrants who were shielded, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each of those immigrants’ convictions will now be publicly listed so residents can see the level of crimes committed by those released into their communities, under the Trump orders.
Analysts said that list could help rally internal opposition to sanctuary cities, which are already rallying to defy Mr. Trump. Continue reading this article
”I want Dreamers for our children also. We’re going to work something out. On a humanitarian basis it’s a very tough situation. We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud. But that’s a very tough situation.”
Number Five: Cancel Unconstitutional Executive Orders & Enforce All Immigration Laws
We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.
But when spokesman Sean Spicer was recently questioned about the administration’s immigration priorities, he responded, “And as he said throughout the campaign, we’ve got a series of individuals we’ve got to figure out — people who have overstayed their visas, people who have committed crimes. . . So for now, the focus is going to be on people who’ve done harm to our country.”
Wait, DACA aliens stealing jobs and college slots that should go to young citizens isn’t harmful??
Certainly the murderers and rapists should be prioritized to be rounded up and sent home, but the DACA program requires a simple stop be put on enrollment. Otherwise, DACA continues open and adds aliens to the freebie list.
Furthermore, the argument that DACA aliens are innocent because they were brought by their parents as kids is not an excuse. Every young person lives at the mercy of their parents’ decisions and must sort out their circumstances given their inheritance. And why is it cruel for aliens to be forced to live in the land of their birth? Why can’t brown or hispanic people build excellent societies? Isn’t it racist to think brown persons must be rescued by white countries? Mexico would certainly be forced to work more effectively if it didn’t use immigration to the US as a crutch for its dysfunction.
As a dealmaker, President Trump should understand that the fine legal points of a permanent future DACA amnesty will not be the message sent around the non-English-speaking world. The smugglers will use the amnesty as a selling point, as they used the Trump election as a reason for a run on the border. With a DACA amnesty in fact or rumored, smugglers may pitch kids as tickets, as they did to great effect over the last couple years of Obama border anarchy. Will there even be border enforcement when kids are present?
It’s hard to limit lawbreaking into little sectors when anarchy has been the rule for years. For that reason, enforcement needs to be guaranteed, tough and all-encompassing.
President Trump should remember the wisdom of Adam Smith who observed, “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”
Finally, Roy Beck has started a Twitter campaign to fight back against the rumored DACA amnesty. I’m using the existing hashtag #EndDACA.
Who knew we wouldn’t get even a week’s break from fighting immigration amnesty?
Rep. John Lewis’ recent disparagement of President-elect Trump as not ”legitimate” has brought a minor flurry of histories of the congressman’s bogus racism accusations against political foes. Rush Limbaugh called him a Democrat Party hack and John Hinderaker defined the Georgia representative as ”an utter fraud” in a recent Powerline column.
One of the most effective was Joel Pollak’s excellent list of lies:
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is a civil rights hero. He is also one of the most partisan members of the Democratic Party, and frequently accuses his political opponents, falsely, of racism.
Lewis also uses his iconic stature to deflect criticism when he is called out for these false attacks, exploiting — and, arguably, demeaning — the civil rights movement.
Here are five of the worst recent examples of what has become, for Rep. Lewis, a shamefully routine practice.
2008: Falsely accused Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin of racism. Lewis attacked McCain and Palin, then running against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for president: “Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division,” he said, going on to suggest that the Republican ticket were creating the climate for racist terrorism. “[Democrat] George Wallace never threw a bomb … but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans … four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.” Years later, McCain still had not forgiven him: “I’ll never forgive John Lewis,” he told AL.com in 2013.
2010:Falsely claimed that Tea Party demonstrators said the “N-word” during anti-Obamacare rally. Lewis joined several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus in claiming that a crowd of thousands of Tea Party protesters on the steps of Capitol Hill had shouted the “N-word” at them when they walked through the crowd — apparently in the hope of provoking a reaction. “It surprised me that people are so mean and we can’t engage in a civil dialogue and debate,” Lewis claimed. But he never proved the accusation — and when Andrew Breitbart offered to donate $10,000, then $100,000, to the United Negro College Fund for any video evidence of the “N-word,” none surfaced — despite hundreds of cameras present.
2012: Falsely accused Republicans of wanting to take Americans back to Jim Crow. Lewis gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina in which he recalled being beaten by white racists, along with fellow Freedom Riders, in 1961. He concluded by implying that Republicans wanted to bring back those days of blood and hatred: “Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? Or do you want to keep America moving forward?”
2016: Falsely compared Donald Trump to George Wallace. Reviving his theme from 2008, Lewis said that Trump reminded him of the governors of the Jim Crow South and the police who let dogs loose on demonstrators: “I’ve been around a while and Trump reminds me so much of a lot of the things that George Wallace said and did … Sometimes I feel like I am reliving part of my past. I heard it so much growing up in the South…I heard it so much during the days of the civil rights movement. As a people, I just think we could do much better,” he told the Los Angeles Timesin an interview.
2017: Falsely claimed Trump is “illegitimate” because of a Russian “conspiracy.” Joining the tin foil hat brigade, Lewis claimed that Trump was a kind of “Manchurian Candidate” put in place by Russia: “I don’t see the president-elect as a legitimate president. … I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected.”
Update:
2016: Falsely claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) played no role in the civil rights movement. Lewis, a supporter of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency, tried to trash Sanders’s civil rights credentials. “I never saw him. I never met him,” Lewis said. Proof later emerged of Sanders’s arrest in civil rights protests in Chicago in the 1960s.
Rep. Lewis is clearly a Democrat Party man, who uses his status as a civil rights “icon” to make the most outrageous allegations of racism about political opponents without receiving public condemnation.
But he’s arguably worse than that because he has worked against the welfare of his constituents, black Americans and citizens in general by his amazingly hard-core advocacy of mass amnesty for millions of job-stealing illegal aliens.
Plus, Lewis is not just an amnesty voter and chatterbox from hell — he has applied his civil rights pixie dust to illegal immigration by using the historic style of marches, civil disobedience and arrests to the issue. In doing so, he equates black Americans’ pursuit of long-denied civil rights with invasive foreigners’ demands for equality with citizens. In 2013, he was one of eight uber-left Democrats who were arrested in a pro-amnesty action in DC when they blocked a street.
Below, in 2013 Congressmen Charlie Rangel, Luis Gutierrez, Al Green, Keith Ellison and John Lewis marched in Washington DC to promote mass amnesty for illegal aliens.
John Lewis was later arrested in an act of civil disobedience when he blocked a street near the capitol demonstrating his support for illegal alien amnesty for millions of foreign job-stealers.
As a businessman, Donald Trump measures accomplishment in projects completed, not just items kicked down the road for others to handle at a later date.
President-elect Donald Trump has a busy Inauguration Day ahead of him — in between the oath of office and the inaugural balls, he’s pledged to take some “big league” actions as part of a Day One agenda that will set the tone for his presidency.
Incoming presidents often set sights high for their first day in office, with mixed results. President Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay at the start of his presidency; yet the detention center remains open, albeit with far fewer inmates.
What Trump says he’ll do — and actually achieves — likewise could differ. But here’s an overview of what Trump may have in store for his first day.
Immigration
Trump’s presidential campaign centered on illegal immigration. It is perhaps not surprising many of his “Day One” promises fall under the immigration banner.
During the campaign, he outlined a series of steps he could take immediately, largely using executive power.
He repeatedly promised to “eliminate every unconstitutional executive order” — referring specifically to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), which granted legal status to illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, or who have children who are citizens or legal residents.
Additionally, he has pledged to suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot be properly done. And he’s vowed to instruct the State Department to “immediately suspend the Syrian refugee resettlement program” and develop a plan for a safe zone in the region.
Trump also says he intends to ask Congress to pass “Kate’s Law” – after Kate Steinle, who was killed in 2015 by an illegal immigrant – to ensure criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry receive “strong mandatory minimum sentences.” In a speech in Gettysburg, Pa., in October, he promised to yank federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities” on his first day.
In a transition video in November, he also pledged to direct the Department of Labor to investigate “all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker” on his first day in office.
His most famous campaign promise — a wall on the southern border — also has been supposedly slated for Day One action. In a speech in September in Phoenix, Ariz., Trump said on his first day, “we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, power, beautiful southern border wall.” Though Trump still is vowing to build the wall, it’s unclear what he could actually do on the first day.
He also promised the U.S. will begin deporting the approximately 2 million criminal illegal immigrants in the country — though here, too, it’s unclear what he could do on his first day.
In Tuesday’s hearing, details of the conversation between Senators Sasse and Sessions illustrate what an unworkable mess immigration enforcement has become after eight years of its dismantling by Obama.
SENATOR BEN SASSE: Senator Sessions, I’d like to talk a little bit about the Sarah Root case: I know that you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sarah Root was woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha; she’d just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe that this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant, he ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation, he was detained by Omaha police, they ultimately notified the department of Homeland Security.
This guy is a flight risk — he was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The Department of Homeland Security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas County Sheriff and the Omaha Police Department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn’t an enforcement priority. Continue reading this article
Did the Democrats learn anything remotely realistic from the whipping they got November 8 and over the Obama regime generally? Under the cool hipster president, Dem influence continued falling to historic lows, particularly at the state level, where they lost over 900 legislative seats over four years. Meanwhile, Hillary ran an inept campaign and didn’t even visit Wisconsin, arrogantly believing the state was in the bag, but Democrats blame everyone but the top perp for the White House loss.
Tucker Carlson discussed the upcoming Jeff Sessions nomination as being opposed because of his strong enforcement position on immigration, though that reason will not be discussed much in the hearing, Carlson thinks.
TUCKER CARLSON: This is really about Jeff Sessions, make no mistake at all: it’s about the Attorney General which is the most significant appointment the new president will make for a bunch of different reasons, and Jeff Sessions, of course, has been vetted; he’s been in the Senate a long time, he’s been in public life for more than 30 years, the FBI has vetted him, so there’s no question about his bona fides, there’s no question that he’s not some secret Russian agent.
They just don’t like his views and they especially don’t like his views on immigration, but they’re not going to attack on immigration because his views are actually pretty close to where the public is on immigration: secure the borders, don’t undercut American labor with low-wage immigrants etc. I mean people agree with him, so they’re going to attack him as they always do — wait for it — as a racist and that’s what they’re doing now but there’s no evidence of that at all, and it’s a slur and it lowers the tone dramatically, it’s bad for the country but that’s all they’ve got, so that’s what you’re going to hear.
STEVE DUCEY: Of course the Democrats are bringing up some what that has been depicted as a joke like 30 years ago that he made as as an example that he’s racist, but here’s the thing, Tucker, because the Democrats changed the rules a number of years ago, all these guys are gonna get through and the Democrats have only themselves to blame. . .
CARLSON: (2:45) What bothers me about this is I think the country could use a debate on immigration and trade, and those are the two issues that people are actually upset about but again, we’re not getting that. Instead you’re going to hear all kinds of implications about the character of these people — let’s debate the issues. These are real issues and I think all of us would benefit from from an adult conversation about them but we’re not going to get it.
Elections have consequences, so they say. The Associated Press reports that farmers in California fear that Trump’s promise of mass deportations means they won’t have enough cheapie Mexicans to pick the crops and are therefore investing in agricultural automation.
Democrats don’t seem to care much about Americans — their safety, education or job prospects — judging by the latest ploy from big-city mayors who are largely Ds. They recently wrote to Obama, asking him to extend federal protection to illegal aliens under DACA.
In addition, mayors of Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco are building a war chest filled with millions of taxpayer dollars to provide lawyers for the invasive foreigners’ legal defense.
One of the rationales cited in the mayors’ letter to Obama is that the illegals might have to return to violent homelands — which is pretty funny coming from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. His city is known for its high numbers of murders, with 2016 finishing out at 778 deaths, the most violent year in two decades. One analysis shows Chicago being more violent than crime-ridden Mexico City.
Mayor Bill de Blasio and 30 other city and county leaders released an open letter to President Barack Obama today, calling on him to extend executive protections for undocumented immigrants in the final weeks before President-elect Donald Trump assumes the Oval Office.
The missive was a collective effort of the Cities for Action coalition, a group of pro-immigration reform municipal leaders that also includes Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner and Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney. It expended several paragraphs praising the president for his controversial unilateral actions easing deportation enforcement—particularly the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields individuals entered the country without proper paperwork as minors.
As the country braces for Trump to implement plans to expel at least two million foreign nationals, the local officials encouraged the sitting president to allow some 740,000 people participating in DACA to apply for another two-year extension even if their current protection period has yet to expire. Continue reading this article
On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times continued its series of “Desperate Trek” extreme sob stories. The latest has some astonishing assertions, in particular that America can’t refuse bogus asylum-seekers because the consequences of rejection would be “so dire.”
It’s ridiculous that foreigners from distant lands are even allowed to claim they have a “credible fear” of whatever when they are supposed to stop at the first safe country they reach. Obviously the Africans and Asians showing up in Tijuana are just illegal aliens with an Obama-trained song and dance to get into America.
This scam has to stop. America can’t be the flophouse for a billion illegal aliens with sob stories. Hopefully the Trump administration will get to work on this fraud.
The surge of people from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean who have been trekking in ever-greater numbers across the Americas in hopes of reaching the United States presents the new U.S. administration with a conundrum.
As a more diverse group of immigrants from around the globe seeks to enter the U.S. through the Southwest border, deciding whom to let in — and whom to send back — is getting increasingly complicated.
Many of these new migrants are fleeing faraway conflicts and violent political turmoil; they may have taken arduous journeys and spent their life savings to come to America. But figuring out who is truly fleeing repression and who is actually coming here for economic reasons — as many are — is vexingly difficult, given the increasing numbers and the limited resources available to adjudicate their claims.
Letting in too many people, by lowering the bar for political asylum, will only encourage more people seeking economic opportunity to try to enter the U.S., some immigration experts worry. They note that the U.S. already lets in a million immigrants a year legally and — despite the plight of many who have made treacherous journeys to get here — can’t afford to admit everyone.
But the sheer numbers of new migrants and the lack of resources to process their claims has made it hard for true victims of persecution to prove their case — and many, immigrant advocates say, are sent back home to uncertain fates without getting a fair hearing.
Until the last several years, the overwhelming majority of those crossing the Southwest border without visas were Mexicans in search of jobs.
Today’s unauthorized arrivals are more varied, both in terms of where they are coming from and the reasons that propelled them to embark on their journeys. They include hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the violence and dire poverty of Central America, as well as smaller but rapidly growing numbers from Haiti, India, Ghana and beyond. 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.
