Obama Moves Toward American Union

U.S.-Mexico border vanishes under Obama agency program

U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada simply have been erased under a program run by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol that issues The Trusted Traveler of North America cards.

Instead of a representation of the United States, the cards issued by the agency under Barack Obama's leadership carry a logo that depicts North America as a continent, without borders to identify the United States.

Our Anti-American President

Obama's Arizona Jihad - HUMAN EVENTS

The Obama Administration’s jihad against Arizona continues to rage. Most recently, it included SB 1070 (Arizona’s new immigration law) in a report to the United Nations on human rights abuses.
[...]
I didn’t think it could get any worse than the Obama Administration suing a sovereign state for simply enforcing federal immigration law—indeed, for simply defending its citizens—but it has.
President Obama has decided to have the United Nations review the law of Arizona. You have got to be kidding! We’re now going to have countries like Cuba, Libya and Uganda sitting in judgment on Arizona’s laws? Enough is enough!
[...]
Sheriff Joe’s crack down on illegal immigration led the Mexican drug cartels to put a $1 million bounty on his head last month.

When the sheriff of America’s fourth-largest county is threatened by foreign enemies, you would think that the President would assist him. Instead, Obama is siding with the cartels. While they are sending their guns against Sheriff Joe, Obama is sending his lawyers.
[...]
Americans need to wake up! Obama’s assault on SB 1070 and Sheriff Joe has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, civil rights, or even the relationship between federal vs. state authority on immigration.

It is about Obama’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws. He won’t let the federal government enforce the law. And if a state tries to pick up their slack and protect its citizens, he sues them.

This is the Obama’s Civil Rights Division of $145 million and 399 attorneys attacking Arizona and its citizens. This is a battle of epic proportions. They have the support of highly funded left-wing open-borders legal advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Bring it on!!

Obama, Backstabber-in-Chief

'President' Barack Hussein Obama betrays his oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and betrays his duty to the sovereign state of Arizona. How many impeachable offenses will he be allowed to commit?

CNSNews.com - State Dept Referring Arizona’s Immigration Law to U.N. is Rebuffed by Arizona Sheriff – ‘Regard for the U.N. as I Do the Vermin That Hides in the Rocks’

“Well, it’s just amazing to me,” Dever told CNSNews.com. “Course, I have about as much regard for the U.N. as I do the vermin that hides in the rocks around my house here and reaches out and tries to bite me every now and then.”

The Bush administration refused to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, citing lax membership criteria that allowed countries with poor human rights records to sit on the council, including countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt.

The Obama administration joined the council, citing its imperfections but made claims that U.S. efforts could change the organization for the better.

Now, the U.S. State Department is asking the council to review possible human rights violations that supposedly could occur under the Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Arizona law.

Mexican's Actually Did Take Over Laredo Ranch

Journalistic backbiting and one-upmanship while Mexicans invade.

Despite Naysayers, Reporters Get at the Truth about What Happened in Lardeo

This is a cautionary tale about reporters eagerly attacking other reporters working a developing story. Because it’s not possible to provide evidence as quickly as some might demand it doesn’t mean the story is false.

On July 24, Kimberly Dvorak, of the Examiner, and Don Amato, of the blog Digger’s Realm, broke the story about two Texas ranches outside of Laredo, Texas, being seized by members of Los Zetas drug cartel. Today, Ms. Dvorak posted a copy of the police blotter which provides a good deal of the information necessary to confirm her initial story’s claims:


After 16 days of denials by Laredo law enforcement and local officials regarding a Mexican drug cartel takeover of a Laredo area ranch, a Texas police blotter proves the alleged incident did in fact happen and that multiple agencies responded to the scene of a seized U.S. ranch...

“On Friday 7-23-10 Laredo Webb informed that their county SWAT Team is conducting an operation in the Mines Rd. area. According to LT. Garcia with LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) received a call from a ranch owner stating that the Zetas had taken over his ranch. As per the 17 (reporting person) he informed them that they stated La Compania (area business) was taking the ranch and no one was permitted on the ranch without permission. SO (Sheriff Office) will have an unmarked green Ford Taurus with two officers stationed at Los Compadres and a white Chevy Tahoe with two officers stationed at Mineral Rd. The LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) will maintain surveillance in the area and advise if action is taken. Susp (suspect) Veh (vehicle) are described as a gray or silver Audi, a BLK (black) Escalade or Navigator and a van truck with a logo of a car wash spot free on the side. Border Patrol also has their response team on scene. Also known info of BMW’s and Corvettes entering and leaving the area. Auth LT Lichtenberger if assistance is requested LPD (Laredo Police Department) will secure the outer perimeter. (07/24/10 07:42:10 NR1873)”


Dvorak’s latest post confirmed several details that I had been able to ascertain through other sources. One important detail was different: only one ranch was investigated and under surveillance, not the two originally reported.

The original story quoted multiple anonymous sources in law enforcement and was quickly picked up by Michelle Malkin, Jawa Report, Big Peace and DBKP among others. Almost as quickly, the story was branded an Internet rumor,” “conspiracy theory,” a “hoax” or outright lies by the usual suspects from the Progressive Left/amnesty crowd.

One expected this crew to crank out immediate rebuttals–without offering any proof–such as Right-Wingers Stand By Their Fabricated Mexican Drug Cartel Raid Story.” What one didn’t expect was for Soros-financed attack dog Media Matters to cite a right-leaning blogger as evidence the story was a “rumor”–not once, but twice.

Law enforcement was not denying the story. I tried six times to get the Laredo PD to flat-out deny the story, but received a host of “can’t confirm” and “can’t say anything.” A tip for the aspiring reporter: be aware of the “non-denial denial.” Spokesmen who are trying to keep a lid on a story –because of a continuing investigation, so as not to scare off targets of surveillance, for whatever reasons — will often offer a host of creative answers in lieu of a flat-out, simple “no.” It’s often not only advisable, but necessary, to parse carefully what spokesmen say.

Local media sources confirmed on July 28 that no written statement had been issued and that no local law enforcement officers had issued a simple denial. It’s telling that despite reports of “numerous media inquiries,” local law enforcement issued no written statement for nearly a week after the story broke.

The local paper, the Laredo Morning Times, reported on the story, confirming that no law enforcement agency had gone on the record with an outright denial. After speaking several times with the paper’s reporter, Nick Georgiou, I felt that his story was very fair — but it wasn‘t a rebuttal.

However, the LMT’s article was offered as proof that the story was a hoax. As one blogger put it, “You’d think the local paper would know, wouldn’t you?”

Not content with merely disagreeing with what local law enforcement was saying, within 24 hours of the story breaking, one blogger tagged those who had reported the story “Laredo Truthers” — which likely set a record for the quickest use of the discussion-quashing “truther” label. It was after this salvo that Big Journalism published The MSM in the Fog of War: What’s Going On in Laredo, Tex.? In it, I laid out several reasons why the story might well be true.

Pat Dollard — who covered aspects of the story — said, “Keep in mind the Top Two Big Scores for bloggers: 1. The Scoop and 2. The “I’m Superior Because I Didn’t Fall For A False Scoop” post. The myth-busting Laredo “debunkers”–who are citing a phone call to a heretofor-unknown-to-them source at a police department (a source who any reporter of police matters knows may have to issue denials of events in order to protect ongoing investigations, or ongoing operations pertaining to those events) as full and final evidence of the falsity of Dvorak’s story–are chasing the second, and at this point in the game are heavily invested in it.

The final irony? In this case the only people guilty of lazy, sloppy, shoddy, agenda-driven, factually incorrect reporting — the ones who owe the world a retraction, and who owe an apology to Kimberly Dvorak.

Another guess: there is a subset of the blogosphere which is terrified that they will report a “planted story” by the Left and, by the very act of reporting, will lose “credibility.” Their motto seems to be, “If it’s not on CNN, it didn’t happen."

Why even have a New Media, if it acts like the Old Legacy Media? Whatever happened to just reporting the story — especially one that’s developing, instead of hastily rushing to quash it? Sources who come forward with information may begin by remaining anonymous. However, they may encourage others to later come forward on the record. “Anonymous” sources doesn’t necessarily mean “not credible” sources.

With the 2010 and 2012 elections coming up, there will likely be stories that take longer to develop than a single blog post. Because the MSM doesn’t quickly confirm them, they shouldn’t be strangled in the cradle by those who come late to the story or disagree from afar.

Just ask Brad Thor.

Raleigh Pro Illegal Alien Protest

They oppose border security, they called the police protecting them 'pigs' (though there were no threats), some wore t-shirts with an image of the tyrant and butcher Che Guevera, some carried communist flags, at least one threatened violence against an observer, people ineligible to vote were being registered. Some poor fool actually accused border security proponents of designating some individuals 'illegal' by virture of their existence. Their signs, flags, words, and action all reveal the kind of people who are in favor of illegal immigration. All this at a pro-illegal alien protest right here in the Tarheel State, on Wednesday.

From Katy's Conservative Corner:

Liberty, Sovereignty, and Arizona

A superb, brief summary of the principles of our government and how those principles relate to the issue of Arizona's border security law SB1070.
American Thinker: Liberty, Sovereignty, and Arizona

By Daniel H. Fernald
The American concept of sovereignty -- as expressed in our Declaration and Constitution -- is, like that of ancient Athens, directly linked to our natural liberty. Casting a vote is an act of sovereign delegation. That is, when one votes, one says, in effect, "I am unable to discharge all of the duties laid on me by my personal sovereignty. Thus, I will, along with my countrymen, choose certain individuals to represent my interests and to discharge such duties as are beyond my ability."

Each citizen votes for a mayor, who is charged with overseeing municipal services -- police, fire, and the like. We vote for state representatives and a governor in order to accomplish the same goal at the State level. Finally, we vote for federal representatives and a president in order that our laws may be enforced, and our Constitution defended, at the national level.

In each instance, we delegate -- but do not surrender -- some portion of our personal sovereignty in order to safeguard our natural rights. We do not delegate any portion of our personal sovereignty for any other purpose. We retain such sovereignty, i.e. personal liberty, as we do not delegate.

This follows from the logic of sovereignty's origin with the individual and its partial delegation for the limited purpose of safeguarding our natural rights. The State has no other legitimate function than to safeguard the natural rights of those whose collective sovereign delegation alone leads to its creation.

For example, we waive our natural right to perfect liberty by placing ourselves under the authority of police and courts, in exchange for which we rightly demand their protection. We also allow the State to function as an intermediary between us and our neighbors in property disputes. The list goes on.

The overriding point is that, without exception, every legitimate State power has been delegated to it by the People. Citizens delegate some limited part of their sovereign rights to the State in order that the state may act as a protector from outside forces, and an impartial arbiter when conflicts occur between citizens.

The State is not autonomous. It has no source of legitimate power other than the People. Whenever it acts beyond such sovereign powers as have been specifically delegated to it by the People, its action is unlawful and indeed constitutes an attack on liberty itself.

This liberty finds its most immediate, and concrete, expression in the natural, "negative" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that are pillars of the Declaration and are woven into the very fabric of the Constitution. When read without the hermeneutic pink-colored glasses favored by so much of our leftist judiciary, our Constitution clearly privileges both the individual citizen and "The People" over the federal -- not central -- government created by it.

By crafting the Constitution in this way, our Founders recognized simultaneously the necessity and the danger of joining the several sovereign States together into a larger federation, a truly "federal" government.

Two points are worthy of note here. First, the several consenting States were already sovereign prior to the creation of the federal government. They were prior existing sovereign entities. Their creation predated the federal government created by the Constitution. The People of each sovereign and consenting State had delegated some portion of their personal sovereignty in order to create a collective entity, the State (i.e., New York, Maryland, Virginia, etc.), for the express purpose of defending their natural liberties -- and for no other purpose. Thus, the exercise by the federal government of any powers not specifically granted to it by the States is a usurpation.

Second, in creating the federal government, the States merely delegate some of the powers previously delegated to them by the citizens of those States. They retained all powers not granted. That this grant was limited, well-defined, and inelastic is clearly evidenced by both the plain language of the Constitution and, more specifically, by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

With this as background, the current imbroglio, including a pending federal lawsuit, over Arizona's commonsense approach to enforcing federal laws openly flouted by the federal government emerges as far more than just a jurisdictional battle. What is at stake in Arizona is the liberty of Arizona's citizens, and by extension the liberty of every American.

The People of Arizona have delegated some part of their personal sovereignty, and hence liberty, to their elected State representatives. These same representatives have voted to incorporate federal immigration law into state law (with specific prohibitions against racial profiling -- which are, ironically enough, absent in the relevant federal statutes). That the People of Arizona overwhelmingly support this legislation passed by their servants in the legislature should be cause for celebration -- a victory for representative democracy.

Instead of valorizing the process, however, the left -- led by our own president -- demonizes a sovereign State and its People in the never-ending quest to impose its predetermined positions by any means necessary. Thus do we have the sad spectacle of so-called "liberals" who hate liberty, who despise the sovereign exercise of power by the People.

We are very far indeed from Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will to the death your right to say it." As I have written elsewhere, liberals are anti-liberty because they already "know" the truth; hence, they regard the traditional values of free inquiry -- with all of its messiness, vagaries, and inevitable culs-de-sac -- as wastes of time. They have the facts, about which no sensible person will argue. Consequently, anyone who argues with a truth-possessing liberal must not be a sensible person and is hence not worth arguing with. That such circular thinking is obviously illogical has been no bar to liberals' extensive use of it in such diverse areas as global warming, religion, and education.

The French judge, writer, and philosopher Estienne de la Boétie (1530-1563) wrote that "as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say ... that this people has not so much lost its liberty, as won its enslavement."

Despite the left's having won its own enslavement, the widespread support for Arizona's rightful exercise of its legitimate sovereignty should give us hope that the We, The People are not yet ready to follow them, lemming-like, over the cliff to be dashed on the waiting rocks of tyranny.

There is much more at stake in the pending federal lawsuit than the immigration policy of one State. Given the current balance of the Supreme Court, we may hope for a favorable outcome; even so, it is an affront to every American that We, The People should have to trust our natural liberty to the nine Solons in Washington. On such a slender thread does that which matters most so tenuously hang.

The author has written numerous academic articles and books, including Atheism Answered. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and rhetoric from Emory University and is a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. professordhf@hotmail.com

Arizona Law Already Upheld in High Courts!

National Review Online: United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? - Andy McCarthy

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

H/T Brutally Honest

Rhode Island Ahead of the Curve

Bad posture on amnesty

If he’s really upset that the same laws he has taken an oath to enforce might actually get (gulp!) enforced, why isn’t he suing Providence instead of Phoenix? They’ve been doing local immigration enforcement for years now.

As The Boston Globe-Democrat reported yesterday, “From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

Even liberal Providence, where politicians long opposed any local enforcement efforts, changed its policy in 2008 after the infamous Marco Riz case.

Riz was the illegal immigrant arrested by Providence cops twice while under a federal deportation order but released both times. He was then charged with carjacking a woman in Warwick and raping her in Providence.

Rhode Island cops now routinely contact ICE when they suspect they’ve come across an illegal immigrant. Since 2006, the number of contacts they’ve made to ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont has nearly doubled, the Globe reported. How is this significantly different than Arizona’s proposed law?

Families who fear running into the next Marco Riz might think Rhode Island is onto something. But not Team Obama.

DOJ Unable to Make a Case for Discrimination Against Arizona Security Law

While the leftist, anti-Americans howl accusations about racial profiling and discrimination against Arizona's new self-defensive law, SB1070, which enables state law enforcement officials to enforce laws regarding illegal immigration, the U.S. Department Of Justice files suit against Arizona, but pursues arcane technicalities in order to defeat Arizona's patriotic stance and to expose America to invasion because Obama's hand-picked America haters cannot make a legal case for accusations of discrimination! Not only so, but P.J. Gladnick fine article points out Obama's precise duplication of a particular offense our Declaration of Independence listed against King George III.

Priceless.

Dude, Where's My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit | NewsBusters.org

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. ---Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence.

Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn't include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit:
As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented.

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.


Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration.

The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit:
PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona's tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don't belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down.


Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit.

So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story:
Although the lawsuit cites potential "detention and harassment" of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, "we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that's something that we would take action on."


Shh! Let's not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Obama is France!

Obama surrenders wide swaths of the sovereign state of Arizona to the civilian invasion from Mexico. There can be no excuse for either his cowardice or his hatred for America. This is another impeachable offense.

Oh Yes He Did!

On Immigration, Either Obama Or Sen. Kyl Is Lying – The Press Isn’t Asking

The White House responded on Monday morning with a flat denial. Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said: “The President didn’t say that. Sen. Kyl knows the President didn’t say that.” That last phrase is inflammatory as it flatly claims that Sen. Kyl is deliberately lying about this issue.

Impeachment is now required!

Obama Extorts Citizens for Support of His Anti-American Agenda

If not before, then certainly now, Obama is worthy of impeachment at the very least.

H/T XtnYoda