Friday, April 30, 2010

The Pot Calling the Kettle . . . . Racist

“Having traveled . . ., a distance of more than 1,000 miles round-trip, we were stopped more than 20 times at various checkpoints. At most of those stops, we were told to exit the vehicle and we were subjected to rigorous inspections."

A Mexican in Arizona? No. It's a quote from an American national in Mexico, where President Felipe Calderone on Monday mimicked Raul Grijalva in condemning Arizona's new law, saying: "Criminalizing immigration, which is a social and economic phenomenon, this way opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." He added: "My government cannot and will not remain indifferent when these kinds of policies go against human rights."

This from a government where visitors can be kicked out of the country without due process and face 10 years in prison, where foreigners' entrance can be rejected if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” For more on Mexico's "Draconian immigration laws, check out this week's Michelle Malkin blog.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Boycott Grijalva

Liberal Progressives, led by La Raza extremist Raul Grijalva, have called for a boycott of Arizona's businesses in opposition to a law that would help keep Border Violence in Mexico from spilling into Arizona.
Grijalva appears unconcerned about the steady kidnappings and murder of Arizona residents, almost exclusively Hispanics who resist or testify against Drug and Human traffickers. Aside from the danger his rhetoric places Arizona border citizens in, Grijalva's call threatens to put thousands of Hispanics in District 7 out of work, whether they support the law or not. Therefore I urge Arizonans to BOYCOTT GRIJALVA:

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Democrats sponsor bill that would force Puerto Rico Statehood

The House is likely to vote tomorrow on a bill created last year. The bill, deceptively presented to Republicans in Congress as nonbinding, would allow Progressives who control Puerto Rico's legislature to force a vote on statehood.
It would propose two votes designed to force an up or down vote on statehood or independence:
While the vote is presented as nonbinding, Progressives in Puerto Rico propose to seat representatives and Senators immediately after the vote, demanding recognition of their statehood based on results of the vote. Puerto Rico could become the 51st state before the end of the year.
The New York Post exposed this sham last year in an Op Ed piece by Eddie Garcia.
Puerto Rico's Pedro Pierluisi and House Progressives are hoping to sneak this by while the debate over immigration in Arizona is raging. 
Call Congressman Grijalva and other Representatives from Arizona and urge them to vote down this attempt to create and additional state (presumably Democratic voting) without properly seeking the will of the citizens of Puerto Rico.

Update: After several Bipartisan attempts to block the bill, the Puerto Rican Amnesty bill passed on Thursday. This attempt by Democrats to add 21 members to the House of Representatives and 2 Senators, now goes to the Senate. For updates see

Why Grijalva and Obama are Wrong On Immigration

 Raul Grijalva's call for ignoring border security got a sober response from Pinal County's tough new Sheriff, Paul Babeu, who today joined John McCain and john Kyl in calling for troops at the border:

Babeu says his office, which includes 60 Hispanic officers, is encountering increasingly dangerous and often violent confrontations with smugglers. He described a recent stop in which nine illegals were crowed into a Ford Taurus. "Reasonable suspicion" was pretty obvious Babeu said, when the driver ran for the bushes after being stopped by deputies.

Grijalva and Dems calls for boycotts are smacking more of liberal amnesty than anything else.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

New Law Brings Debate to the Political, Legal Forefront

Governor Jan Brewer's decision to confront border security head on has resulted in a necessary debate over the legalities and jurisdiction of enforcing immigration laws. But it also puts the Obama administration's immigration policy between a rock and a hard place. Columnists throughout the country are putting in their two cents on the issue. New York Times editorials by Rich Lowry and Steve Huntley tap the frustration of voters with immigration policy as it has been handled by the Obama administration. Meanwhile George Will addresses the legal issues.
Lindsey Graham, speaking for Republicans in the Senate, has asserted that any immigration bill will be dead on arrival unless the administration does more on border security. Brewer's decision, while angering many Hispanics, has created another front in the battle for the midterm elections. It has rallied conservatives, but will it also rally the Progressives of the Obama/Grijalva base in Southern Arizona? That remains to be seen. Caught in the middle and crucial in November will be legal Hispanic American voters. Will they side with Grijalva's LuLAC extremism against the law or as with Prop 200, side with reasonable enforcement of law in Arizona? The debate has begun.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Democratic Reps Distancing Themselves From Grijalva's Rhetoric

Gabriella Giffords continues to have run-ins with fellow Dem and border rep. Raul Grijalva.
Giffords’ spokesman C.J. Karamargin criticized Grijalva's call for a boycott of Arizona by conventions:

“The last thing Arizona needs is a potentially devastating blow to our fragile economy.”

Candidates running against Giffords wanted more. 
“I am shocked and disgusted that Rep. Grijalva would call for a boycott of our very own state, especially in these economic times,” Kelly said in a statement, calling on Giffords to “denounce this shameful rhetoric.”

“Gabrielle Giffords should denounce this extreme statement by the man who got her into office and built her political machine," Paton said in a statement Thursday. “We don't need to push more businesses out of the state with this kind of alarmist rhetoric about a bill most Arizonans support."

Grijalva's call for a boycott are another example of his warped view of the political landscape. Every law is not, as he imagines, an invitation to Hate Crimes. And threatening economic apocalypse as an elected representative is not an intelligent response. Grijalva is acting like a community organizer, not a representative of District 7. It's time for him to go back to the Barrio.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Grijalva Closes offices: No Longer Represents You, Only La Raza

District 7 Representative Raul Grijalva made clear Friday that he represents neither Arizona nor the United States by requesting that Federal officials ignore US immigration law, despite increased violence along the border in other states.

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to exercise his “authority to limit [federal] cooperation with Arizona officials in their enforcement of SB 1070,” a bill signed into law earlier today by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that forces local police to question anyone they “reasonably suspect” to be an illegal immigrant.

By making the request, Grijalva does more than protest state law, he asks federal officials to violate federal law by not assisting state officials who hand over illegals in the course of their duties. With thousands of Border Patrol agents in Arizona trained to do just that, Grijalva's request is both politically motivated and impossible to enact. It furthermore jeopardizes the safety of Arizona citizens, both Hispanic and Anglos, to drug cartel violence like that which took the life of Robert Krentz and today erupted in Juarez again.

“SB 1070 would exacerbate the problem of racial profiling . . . and would continue to compromise the civil rights of citizens, legal residents, tourists and foreign visitors,” the letter says.
Grijalva writes as if a situation already exists that "compromises the civil rights of residents in Arizona." Not so. In 2005 DPS made major changes in policy to end "racial profiling," aligning their procedures to those of Border Patrol and coordinating efforts with BP for picking up illegals when encountered. Grijalva wants this coordinated effort to stop, and he is using the law as an excuse to end the successful cooperation between local law enforcement and Border Patrol:

The letter also asks Obama to cut off any further potential Memorandums of Understanding between the Department of Homeland Security and state law enforcement officials regarding immigration enforcement. Such agreements, the letter says, “have been subject to serious concerns as local law enforcement agencies have used the new powers to target communities of color, including a disproportionate number of Latinos for arrest.”
Violent gang members, drug smugglers, and sex offenders overwhelmingly reside in these areas. this week, two suspects from "communities of color" attacked and raped a Yuma resident. One can only hope they will be "targeted for arrest" and whether illegal or not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Coordinating efforts between agencies is the right thing to do for everyone, despite Grijalva's outrage. This law is a restatement of that effort.

“This law will put every policeman in the state on notice that their main duty from now on is to question Hispanics about their citizenship,” Grijalva said. “This is a discriminatory policy that cannot be enforced without committing grave breaches of due process and equal protection. The law will not withstand legal scrutiny, and I call on the president immediately to reject it in the strongest possible terms.”
No. this law is ridiculously redundant and unnecessary in asking law enforcement to simply do their job when the Obama administration has backed away from theirs. Due process and equal protection have experienced a broad range of interpretation over the years, Mr. Grijalva. Whether or not the Arizona stands, the fact is that Arizona law enforcement has, and will continue to identify illegals and turn them over to Homeland Security officials unless those officials are instructed by the administration to violate standing rules to enforce our nation's borders, which would further alienate this administration from legal citizens, both Anglo and Hispanic.

Grijalva questioned Brewer’s priorities in signing the bill, saying that her focus “should be on working with federal officials – who have sole authority under the Constitution to create and enforce immigration policy – to achieve comprehensive reforms that protect the rights of border communities, recent immigrants, hard-working families and law-abiding businesses. This bill is nothing more than an unfunded mandate that will lead to mistrust between citizens and law enforcement. It has already made Arizona a pariah among state governments, and I am concerned that our great state’s credibility will only suffer further damage if the president does not cut it off at the knees.”
Brewer has already attempted to work with the Obama administration on this. They have ignored her. Former governor Janet Napolitano has literally snubbed her former attorney general over calls for assistance. Grijalva for his part, has stood in the way of any attempts to secure the border, from his silence over the murder of Robert Krentz, to his outrage at Gabrielle Giffords for her requests for aid. In Grijalva's mind the murder of a white landowner citizen or law enforcement agents is fine, but the arrest of an illegal is an outrage.

So, in fear, because of an alleged angry phone call from an American citizen, Grijalva closes his doors to constituents and calls on federal help in the dismantlement Arizona's borders. 

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Immigration Enforcement Heats Up in Arizona

A new bill in Arizona instructing law enforcement to enforce immigration laws met opposition yesterday from the immigration amnesty crowd.
Leaders at rallies called for "comprehensive, practical and sensible immigration reform." In other words, amnesty for all illegals living in the U.S. and free movement back and forth across the border for illegals. That is impossible to go back to, and they know it.

Pope John Paul II once said “When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”

One humorous quote from a poster in the Yuma Daily Sun today reads: "EVEN OUR GUY, RAUL GRIJALVA IS AGAINST THE BILL." Big surprise. Grijalva has some of the most extreme views about immigration and the border, calling civilians who try to stop illegals "racist" and guilty of hate crimes.

According to Grijalva, "There's a violation of federal law when you carry guns on national lands. There are issues of intimidation, violations of civil rights, and violations of the federal hate crime statute."

I'm wondering how the family of Robert Krentz feels about that, Raul?

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

No Time to Retreat . . . Let's Reload: Tea Party Rally Tomorrow

Yumans will join thousands of teapartiers nationwide tomorrow with a rally at Ray Kroc field. Come early or bring your own chair.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Grijalva's Gift to Arizona . . . and America: Now They Tell Us

News outlets are now reading the Obamacare Regulations, and finding the truth: This is not a bill to fix healthcare, but a vehicle for taxing Americans without calling it a tax.

According to CNN's Money, the plan includes all of the taxes and bureaucracy of the most expensive health insurance states like New York, and none of the competitive functions of plans available in Arizona. Because the system penalizes people who don't buy the resulting higher insurance, according to Money it amounts to an additional tax for young entrepreneurs and cooperative plans who must buy insurance at the higher rate or pay a tax. When insurance costs skyrocket, which they surely will, many will simply pay the tax. What it means for the rest of us is that competitive markets like Arizona will have to adopt the higher costs of restricted markets, resulting in higher insurance prices. thanks Raul, your a pal! What was the name of your opponent in November? Oh yeah, the rocket scientist. Ruth McClung.

Next on the list of taxes/not taxes? The Value Added Tax, or VAT tax (government taxes business as much as they want and consumers payin higher prices) is coming, but it's not a tax, and if it is, it only affects the wealthy--right!

Monday, April 5, 2010

What Democrats do to Americans. . . are You a Racist?

You Must be a Racist if:
If you didn’t vote for Obama… you might be a racist!

If you thought Jeremiah Wright’s preaching is racist… you might be a racist!

If you don’t think that America is a nation of cowards… you might be a racist!

If you even wondered whether Sonia Sotomayor was the best choice President Obama could have made for his first Supreme Court nomination… you might be a racist!

If you attended a Tea party… you might be a racist!

If you’re a policeman simply doing your job… you might be a racist!

If you think that universal health care is not actually a right guaranteed by the Constitution… you might be a racist!

If you think Kanye West was rude to Taylor Swift… you might be a racist!

If you don’t think Mark Lloyd should be Obama’s “diversity czar”… you might be a racist!

If you wonder why we need a “diversity czar” in the first place… you might be a racist!

If you thought then-Sen. Obama called you a racist way back in 2006… you might be a racist!

If you’re even reading this post… you might be a racist!

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Why You Won't See Dems Leaving White House Like Rats....

During most president administrations there comes a time when officials begin to step down, either because of the stress of the job or because the s*** is hitting the fan. Well, for the Obama administration, the latter of the two has begun and will probably continue. Unfortunately, those waiting for all those liberal policy wonks to flee like rats will have a while to wait. Why? the answer is simple economics: Democrats "love" government jobs, Republicans despise them.

Starting with Reagan, policy officials were appointed from the private sector. Economic advisers were business leaders with executive experience and "can do" military retirees. Hence, the reason why Reagan could spend so much time in California on a horse while things ran smoothly in Washington. The Bush's followed this same model. Corporate executives and military people were attracted to lower paying government appointments because it was a step to book deals and lobbyist connections. These people understood government service as just that: service, a loss of income to improve country for a brief time.

The difference with Obama? Obama's appointments are academics, union leaders and community organizers. They have low to middle government salaries. Most have never risked capital to create revenue in their lives, they have no concept of it. Working in the White House is the pinnacle of their existence and they won't give it up unless Obama himself asks them to step down (which he won't). They believed in the Hope and Change before Obama did. They will not leave until the president does and when they do, we will have to tear the power like White House silverware out of their cold dead hands.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Obama, Dems Action ALL Politically Motivated

Many Americans were caught up in the announcement this week that the Obama Administration will "allow" exploration leases for offshore drilling in the coming months. Think the administration is changing it's tune about energy policy? Not on your life! As Heritage's Morning Bell explains, the announcement covers the cancellation of other drilling leases and is just an opening for Cap and Trade legislation later this month.

In other news, Obama who campaigned that he would not allow lobbyists in his administration, used recess appointments to bring the number of times he has broken that promise to 15, According to the Washington Examiner. The number includes some of the most liberal lobbyists in Washington, most notably Card Check advocate Craig Becker, who advocates using the National Labor Relations Board to impose mandatory Union membership in every state.  According to
"Becker wrote in a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article that "traditional notions of democracy" should not necessarily apply in union elections. He argued that employers should not have legal standing in such elections, and as such they should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about union elections, and from challenging election results."
 Finally, this week, Veronique de Rugy, Senior research Fellow at George Mason University, summarized her analysis of Obama's stimulus package, where money has been spent, and its effect on the economy.Through detailed statistical analysis, de Rugy concludes that the primary factor in distribution of stimulus funds was . . . .political. Accounting for multiple economic factors, Democrat districts received nearly twice what Republican districts did. Furthermore, the results of stimulus spending has been to REDUCE the number of jobs overall. Her summary of the report can be found in her National Review column.

So in summary, three of Obama's biggest promises to the American people: 1-new energy initiative, 2-an end to lobbyists in Washington, 3-creating jobs in the private sector; have been broken, tossed aside and ignored in little over a year. What does that say for the next three?

Thursday, April 1, 2010