Time 2 Escape Daily for Sunday, Jan 8, 2012

After what I wrote Thursday, I thought that you should be reassured that everything possible will be done to make sure you will still see Time 2 Escape Daily posts on a fairly regular basis.  Not everything in life is easy, and most of us face challenges at times that may seem overwhelming.

I really wanted to get out a new Time 2 Escape Daily post yesterday, and the day before, but it didn't happen. I started one, but ended up with way too many aggravating interruptions. The motivating factor that was trying to move me around, over, or through the obstacles was when I read Ralph Marston's Daily Motivator for the Friday:

Even if ~ By Ralph Marston
From The Daily Motivator ~ Friday, January 6, 2012

Even if the challenges are immense and the obstacles are many, step forward and live the life you choose to live. Your dreams are worth every effort.

Even if you get knocked down again and again, get right back up and get going. With enough persistence, any goal is within your reach.  READ MORE

*     *     *     *

The News Stories:

Herman Cain launches bus tour to promote 9-9-9
Former GOP candidate: 'I'm not going away'
From Los Angeles Times (via WND) ~ By Kim Geiger ~ Jan 5, 2012, 11:54 a.m.

It’s been a month since Herman Cain dropped out of the GOP presidential race, but the retired pizza chain executive is going back on the road.

Cain, who ended his campaign after being dogged by persistent allegations of sexual harassment and an affair, warned at the time that he wouldn’t fade from the spotlight, pledging to move forward with a “plan b” approach to push his policy ideas.

“The biggest comment that I got when I ended my candidacy was, ‘Keep 9-9-9 alive,’” Cain told Fox’s Sean Hannity in an interview last night.   READ MORE

*     *     *     *

Columnists and Their Commentaries:

Obama’s harassment of Sheriff Joe ~ By Tom Tancredo
Exclusive: Tom Tancredo drubs BHO for punishing lawman over immigration enforcement
From WND ~ Published Friday, Jan 6, 2012

As part of the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona’s new law, SB 1070, President Obama’s lawyers had an Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement bureaucrat, Daniel Ragsdale, file a brief to the court against the state of Arizona. What Ragsdale said about immigration law enforcement gives the lie both to the Obama lawsuit and to the administration’s current attacks on Sheriff Joe Arpaio.


ICE bureaucrat Ragsdale argued that Arizona did not need SB 1070 because the feds were already enforcing immigration law in the state. He even allowed for some cooperation with local officials. Ragsdale specifically noted that as part of the vigorous federal enforcement operation, “Phoenix … has a fugitive operations team, a robust criminal alien program, and it manages the 287(g) programs in the counties of Maricopa, Yavapai, and Pinal, as well as at the Arizona Department of Corrections.” READ MORE

Jesus or Robin Hood? ~ By Patrice Lewis
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis challenges those claiming Christ was a socialist
From WND ~ Published Friday, Jan 6, 2012

Social justice, one of the buzzwords of the progressives, is not the same as caring for the poor. Forced redistribution of wealth is not charitable. It’s easy to get the government to do your “charitable” work for you. It’s much more difficult to be charitable on your own, even though we are biblically instructed to do so time and time again. Government programs of theft and entitlement do not make someone compassionate. Compassion is donating one’s own time, money and resources – not taking someone else’s possessions for that purpose.  READ MORE

*     *     *     *

From the Blogs:
Good can come from it ~ By Ralph Marston
From The Daily Motivator ~ Saturday, Jan 7, 2012

Don’t let yourself be discouraged by the shortcomings and disappointments that come your way. Instead, quickly look for the positive opportunities in them.

Always remember that no matter what the situation may be, there is good that can come from it. And you can be the person who brings that goodness to life.   READ MORE

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

AP: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot, 6 killed in rampage

A terribly tragic shooting occurred early Saturday afternoon that shook the country. It happened in Tucson, Arizona. I was looking for the story, and my google search found this one for me, where FoxNews.com had picked up this Associated Press story.

Before I tell you what I thought of this news article, I do want to pass on my condolences to all of the families that lost a loved one, or that have somebody fighting for life in the hospital. It was a horrible and senseless act of violence.

But here is what really bothered me about this story, and the way it was written. Just for starters, they spelled the name of the alleged shooter both as Jared Laugher and Jared Loughner, and one time they did that in the same paragraph:

The suspect's exact motivation was not clear, but a former classmate described Laugher as a pot-smoking loner who had rambling beliefs about the world. Federal law enforcement officials were poring over versions of a MySpace page that belonged to Jared Loughner and over a YouTube video published weeks ago...

But, if that was not bad enough - clearly the editor dropped the ball on that - the story goes on and on about vitriolic political rhetoric and violence against politicians and lawyers. It was what Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said that seemed so creepy. He was really pushing the vitriol and violence thing, and you know who he was trying to blame from this statement: "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government." Am I out of line to guess that when he said "out of certain mouths," he was either talking about certain conservative talk radio hosts, or possibly even Sarah Palin? Or maybe he is still upset about Arizona's SB 1070, Gov. Jan Brewer's immigration legislation. Sure, Sheriff, way to spread that vitriol.

So, once again, before all the facts are in, people - or so-called journalists - are trying to blame conservative talk radio for the violent act in Tucson. However, from what we read in this column about the alleged shooter, Jared What-Ever-His-Last-Name-Is, tends to fit the profile of an anarchist:

High school classmate Grant Wiens, 22, said Loughner seemed to be "floating through life" and "doing his own thing."

"Sometimes religion was brought up or drugs. He smoked pot, I don't know how regularly. And he wasn't too keen on religion from what I could tell," Wiens said.

I'll guarantee you that as more facts come out about the gunman, there will be no doubt that he is not a Conservative Right-wing Christian. I'm just sayin'....


UPDATE:
January 9, 2010 at 23:45 CST

Here is the complete video of the statement by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

Video provided by Attention101 on January 09, 2011

Furthermore, from a story on the Christian Science Monitor, we have this:

A possible link between Jared Lee Loughner, the primary suspect in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and American Renaissance, the publication of an anti-immigration group, offers potential new insights into what may have caused the 22-year-old Arizonan to carry out the attack, which killed six people and wounded more than a dozen outside a Tucson, Ariz. stripmall on Saturday.

The CSMonitor story continues on to say:

American Renaissance is the publication of the The New Century Foundation, described by the Anti-Defamation League as a "self-styled think tank." The ADL, on its website, calls American Renaissance a "white supremacist journal and companion Website" that "promotes pseudoscientific studies that attempt to demonstrate the intellectual and cultural superiority of whites and publishes articles on the supposed decline of American society because of integrationist social policies."

It turns out that my hunches were correct! And we can say, Jared Lee Loughner isn't your typical American, and he's definitely not a Tea-partier, that would turn to violence because of the "vitriolic political rhetoric." 

Therefor, my belief is that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik may just be your typical liberal!

RELATED STORY:
The Sheriff's Vitriol ~ By John Kubicek


AP: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot, 6 killed in rampage

FoxNews.com

Published January 08, 2011 | Associated Press


Associated Press Writers Pauline Arrillaga in Tucson, Jacques Billeaud, Bob Christie and Paul Davenport in Phoenix, and Espo, Matt Apuzzo, Eileen Sullivan, Adam Goldman and Charles Babington in Washington contributed to this report.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)

TUCSON, Ariz. – Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head Saturday by a gunman who opened fire outside a grocery store during a meeting with voters, killing a federal judge and five others in a rampage that rattled the country and left Americans questioning whether divisive politics had pushed the suspect over the edge.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Giffords was the target of a gunman whom he described as mentally unstable and possibly acting along with an accomplice. He said Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including Arizona's chief federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and an aide for the Democratic lawmaker. He said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

The sheriff pointed to the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country as he denounced the shooting that claimed several of his friends as victims, including U.S. District Judge John Roll. The judge celebrated Mass on Saturday morning like he does every day before stopping by to say hello to his good friend Giffords.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," the sheriff said. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."  [Emphasis my own]

READ FULL STORY at FoxNews.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The age of the stupid tube ~ By Robert Ringer

As Robert points out, things will get very interesting this Fall as the election in November looms. As to how stupid it will get on TV entirely depends on which networks you watch for your news. If you happen to be watching the Fair and Balanced network, at least you will be allowed to see all the charges of racism being shown to be the lies that they are, despite the fact you will have to put up with liberal talking heads with no brains from time to time.

You can count on the liberals to give us plenty of fodder for stupid TV, as they will be pointing out that anyone against Obama, anyone in the Tea Party Movement, and anyone against amnesty for illegal aliens or who supports Arizona's SB 1070, are racists. And that is all while they ignore stories about the racists of the New Black Panther Party involved in voter intimidation along with more of ACORN's attempts to register anyone who isn't white to vote, regardless of whether or not they are legally qualified or above room temperature. Just sayin'...

If you're as bored as I am listening to all this manufactured racial nonsense, I feel obliged to warn you that the worst is yet to come. As November draws ever closer, the angry Progressive Beast is starting to thrash about like a dinosaur trapped in a tar pit. And as the pain increases and reality begins to set in, you can count on it wailing in panic and ratcheting up its desperate attempts to paint everyone to the right of Fidel Castro and Barry the Bull Slinger as angry white racists.

One thing's for sure: It should provide an avalanche of stupid tube programming.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: July 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It's becoming harder and harder to watch television. It's no wonder they called it the "boob tube" in the days of yore. When I was a kid, there was a lot of dumb stuff on television, but it paled in comparison to what passes as acceptable television programming today.

If it was the boob tube in the '50s and '60s, it's the stupid tube today. But let's set aside pro wrestling, reality TV, Mel Gibson, LeBron James and the Barefoot Bandit for now and focus on what are supposed to be serious news and commentary shows.

In this area, it pretty much gets down to Fox News as a rational person's only meaningful choice. But even on Fox, one has to put up with a cast of lame characters such as Ellis Henican, Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes … to name but a few. It's a group that would make Howdy Doody proud.

I don't believe any of these talking heads are evil. Nor are most of them ignorant. I think it's more a matter of their realizing they have a role to play (as in, defend progressive policies at all costs), so they become adept at keeping themselves in self-delusive trances.

And now that we have the Kenyan Kid in the White House – a Marxist who has set back race relations in the U.S. 40 years – today's stupid-tubish topic of choice is racism. Listening to all the make-believe racism silliness is like being in a time machine and going back to the 1960s. It's enough to make one yawn with excitement.

When BHO Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack fired Shirley Sherrod for supposedly admitting to prejudice against a white farmer, then offered her another job a day later when he realized he didn't have his facts straight, it put the spotlight on just how ridiculous the whole racism industry has become.

And, of course, most of the media missed the real story – that Ms. Sherrod's great epiphany was not just that blacks versus whites is a no-no to talk about, but the real "struggle" is the haves versus the have-nots. How reassuring. Instead of deifying her, congressional Republicans should be demanding that she be permanently banned from working for the government.

Then there's Bill O'Reilly's stimulating discussions with intellectual dwarf Marc LaMont Hill – you know, the kid with the Ph.D. who tries to hide his lack of knowledge by talking at the speed of light. Listening to their exchange a couple of weeks ago about the pros and cons of the New Black Panthers was like watching "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." It made Lindsay Lohan's court breakdown seem like an intellectual step forward.

And, trust me, the "New" Black Panthers are not going to go away. The chairman of the party, all-American boy Malik Shabazz, loves the spotlight too much. Who would have believed that major air time would be given to a handful of thugs who woke up one morning and said, "Hey, man, why don't we call ourselves the new Black Panther Party and scare the hell of some crackers? It'd be a lot more fun than workin' for whitey."

No big deal, really. After all, there are a lot of bored, unemployed people in this country who engage in meaningless activities every day. But, for crying out loud, we shouldn't take every unemployed rabble rouser seriously. And the media certainly shouldn't be giving them air time.

Of course, if they get carried away and start brandishing clubs and trying to intimidate people at voting stations, you simply arrest them, bring them to trial and put them behind bars for a few years. Not to rehabilitate them; that's a progressive fantasy. The reason you put them away is to keep them off the streets so they can't harass civilized people.

But with a died-in-the-wool racist in the White House, that isn't what happens. Instead, you let them skate by having the Department of Justice drop all charges against them. But weren't they already convicted? Sure, but in a country no longer burdened by a Constitution and with an imperial presidency firmly in place, that's a minor detail. In case you hadn't noticed, our current crop of U.S. rulers do whatever they damn well please – no permission needed from Congress, thank you.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The war for Arizona – and America ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph writes, "Yet, if you listen to Barack Obama, you would think the real crisis in America today is that the Arizona Legislature and governor have taken a modest action to try to protect their citizens." There is no doubt that Barack Obama is not interested in enforcing the immigration laws already on the books or securing the border, which is why Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature needed to pass S.B. 1070, so that they would be able to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.

In the video below, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona says that securing the border is not the only thing that needs to be done. He emphasizes the need to also be enforcing the immigration laws.

The good folks of the State of Arizona are very lucky to have a courageous governor, legislature, and at least one good sheriff who is not afraid to enforce the laws. Just sayin'...

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ - What HE will do about SB 1570

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

A few years ago, George Bush justified amnesty for illegal aliens because they would "do the jobs Americans wouldn't do." Today, with 40 million Americans out of work, I wonder what the justification would be?

Consider the fact that about 20 million illegal aliens are currently working in America today. By sending them back home, the unemployment rate for Americans would be cut in half.

But nobody in Washington talks about that.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: July 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

While Americans were celebrating Independence Day weekend, news of a gun battle near the Arizona-Mexico border, rivaling anything from the old "Wild West" days, wasn't getting much attention.

Here's what you likely missed: Rival Mexican drug gangs shot it out 12 miles outside of Arizona, leaving 21 dead. At least six others were wounded.

About the same time, elsewhere along the border, gunmen killed an assistant attorney general for Chihuahua state and one of her bodyguards. After being chased through the darkened city streets of Ciudad Juarez by assailants with automatic weapons, Sandra Salas Garcia was murdered. A second bodyguard was wounded. Salas was responsible for evaluating the work of prosecutors and special investigations units in Chihuahua.

That weekend's murder spree brought the death toll due to drug violence along the border since 2006 to 23,000. That's about half the number of Americans killed in Vietnam in a decade.

In Ciudad Juarez, more than 4,300 people have been murdered in that same time period.

There's a war going on a few miles south of the U.S. border – and no one in Washington seems to be the least bit concerned.

They're more concerned with losing their 9-year-long war in Afghanistan.

Go figure.

Six weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was cutting millions of dollars intended for the high-tech "virtual fence" along the Mexican border. The project began in 2005 and was supposed to be complete by now – covering the entire 2,000-mile border. So far, $1.1 billion has been spent with nothing to show except two small testing sites in the Arizona desert.

Meanwhile, talk of amnesty is back in the air.

Congress doesn't have the guts to approve it in a volatile election year, but Barack Obama is threatening to misuse his executive authority to impose the unpopular measure.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama's growing racist government ~ By Barbara Simpson

Barbara explains why it is Obama and the Federal government that are displaying the real racism, and not Arizona. When it comes right down to it, the government loves to use race in order to buy votes now, and especially in the future, if they are ever able to legalize all of the illegal immigrants. Just sayin'...

Yet, despite widespread calls to boycott Arizona, the AP reports at least 20 other states plan similar legislation.

If Obama tries to shove amnesty through despite public opinion, his head will spin at the reaction he'll get. It won't be pretty.

Arizonans wanted protection. Who knew it would provide the flashpoint to protect the country? Good for them!

By Barbara Simpson

Posted: June 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

For a president and an administration with the media in its pocket, it's amazing they haven't convinced the American public that it's OK to protect lawbreakers by racial profiling.

I know, I know – if you believe the left's rant, only conservatives are racist bigots. But the truth is, the liberals lead on that one, and they're proud of it.

When they demand special rights for a certain class of "brown" people, they're racially profiling and are bigots.

They should be ashamed. Not only have they opened racial divisions in this country that were virtually closed decades ago, but they cater to it and are moving this country to the breaking point.

The issue is illegal aliens: foreigners who cross our borders illegally, stay in this country illegally, take jobs using fake identification – both of which are illegal – and feed at the trough of American generosity for food, housing, medical care, education and whatever else they can get.

On top of that, too many get involved in criminal activities from petty crimes to felonies. The costs to the criminal justice system and the numbers of incarcerated illegals prove the point.

Arizona hit the breaking point: bankrupt hospital emergency rooms, overcrowded schools, enormous social costs on every level, escalating crimes, record-setting kidnapping rates and violence against private citizens as well as police officers and Border Patrol, including murder.

It's a basic responsibility of the federal government to protect the borders and the citizens living within them. There are laws on the books to accomplish that.

But for political and philosophical reasons, politicians for decades have chosen not to enforce the law. They've chosen not to think first of the welfare and safety of the country and all Americans. They do what they please, hoping it will buy them votes and change the face and culture of this country permanently to their advantage. Their attitude is: The country be damned.

Their hubris is astonishing, and it's getting worse. The federal government, from the president on down, is doing as little as possible to strengthen the border, has encouraged the demonization of any entity – read that Arizona – and anyone who disagree.

To liberals, Arizona is the ultimate "racist" – all because Arizonans have had enough of what illegals are doing to them because the feds virtually ignore the problem.

The legislature passed S.B.1070, which allows law enforcement to question a suspect's immigration status, if, during a stop for another criminal issue, the officer has reason to suspect an immigration violation.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill. She's clearly one of the most politically courageous politicians in decades.

Barely had the ink dried, then the long swords were drawn with everyone from politicians, immigration activists, education hacks, the media, ignorant citizens and religious hierarchy, most especially clerics of the Roman Catholic Church, piling on.

Liberals say 1070 mandates racial profiling and is racist – but in truth, liberals are the racists since they seem to think only "brown" people are illegals. Facts prove otherwise, but facts confuse them.

Under the guise of "human rights" and a "religious halo," they advocate criminal lawbreaking, and the government isn't letting up. In addition to demonizing the state and its residents, the feds plan to sue and had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announce it during a press conference in Ecuador.

Gov. Brewer was furious at the insult of the foreign announcement, but is hanging tough and touts her record of winning such court cases.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Sarah Palin's fuzzy on pot ~ By Joseph Farah

I have to give this round to Joseph Farah. In fact, he took Sarah Palin to the woodshed on this one. Joseph is most definitely right: laws should either be enforced or scrapped. Joseph wrote, "Selective enforcement is not fair and equitable. Some people get punished for a crime, others do not. It makes no sense. Either the laws on the books are important, or they are not. If they are not, they should be scrapped."

That seems to be plain old common sense, don't you think? Isn't this like the Federal laws against illegal immigration that aren't being enforced? And isn't that why Arizona passed SB 1070 because the Federal government isn't enforcing the existing immigration laws, which was endangering the citizens of Arizona? When laws are being violated, it sends a bad message when the government seems to look the other way. Just sayin'...

The worst possible idea is to keep marijuana illegal and treat it like it is legal.

It makes no sense, it reduces respect for the law and it promotes tolerance for law-breaking.

There is simply no room for mushy, muddle-headed, lukewarm solutions like Sarah Palin has offered. It sounds good. But it's not. We should be hot or cold on this issue – either enforce laws aggressively or scrap them altogether.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Sarah Palin says she doesn't think marijuana should be legalized, but she also doesn't think cops should aggressively enforce laws against it.

Sarah Palin

"If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society," she said, characterizing pot-smoking as "a, relatively speaking, minimal problem we have in the country."

On the surface, what Sarah Palin says is likely to resonate with most Americans. Unfortunately, she is exactly wrong in her prescription for more tolerance of marijuana.

There are several problems with what she proposes, which is essentially the status quo policy in most states right now.

First, we should not have laws on the books if we do not intend to enforce them uniformly and aggressively. Selective enforcement is not fair and equitable. Some people get punished for a crime, others do not. It makes no sense. Either the laws on the books are important, or they are not. If they are not, they should be scrapped.

Second, police are not routinely beating down the doors of law-abiding homeowners because they are quietly smoking pot in their living rooms. That's not how police encounter pot smokers. Generally speaking, police find pot when they are do traffic stops. Smoking pot while driving is hazardous not only to those smoking it, but everyone else on the road. Just as drunk driving is considered a very serious crime throughout America, so should be the smoking of pot while driving – or even the possession of it. If someone is driving and has pot on them, isn't this the equivalent of alcohol open-container violations?

Third, marijuana is also often found on those arrested for other crimes – especially drug crimes. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Marijuana is a major product of some of the largest and most dangerous organized crime syndicates in America and around the world. These mobsters kill people, rape people, torture people, enslave people. There's nothing petty about that kind of criminal activity, and marijuana keeps these mobsters in business.

I believe we should either legalize marijuana as a controlled substance or enforce laws against its use and possession with vigor. I'll tell you why.

I'm not a big fan of Rudy Giuliani as a national political figure, but he was probably the best mayor of New York since Fiorella LaGuardia. Why? Because he did such a good job making New York safe. Do you know how he did it? He aggressively enforced even the most "minor" infractions of the law – making New York a city that did not tolerate criminal activity. For instance, he attacked graffiti in two ways – tough enforcement against the vandals and quick removal.

The theory behind this policy was that entire neighborhoods previously marred by graffiti would no longer look like bastions and sanctuaries for criminal activity. Entire neighborhoods were reclaimed by the law-abiding.

What followed was remarkable:

• murders down
• armed robberies down
• break-ins down
• prostitution down
• muggings down

Across the board, crime plummeted in New York under Giuliani's attack on the most "minor" criminal infractions.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The tea party does care about immigration issue ~ By Tom Tancredo

It's amazing. We find out from Tom's column that certain Tea Party Movement leaders seem(ed) to think that illegal immigration and border security wasn't a part of the grass-roots issues! What are (were) they thinking? Some of them are now rethinking that strategy. My favorite part of the column was when Tom wrote, "In retrospect, it is amazing that the organizers and promoters of citizen protests against big government and beltway boondoggles thought they could exclude this issue from a genuine grass-roots movement."

Are the so-called "leaders" of Tea Party movement organizations really on our side? For any of them to NOT consider the issues of border security and illegal immigration and amnesty is beyond comprehension. All they had to do is look back to the time from 2004 to 2007 and see how the Bush amnesty plan went down in flames. And, they had to know that it was because of a grass-roots uprising, where millions of people flooded the Congressional phone lines, mail boxes, and fax machines with protests against the amnesty plan.

Any of the so-called tea party leadership better start getting it right, or get out of our way! Just sayin'...

Local tea-party activists from California to Florida and from Idaho to Massachusetts now see the immigration issue the same way 71 percent of Arizona citizens see it – as a matter of national security, public safety and fiscal necessity. They want their legislators to enact Arizona-style laws in their own states, and they join 88 percent of Americans in saying they want more border security.

Self-proclaimed tea-party leaders in Washington, D.C., who want to deny or obstruct this new tea-party consensus do so at their peril.

By Tom Tancredo

Posted: June 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Local tea-party groups from Orlando to Phoenix and San Diego to Nashville have rallied to support Arizona's new immigration law.

Over the past 15 months since the beginning of the tea-party movement, there has been an organized effort to keep the immigration issue off the tea-party agenda. That effort has failed. Score round one a victory for grass-roots democracy.

The effort to keep immigration off the tea-party agenda has not been any kind of conspiracy; in fact, it has been quite open and unapologetic. For example, the national Tea Party Patriots, which is affiliated with Richard Armey's Washington, D.C.-based Freedom Works organization, has been vocal and systematic in excluding immigration-related concerns from its "Contract from America." Touted as a grass-roots poll of tea-party members, the poll from its inception has barred any attempt to add immigration concerns to the poll's menu of issues. Thus, the lack of any reference to border security or immigration enforcement in the final "Contract" comes as no surprise. Fortunately, the real world intervened, and real patriots found their voice.

In April, Arizona lawmakers passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed a new immigration-enforcement law, S.B. 1070, and the open-borders libertarians who had worked so hard to control the tea-party agenda woke up to a new world.

When you stop to think about it, this reawakening of citizen concern over border security should not have come as a surprise. The lessons of the failed 2004-2007 push for amnesty legislation were clear. From the moment in January 2004 when President Bush launched his amnesty proposals, to the defeat of the Senate amnesty bill in the summer of 2007, the opposition to amnesty came from grass-roots conservatives and ordinary Americans, not from the Republican establishment. In retrospect, it is amazing that the organizers and promoters of citizen protests against big government and beltway boondoggles thought they could exclude this issue from a genuine grass-roots movement.

There have been two distinct groups within the tea-party leadership attempting to keep immigration off the tea-party agenda. One group is amenable to reason and has in fact become accommodated to the issue. Those are individuals who oppose amnesty but believe that the tea-party movement must stick to economic issues of low taxes and limited government if it is to be successful in changing the direction of government. That's a reasonable viewpoint, and reasonable people can disagree over how important the immigration issue is compared to other issues.

The second group of tea-party leaders who have fought the inclusion of immigration in the tea-party agenda are open-borders libertarians who support amnesty. They are folks found at Freedom Works, the Club for Growth and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. They have opposed allowing immigration onto the tea-party agenda because they understand very well that grass-roots conservatives and tea-party patriots oppose amnesty by a margin of at least 80-20.

Thus, from the beginning of the tea-party movement, the authentic voices of grass-roots tea-party activists were ruled "out of order" by leaders who wanted to control the agenda. What changed that was not some coup at the top. What changed the agenda was the lightening bolt out of Arizona at the end of April, the enactment of S.B. 1070. Arizona stood up and said, "Basta! Enough!"

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

6 lessons and a warning from Arizona ~ By Tom Tancredo

In his column, Tom Tancredo discusses the six lessons that we have learned because of Arizona's S.B. 1070 immigration enforcement law. It is a warning for all politicians running for office this year, both Democrat and Republican, what could happen if they don't heed these lessons. And believe me, Tom is right when he says, "Arizona's action in demanding the federal government fulfill its constitutional responsibility for border security has ended that charade. It's a new ballgame." Amnesty is dead in the water. Just sayin'...

What is even more important than numbers to Gov. Brewer, however, is the belief that protecting our Constitution is the sworn duty of all elected officials. It's something Jeb Bush and other open-borders Republicans need to think about more soberly.

By Tom Tancredo

Posted: June 05, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There are many lessons to be drawn from the epic battle over Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law. The first lesson is that this is no longer simply a legal battle or a political debate. It is at bottom a constitutional crisis.

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says that the United States "shall guarantee to every State a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against invasion." The state of Arizona is being invaded, has so declared in the passage of S.B.1070 and in letters from the governor to the president, and the state has asked for federal help to repel that invasion.

Obama's failure to respond to Arizona's call for help is an outrage. His sending a token 1,200 National Guard troops is more than an insult to the citizens of Arizona, it is an insult to the plain words of the Constitution. Obama cares more about being popular in Mexico than in Phoenix or Houston, and that portends a constitutional crisis.

Anyone who doubts that the Mexican government has declared war on the United States need only read the speeches of Mexican officials and Mexican legislators. Mexico declares openly and unabashedly that it has the right to send as many Mexican citizens – newly baptized as "migrants" – across our borders as they choose, for the benefit of Mexico's economy, with no regard for the sovereignty of the United States.

A second lesson is that the condemnation of the new Arizona law by Mexico and its allies in Congress is in truth a condemnation of immigration law enforcement itself. The Arizona law merely authorizes local police agencies to enforce federal immigration law. The actual enforcement of federal immigration law is anathema to the open borders lobby, and this advocacy of lawlessness has now been laid bare for all America to see.

A third lesson to be drawn from the Arizona controversy is that the "racism" slander against the new law and against Arizona citizens has backfired. It is not working except in those cocoons of leftism where reality never penetrates the protective shield of political correctness – college campuses, Hollywood cocktail parties and the editorial offices of the New York Times.

Over 70 percent of Arizonans support S.B.1070, not because they are racists but because they want the invasion stopped – and America gets it, even if Katie Couric doesn't. Polls show that 88 percent of Americans want more border security. What this means for the November 2010 election is that 88 percent of politicians who continue to ignore the border invasion will be removed from office.

Last week, the open-borders purveyors of slander and bombast brought over 50,000 people to parade through the streets of Phoenix. They were a colorful spectacle, yet their message of slander and distortion did not resonate. National polls say that 88 percent of Americans want more federal investment in fences and other border controls.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com to learn about the final three lessons!

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Greatest obstacle to border enforcement , Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Do you know what I think I learned from Chuck's column today? Chuck is as angry about Obama's lack of action for stopping illegal immigration as I am! And isn't just stopping the flow of Mexicans coming illegally into the United States that is worrying us so much. It is also the fact that there also could be terrorists from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen that could make their way in to the country.

But that is still just the tip of the iceberg, for there is another insidious situation that Chuck focuses on here. It is the global elitist vision of a "country" with no borders that Chuck is most worried about:

What hope do we have that the feds will finally secure our national borders when their primary leader is a globalist who espouses "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders but by our bond"?

So, without protecting our borders, we have the hoards of people coming into this country that use our schools and hospitals and do not give anything in return, the contraband such as drugs and weapons, terrorists, and who knows, maybe even something like the swine flu. And our president doesn't want to do anything about it? That just doesn't make sense, does it? It just doesn't sound right. Just sayin'...

May 20, 2010 — Michelle Malkin on Fox and Friends: Immigration and more

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Will you believe and follow the philosophical precedent of globalists like President Obama, who said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

Or will you join me and millions of other American citizens who believe and follow the definition offered by other leaders like President Ronald Reagan, who said, "A nation without borders is not a nation."

By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series on solutions to America's illegal immigration problem.)

There is one gigantic obstacle that stands before America and our immigration crisis. And, quite frankly, it is in my estimation an insurmountable roadblock that will inhibit any resolution that enforces current immigration law, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants. That barrier is not a people, policy or protocol. It is our president.

I seriously doubt that our current commander in chief can lead our nation out of this immigration mess because of a single fundamental and philosophical difference he has with most Americans, previous administrations and even our founders. President Obama declared it in the Rose Garden two weeks ago in the presence of Mexico's President Felipe Calderon and an international television audience. And it seemed to escape the attention of most. It was one of the most un-American, unconstitutional and radical statements to date from Obama's presidency. He said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

His statement reminded me of what I wrote in my new expanded paperback edition of "Black Belt Patriotism": "For better or worse, we have new leadership and a new direction for America. It's a kinder and gentler Washington, to whom the global war on terror has turned into an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' It's a softer and relational Washington, with whom international bonds are more important than national borders and boundaries." Now we have more proof from the horse's mouth.

Obama's statement in the Rose Garden is not merely a stand against Arizona's or any other states' immigration enforcement laws. It is a stand against his presidential oath, our Constitution, our national identity, security and sovereignty. For the commander in chief to go limp on border rigidity, especially when the feds themselves have been reporting for years about escalating border troubles and recently warned of foreign "terrorists" breach of U.S. southern borders (including those coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen), is for the White House itself to jeopardize our national security.

Just a week ago at West Point, the president declared, "We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation." Our relatively young commander in chief gave new marching orders to a new generation and graduating class at the military academy, saying, "The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times ... combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds." His language seems eerily reminiscent to the U.S. Navy's new contested recruiting slogan, "A global force for good." Is Obama leading our country or a global government? Unfortunately, he is proving himself to be far more than a socialist – rather he is a globalist, and that is even more dangerous to our national security and sovereignty.

The White House website confessed that Obama's new National Security Strategy released last Thursday is "a blueprint for pursuing the world that we seek by outlining a strategy to rebuild our foundations, promote a just and sustainable international order … and universal values." It plays down the threat of terror, trumps up (24 times) the threat of "climate change," calls for more "global leadership," "international cooperation" and "partnerships," and regards "American innovation as a foundation of American power" rather than military might. Does that sound like a national security strategy or the beginnings of an international global-governance manifesto?

Does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G20 conference this past year he also pushed world leaders even to reshape the global economy?

Still, Obama knows he is in the political border pickle of his life. And that coddling the Mexican president, doing nothing about border violence and remaining passive in the midst of escalating national debate on illegal immigration is a recipe for political disaster and Democrat re-election demise. So, last Tuesday, the White House unexpectedly announced that Obama will deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to America's southwest boundary. What timing, after he has resisted repeated calls for weeks from border state lawmakers to deploy 6,000 military personnel.

The fact is the deployment of up to 1,200 National Guard troops is a political appeasement, carefully crafted as a temporary noncombatant assignment restricted to providing only intelligence and training. You can also bet it's not a coincidence that the White House suddenly announced a $500 million supplement for border enhancement at the very same time that Senate Republicans began introducing several border security amendments to a $60 billion war spending bill. That Oval Office has amazing timing, doesn't it?!

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!