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)!