Donate To Arizona Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund

In case you are not aware, the Obama regime is formally challenging Arizona's legal right to protect itself from the Illegal Alien problem. Now since Obama has OUR tax money to fight Arizona with, this great state will need our help. PLEASE donate to the cause at the Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund.

ROYAL DOUCHE 06.30.10

The Winner: Rep. Pete Stark (D) California

The Reason: Trying to tell us the Southern Border is secure, and mocking concerned Americans over the matter.

A California congressman known for edgy sarcasm mocked an opponent of illegal immigration during a town hall meeting last week, asking, "Who are you going to kill today?" before the constituent, a self-identified Minuteman, posed his question.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government's lack of activity on border security.

"We can't get enough Minutemen armed. We'd like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here," Stark said.

Eventually, members of the audience urged Stark to offer a serious answer.

"If you knew anything about our borders, you would know that's not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you," Stark said, drawing jeers.

Related Links
Gay Advocacy Groups Battle Over Arizona Boycott
Brewer Slams Administration Over Smuggler Warning Signs in Arizona Desert

Stark resumed his hostile act, asking the Minuteman what he would do to secure the border.

"I would send about about 25,000 troops for one thing and build a wall down so vehicles could not pass," the Minuteman said.

"How high and long would it be?" Stark asked.

"As high and as long as it takes," the Minuteman said, elicting cheers.

Stark said he would start a ladder company with the Minuteman if he designed the wall and doesn't shoot the people coming over.

"But I've got to know how high the wall is and I'll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come," Stark said.

"This is a very serious matter and you're sitting there making fun of it," the Minuteman responded.

"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.

Stark made the comments last week at a town hall audience that included Steve Kemp, a member of the Golden Gate Minutemen, a group that opposes illegal immigrants. Kemp recorded the confrontation.

A spokesman for Stark did not return voicemail messages left at his office or on his cell phone. He also didn't respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The clash came as the national spotlight focuses on Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants and the protests it is drawing across the country, including a legal challenge from the federal government.

Immigration is shaping up to be among the critical election-year issues as Republicans try to regain control of both chambers in Congress riding a wave of anti-Washington sentiment.

Stark, a liberal Democrat, is expected to easily win re-election against a lightly regarded opponent, political newcomer Justin Jelincic, who describes himself as a conservative Democrat.

Stark earned his primary challenge after he slammed a constituent who voiced his opposition to Obama's health care plan last summer at a town hall meeting.

"Mr. Congressman, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining," the constituent told Stark, referring to what he called the smoke and mirrors of the president's plan.

"I wouldn't dignify you be peeing on your leg," Stark fired back. "It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."

In March, Stark seized control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for one day after Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., stepped aside due to an ethics probe. But Stark was quickly pushed aside in favor of Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., after many Democrats privately complained that Stark was too volatile to lead such an important committee.

Stark is known for making inflammatory comments.

In 2007, Stark accused President Bush of sending troops to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

He also once called former Colorado Republican Rep. Scott McInnis a "fruitcake."

Royal Douche 05.13.10

The Winner: Dr. George V. Fornero

Reason: His decision to cancel a girls' basketball team's trip to Arizona over his tantrum over Arizona's lawful immigration law. Of course, sending kids to trips in the People's Republic Of China is ok to him, since they are so humane over there, right? If Illinois does not want an anti illegal immigration law, that is up to them. Arizona is not his territory. The children of his school district already put up with the indoctrination of a liberal school system. Why screw up their games as well? These girls earn the right to go to places like Arizona, through fair competition, and hard work. I doubt this douche ever heard of this idea.

The funny thing about this situation is that he officially states that all school functions belong in the school district in Illinois all of a sudden. Too bad he already allowed kids to go to China, a Liberal icon of human rights.

He also demonstrates his faith in his students by stressing that the team has not qualified for the championships. And if they do, then what? He is running out of legitimate excuses. This is plainly political, and school taxes are paying for this kind of liberal crap.

BTW: You may tell him your opinion if you would like:

Dr. George V. Fornero

Superintendent


Administrative Center
1040 Park Ave West
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: (224) 765-1000

email: gfornero@dist113.org

Runner Up: Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson.

Reason:

Same as the winner, except she is a loser.

Girls Hoops Team May Need to 'Go Rogue'

Sarah Palin

Editor's note: The outrage over an Illinois school administrator's decision to cancel a girls' basketball team's trip to Arizona has attracted nationwide attention. George Fornero, superintendent of District 113 in Illinois, which oversees Highland Park High School, defended the decision by Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson and said it was not a political statement in response to Arizona's new law. The following is from a discussion about the school's decision to cancel the trip to Arizona as discussed on Fox News Channel on May 13.

"AMERICA LIVE" HOST, MEGYN KELLY:

You have advice for these girls, what is it?

FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR/FORMER ALASKA GOV. SARAH PALIN:

[The Illinois school district's decision is] probably the most outrageous school district decision I've heard in quite some time.

I want these girls to feel empowered and "go rogue" if they must. Figure out a way to protest a decision like this and figure out a way to get there on their own. If it can be done, not being sanctioned by the school, [they should still go to] this tournament. Look at the lady hoopsters, they're told no ball in Arizona, because, Arizona isn't, as they said "aligned with the beliefs and values" of, I guess, their school district. Yet, their school district blessed the student trips to China!

So that what they're saying there is, that our sister state Arizona, it doesn't share our beliefs and values. But China, known for its human rights violations, and it's anti-girl policies, does share their values? This is absolutely unbelievable. I say let the girls play ball. Keeping the girls off the basketball court for purely political reasons, it's not right. and you know, for me, hearing the words, those are fighting words.

We are going to do all that we can to shed more light on what this political issue is, this Arizona boycott. It's going to hurt everybody in Arizona, including the Hispanic community. And it's not a solution to the problem. The problem is how are we going to secure our borders. Keeping girls off the basketball court has nothing to do with the solution that we need to find!

What these girls are going to find as they grow up and enter sort of real life and family and career they are going to find that everything they ever needed to know they will have learned on the basketball court. They will have learned teamwork, and leadership skills, they will have learned goal setting and self-discipline and personal responsibility, and they will have learned how to plow through the opponent, a full-court press, perhaps, that is adversarial and picking at you and trying to make decisions for you to get you off your game. They are going to learn how to plow through that and those lessons will be able to be applied in their future lives.

At a time like this, for these girls who are already honing those skills and learning those things, to have something stripped away from them that's based on nonsense -- because the school district's ruling is nonsense -- it makes no sense that Arizona, the people of Arizona, essentially are being boycotted, because they don't share their "values and beliefs," it does strip away much from these girls. But I think that they will find within themselves that empowerment, that ability to stand up for what they believe in. and as we've heard from so many of these girls and their parents, even though some of them may agree or disagree with the law that Governor Brewer signed into law, [is that] they still have that right to speak up and to stand for what they believe in. And I think that those girls are going to feel empowered here in these coming days and do exactly that.

Let the girls play ball!

A Legal Immigrant's Take on Arizona's Immigration Law

Fox News

As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America.

I am a legal immigrant. My family and I emigrated from Russia to New York in 1993. We applied for permission to do so in 1990. Throughout those three years we went through numerous background checks and interviews and we waited patiently to be granted the right to move to America.

My status as a legal immigrant shapes my perspective on the illegal immigration issue in general, and Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 recently adopted by the state of Arizona in particular. When confronted by critics of this legislation, who have urged me to empathize with illegal immigrants, I draw the following comparison: when a person goes into a bank with a check and receives cash for it, that person follows the legal and proper procedure for obtaining money; however, when a person robs a bank with a gun, that person, too, has received cash, but by way of committing an illegal act. Both individuals leave the bank with money, however, one is a law abiding citizen while the other is a criminal.

As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America. The background checks and interviews that we experienced as a part of the legal immigration process proved to the American authorities that my family did not harbor a criminal past, communicable diseases or extreme views. Those who skirt the procedures are not only breaking the law by entering the country illegally, they are robbing the United States of the chance to vet them. These illegal aliens disrespect the American rule of law. They disrespect legal immigrants like me who stood in line to come here. And they disrespect all American citizens at large who are kept safe by the immigration rules and processes.

It is counterproductive to denounce the Arizona bill as the left has at every turn. It would be much more constructive to offer Arizona and its citizens an alternative -- something the federal government has failed to do. Arizona's illegal immigration problem manifests itself in overcrowded schools and hospitals, rampant violence and has left Phoenix with the second highest kidnapping rate in the world, right behind Mexico City.

Arizona has exercised its constitutional right to deal with the problem that has bankrupted the state. Polls show that 70 percent of Arizonans and a majority of Americans support the measure.
President Obama has led the charge against Arizona’s new immigration law. He is capitalizing on this divisive issue for political gain by wrongfully painting supporters of the bill as racist.

As president of the United States, it is Mr. Obama's job to protect its citizens. He should not frivolously interfere with states as they deal with the problems that they face, especially those, such as illegal immigration, that federal institutions do not deal with adequately. Speaking both as a legal immigrant and an American citizen, I urge President Obama to put away his political interests. If his opposition to the legislation is truly genuine, then he needs to step up offer real alternatives to SB 1070.

Boris Epshteyn is a political strategist, attorney and business consultant in New York City. He served as a communications aide on the McCain – Palin 2008 presidential campaign. He is a frequent guest on Foxnews.com's "The Strategy Room" and appears occasionally on other Fox News Channel programs. Contact him at boris@strategy-llc.com.

Robocop's Comment:

Funny thing, my parents agree to this. Remember Libtards, this is not a race issue. It is an issue of law.

Royal Douche Award 04.30.10

This is going to be unconventional because I have two winners.





Winner #1 is: Sergeant Kody Lamb of the Sheridan Police Department in Wyoming for the ARMED bullying of a law abiding citizen, a blatant abuse of authority.


examiner.com

The Sheridan police are either unable to make proper judgment calls, or they believe in extreme authority opposite of constitutionally protected rights, you decide…

It was Sunday after spending the weekend in Sheridan for the local Tea Party, we were leaving the hotel to head back home, while driving only 100 yards away, there were two police officers coming up the hill on foot carrying AR-15 rifles.

As we approached them they stopped my vehicle and the officers yelled “put up your hands” to myself, wife and my little girl, then I was ordered to step out of my vehicle. (while armed of course)

The officer demanded my I.D. to which I responded “you aren’t getting anything, I didn’t break any law”.

The part that really sticks in my head is this- in one of his hands (Sgt. Kody Lamb) was an AR-15 Rifle and his other free hand shuttered like he was on an extreme adrenaline rush, I thought to myself he better keep his finger off the trigger.

I told Lamb “he had a duty to protect my rights and not act on the whim of a tourist that doesn’t know it’s legal to have firearms here”. I also asked him if he "read our Constitution”, Lamb said he was aware of what it said” then I said to him “didn’t you take an oath to uphold it?”

Then there's this- when the officer Sgt. Kody Lamb realizes he doesn’t have a beef, he threatens me with “disturbing the peace”. To which I responded “I was on private property with the owner’s consent”, and then Sgt. Kody Lamb stated it was a place frequented by the public.

This has become the norm, for police to twist things around when they want to bully someone.

I told Lamb “I want to speak to your supervisor”, Lamb responded with “I am the supervisor”, It was at this point that I knew the Peter Principle was in play, a philosophy that in a Hierarchy “Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence”.

Why would officers respond in this manner to a “man with gun call” when their own report states about me- “is not seeming to be a threat just standing there”.

Why didn’t they ask more questions BEFORE ARRIVING, like this simple one- Has he threatened anyone?

Hell no, let’s just storm in there because we have a badge, guns and adrenaline.

Maybe this is a response to my speech at the Sheridan Tea Party, by the way when we were setting up for the event, a police officer questioned me about the way I was carrying my firearm. (holstered, cocked and locked and in plain view) I told him I always carry this way. he responded to me with "That's not what I asked you" citing this “he had a duty to protect the public”. I later asked him how he felt about “concealed carry without a permit” like Arizona just passed into law, he said no one should be allowed to carry without a permit. Are you seeing the anti-gun police union agenda? You know the "only ones" mentality.

The next day after the incident the police refused to let me have the dispatch recordings unless, I "have a subpoena", also I was told that the police report wouldn’t be available for a week, but apparently they handed their reports over to the local newspaper within hours of telling me otherwise. Does any of this sound suspect?
I also contacted Evidence Technician Stephen Johnson inquiring about exactly what statute they are using to deny the dispatch recordings, he has refused to return my call.

Wyoming statute states that “the person in interest” is allowed to have access to the recordings, but the the City of Sheridan would rather flex their power. The City Attorney Mia Mikesell said "she didn’t have to cite statute" to me and "it was their policy" to ask for a Subpoena, she then hung up on me.

It is these lawless Bureaucrats, Police and Attorneys that are nipping away at the Republic on a daily basis.

The question is- are we going to be silent and just let it happen?

The City of Sheridan web-site says: they have been voted #1 Western Town of the Year for its truly special qualities…“Enjoy a frontier spirit that values friendship – and independence”, really? NOT SO MUCH!

Area Citizens should call and tell them you don’t appreciate this kind of treatment and expect more from the police officers that work for “we the people”.

Tourists- call them and tell them you will skip Sheridan, tourism dollars will be spent elsewhere.

Sheridan City Hall (307) 674-6483

Robocop's Comment:

I have worked with a few cops who have the "only us" mentality when it comes to firearms. Experience tells me these are the same police officers who would be later investigated for civil rights violations of some sort. I have a respect for my colleagues as a whole, but Sgt. Kody Lamb, and officers like him need to be taken off the street ASAP. He is indeed a Royal Douche.

Winner #2:

Governor Rick Perry of Texas. He is all about kissing the asses of the illegals that he actually opposes Arizona's model for dealing with Illegal Aliens. Forget the Texas crime rate, economy, and sovereignty.



Fox News

Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement: "I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas."

AUSTIN, Texas -- Arizona's tough new illegal immigration enforcement law would not be right for Texas, Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday, upholding the state's long-held tradition of rejecting harsh anti-immigrant policies.

The Arizona law will require local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, making it a crime for them to lack registration documents. The law also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally.

"I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas," Perry said in a written statement.

"For example, some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe."

The Arizona law has been hailed by conservatives as long overdue and two Texas lawmakers have said they'll introduce similar immigration measures when the Texas Legislature meets next.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that a Justice Department review is under way to determine the Arizona law's constitutionality.

Though Texas is ruled by conservative Republicans, top GOP leaders from former Texas Gov. George W. Bush to Perry have rejected harsh and punitive immigration policies.

Bush continued his moderate approach to immigration once he got to the White House, often to the dismay of his conservative base.

"We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals," Bush said in his 2007 State of the Union address. "We need to resolve the status of the immigrants that are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty."

Perry took heat during this year's Republican primary for backing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, saying in a debate that the students are on a path to citizenship.

"Texas has a rich history with Mexico, our largest trading partner, and we share more than 1,200 miles of border, more than any other state," Perry said Thursday. "As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government's failure to adequately protect our borders.

"Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed."

Give To The United Illegal Alien...

Illegal Immigrant Bond Fund Kicks Off Fund Raising Campaign

SILVER SPRING, Md. —
Illegal immigrants arrested in workplace raids can now access a fund to help them post bond.

The National Immigrant Bond Fund launched its national debut and fundraising campaign on Monday. Founder Bob Hildreth said Monday the goal is to raise $500,000.

Through the fund, illegal immigrants arrested in raids who do not have any outstanding criminal violations can apply for financial assistance. Churches, legal organizations or community groups help facilitate their requests. The fund provides half the bail money and immigrants must pony up the rest.

The fund has already been tapped into following a few raids, including one in Annapolis on June 30.

The fund was formalized three months ago. Hildreth says it's helped bail out about 100 people so far, and all of those cases are pending.

Robocop's Comment:

...because a mind is a terrible thing.

This Would Work

300

GUNZ posted this on his blog. I think it was too funny to pass up.

Chalk Up One For The Good Guys

STORY


New York Governor Spitzer Abandons Driver's Licenses for Illegals Plan

WASHINGTON —
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press Tuesday night.

The governor is due to meet Wednesday morning with New York's congressional delegation, many of whom openly oppose the program. Debate over the issue also has spilled into New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

The governor's office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that Spitzer will say at the meeting that he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Last month, Spitzer sought to salvage the license effort by striking a deal with the Department of Homeland Security to create three distinct types of state driver's licenses: one "enhanced" that will be as secure as a passport; a second-tier license good for boarding airplanes; and a third marked not valid for federal purposes that would be available to illegal immigrants and others.

Clinton has been criticized by her Democratic and Republican rivals for her noncommittal answers on the subject. She has said she sympathizes with governors like Spitzer who are forced to confront the issue of immigration because the federal government has not enacted immigration reform. She has not taken a position on the actual plan offered by Spitzer.

A Spitzer spokeswoman did not immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment.

The governor introduced the plan with the goal of increased security, safer roads and an opportunity to bring immigrants "out of the shadows."

Opponents charged Spitzer would make it easier for would-be terrorists to get identification, and make the country less safe. Many New Yorkers agreed with them.

About 70 percent of New Yorkers oppose the license plan, according to a Siena College poll of 625 registered state voters released Tuesday. The poll, conducted Nov. 5-8, had a sampling margin of 3.9 percentage points.

"As I've said on numerous occasions, this is a tough issue," Spitzer said Tuesday in New York City. "And it's one where we're continuing to try to talk to the public, explain why we took the position that I have thus far, and explain what issues we're trying to address. But I understand — you don't need to see the most recent poll to understand that this is an issue that has touched a nerve in the public and we're trying to address that in a thoughtful, modulated way, and then we'll see where we go."

Assembly minority leader James Tedisco and Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno have argued the governor's plan is illegal and opens a door for terrorists. Both welcomed the report that Spitzer was preparing to abandon the plan.

"Governor Spitzer abandoned his plan to give licenses to illegal aliens because the people of this state abandoned him and overwhelmingly said he was wrong," Bruno said in a statement Tuesday night. "It was also recognition that we were prepared to stop any effort to allow such an ill-conceived and wrong-headed plan to go forward."

Republican Tedisco called the governor's reported change of direction "a great victory for New Yorkers and all Americans."

Robocop's Comment:

There is hope for my old home state after all. Not much hope, but I'll take what I can get. Now if only Texas would stop kissing the asses of illegals, I would be very happy.

Douche Of The Week 10.23.07

This week's "Douche Of The Week" is a group award.



Illegal Immigration has always been a pet peeve of mine. But this La Raza group intends to take this alot further than just sneaking across the border for employment.



They intend to "take back" the States that were won by the United States during the Mexican War. They are under the false impression that they are native to this continent (no mention of the Spanish blood in their vains as well as Aztec.)

They are either going to expand their numbers within the States in order to influence our politicians to LET this happen, or they will eventually try using force to achieve this.



I see a few problems with their idea. First, I am not too sure the American population will just let them waltz in, and create their own country. Second, the question comes to mind: "Do they intend to shit where they eat?" After all, they did such a great job managing their oil rich country to a point where half their population is trying to get out of their own country to survive. They can't be so confident to think that by some miracle, those states will generate a good life for them on their own. Finally, if the land is to be given to their "rightful owners", this would mean the Apache, Comanche, Souix, ect...NOT THE MEXICANS.



For believing their own bullshit, being the ultimate in racists, not to mention threatening the sovereignty of the United States Of America, and wasting valuable air that can be used by normal people, La Raza, and their allies, rightfully take the "Douche Of The Week" award.

I Thought Flag Burning Is Cool

STORY

Man cited for burning Mexican flag

It caused some controversy, but it was supposed to. Now, one man is headed to municipal court for burning a Mexican flag in protest in front of the Alamo.

The city is charging 46-year old David Bohmfalk with burning without a permit, even though no one gives permits to burn a flag.

"I was raised to respect my country," Bohmfalk said.

All the rallies and talk of amnesty for undocumented immigrants in May 2006 lit the fires of patriotism for Bohmfalk, he said.

"I just got angry," he said. "I decided I had to do something, make my statement, and that's what I did."

Bohmfalk had his own protest in front of a building known for revolution, where Davy Crockett and James Bowie made a stand. So did Bohmfalk but he used a lighter instead of gunfighter. Park police cited Bohmfalk for illegal burning of rubbish, even it was a Mexican flag he set ablaze.

"Because of what it's made out of, it took a little while to burn it. It took me two minutes, but I got it lit," Bohmfalk

Authorities say his actions left some of the Mexican nationals in the Alamo crowd feeling burned. However, Bohmfalk's attorney, Jason Jakob, says, freedom of speech is Bohmfalk's constitutional right.

"My client felt so strongly, and exercised protest, by burning that flag," Jakob said.

Bohmfalk says while he was detained by police, he was harassed, his life was threatened, and he was even assaulted by some tourists who spit on him. Ironically, all these offenses are punishable by law. Jakob says flag burning is not.

"In America, every day we see people burning the American flag and it's become desensitized," Jakob said. "If we can allow that, we can certainly say that the Mexican flag can be burned."

As a former Texas police chief and military veteran, Bohmfalk says he knows his rights, and is fighting for them.

"Why should a foreign flag get any better protection than the American flag?" he said.

The city has not returned calls for comment. As for Bohmfalk's right to a speedy trial, that's been delayed as well. His trial has been reset three times.

Robocop's Comment:

Typical double standard when it comes to applying the law. Why don't we just give Texas back to Mexico and get it over with. But then again, Texas will get screwed up just like Mexico, and Oklahoma will have to deal with this bullshit.