Archive for January 2012

Homeland Security’s Janet NappyLatino Says Immigration Laws are ‘Outdated and in Need of Revision’

31 January, 2012

Hmm…  Where to begin?  Okay, I’ll just comment as I read:

Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano Calls for Immigration Overhaul

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the United States’ immigration laws were outdated and in need of  overhaul.

In her second annual Address on the State of the Nation’s Homeland Security, Napolitano said they’re “sorely outdated and in need of revision.”

Yup, there’s a big, red commie flag right there!  Whenever a Progressive Commie starts complaining about something being outdated and in need of revision—like they’re always saying about the U.S. Constitution—it’s time to lock & load!!!

Asked by an audience member at the National Press Club what she sees as most in need of change, Napolitano said she couldn’t narrow it down. But she specifically criticized Congress for failing to pass the so-called DREAM Act last year. The legislation would have allowed undocumented immigrant children who were brought to the U.S. at a young age and grew up here to become citizens if they went to college or joined the military.

Napolitano said “they’ve played the rules” and Congress needs to act.

Um…  Really, NappyLatino?   Creating your own Dream Act by halting over 300,000 deportation cases is somehow “playing by the rules?”  R-i-i-i-ght…  

Also, did you know that ICE is wildly inflating its criminal deportation numbers?  Yup, read it and weep.  So, I ask you, how is this “playing by the rules?”

The Obama administration has been at odds with a number of states of their strict, new immigration laws, including Arizona, Alabama and Georgia. There are a number of federal law suits against these laws and judges have already blocked certain provisions of the immigration laws in South Carolina and Arizona.


Of course, these states are merely enforcing the federal government’s already existing immigration laws, yet find themselves under continual attack by the Nappylatino, Holder, and Obama. So, yet again, NappyLatino and her cohorts are definitely NOT playing by the rules!

Muslim Family Guilty of ‘Honor’ Killing in Canada

30 January, 2012

H/T – IslamsNotForMe

(Left to Right) Geeti, Zainab, and Sahar Shafia

Sahar Shafia

‘You have no place in civilised society’: Muslim family jailed for life after ‘despicable’ honour killing of three teen daughters who dared to date boys

  • Father, mother and son found guilty of murdering family’s three teenage daughters
  • The girls defied strict rules by dating, socialising and going online
  • Bodies found submerged in car in canal

By Daily Mail Reporter

An Afghan father, his wife and their son have been jailed for life after a jury found them guilty of killing three teenage sisters and a co-wife in what the judge described as a ‘despicable’ and ‘heinous’ crime.

The jury had taken 15 hours to find Mohammad Shafia, 58, his wife Tooba Yahya, 42; and their son Hamed, 21, each guilty of four counts of first-degree murder.

The four bodies were found in June 2009 in a car submerged in a canal in Kingston, Ontario, where the family had stopped for the night on their way home from Niagara Falls.

Prosecutors said the daughters were killed because they dishonored the family by defying rules on dress, dating, socialising and going online.

After the verdict was read, the three defendants again declared their innocence in the killings of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar 17, and Geeti, 13, as well as Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, Shafia’s childless first wife in a polygamous marriage.

After the jury returned the verdicts, Mohammad Shafia, speaking through a translator, said: ‘We are not criminal, we are not murderer, we didn’t commit the murder and this is unjust.’

His weeping wife, Tooba, also declared the verdict unjust. She said: ‘I am not a murderer, and I am a mother, a mother.’

Their son, Hamed, speaking in English said: ‘I did not drown my sisters anywhere.’

But Judge Robert Maranger was unmoved, saying the evidence clearly supported their conviction for ‘the planned and deliberate murder of four members of your family’.

‘It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous crime … the apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor … that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.’


Friday Night Document Dump Indicates Eric Holder Knew the Details About ‘Fast & Furious’ Long Before He Claims to Have Known

28 January, 2012

You know, I seem to recall reading about Hitler doing these off-news-cycle document dumps, too:

Another Friday, Another Friday DoJ Document Dump
M Catharine Evans – American Thinker

If the White House orders the Department of Justice to dump another 500 pages of Fast and Furious documents on a Friday evening, will they make a sound if only a few alternative journalists are around? Yes.

Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars and David Codrea of the Washington Examiner reported the NPR (surprise, surprise) story late last evening. A “series of sensitive emails” inside the dump leave no doubt Attorney General Eric Holder knew about Fast and Furious long before he said he knew.

The email messages show the former top federal prosecutor in Arizona, Dennis Burke, notifying an aide to Holder via email on Dec. 15, 2010 that agent Brian Terry had been wounded and died. “Tragic,” responds the aide, Monty Wilkinson. “I’ve alerted the AG, the acting Deputy Attorney General…”

Only a few minutes later, Wilkinson emailed again, saying, “Please provide any additional details as they become available to you.”

Burke then delivered another piece of bad news: “The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] … officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about — they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.”

Is it a scandal yet? Can we assume from the scads of circumstantial evidence gathered over the past year that major leaders in the Obama administration were in on the whole thing?

We don’t know yet, except heavily redacted pages in the doc dump related to a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer on February 4, 2011 are followed by the suggestion to have a “High Level meeting in the Spring to address the arms trafficking issue. (Please note that the idea of holding a high level meeting came up during Secretary Clinton’s visit to Mexico last week).”  Wouldn’t the Secretary of State have to sign off on shipping arms to cartels?

Other big names include Janet Napolitano who flew down in a Blackhawk helicopter to Rio Rico to take a first-hand look at the crime scene. What about Rahm Emanuel? What part did he play in this anti-gun program’s development?

Of course, the president should have known what was going on in his administration, right?

The release of these emails comes five days before AG Eric Holder will testify before Issa’s House Oversight Committee.

Official INS Documents: Native Born Does Not Equal Natural Born!

27 January, 2012

Hmm…  No wonder Obama’s defunct website “fightthesmears” (now, Attack Waaaatch!!! ) claimed only that Obama was a “native citizen of the United States” and not a natural born citizen:

The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. – Leo Donofrio

I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:

“I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:

He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:

“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:

“Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

I am rather rocked by this find, having never seen it before, and it certainly comes to the attention of the nation at a critical moment […]

Read the rest of this article by CLICKING HERE

Russian Police Cracking Down on… Toys!

27 January, 2012

Like I’ve said numerous times before:  Putin is evil!

And, with a commie like O’bommie in office, America isn’t that far behind Russia in shutting down free speech:

- Near as I can loosely translate, it says, "President - Do Not Confuse the Interests of the People with Your Own Interest!!!"

Doll ‘protesters’ present small problem for Russian police
Police in Siberian city ask prosecutors to investigate legality of protest involving display of toy figures holding miniature placards
– Miriam Elder in Moscow –

Russian police don’t take kindly to opposition protesters – even if they’re 5cm high and made of plastic.

Police in the Siberian city of Barnaul have asked prosecutors to investigate the legality of a recent protest that saw dozens of small dolls – teddy bears, Lego men, South Park figurines – arranged to mimic a protest, complete with signs reading: “I’m for clean elections” and “A thief should sit in jail, not in the Kremlin”.

“Political opposition forces are using new technologies to carry out public events – using toys with placards at mini-protests,” Andrei Mulintsev, the city’s deputy police chief, said at a press conference this week, according to local media. “In our opinion, this is still an unsanctioned public event.”

Activists set up the display after authorities repeatedly rejected their request to hold a sanctioned demonstration of the kind held in Moscow to protest disputed parliamentary elections results and Vladimir Putin’s expected return to the presidency in a March vote.

Passersby admired the display with giggles, but police took it more seriously, examining its details and writing down each placard.

“The authorities’ attempt to limit citizens’ rights to express their position has become absurd,” said Lyudmila Alexandrova, a 26-year-old graduate student and protest organiser. “We wanted to hyperbolise this attempt and show the absurdity and farce of officials’ struggle with their own people.”


GBTV: 1984

26 January, 2012

Some good stuff from Glenn Beck TV that I thought I’d share with you all:

Think SOPA is Bad? Take a Look at the Treaty Obama Has Already Signed

26 January, 2012

And, to think, the Internet was suppose to be a place where you could exchange ideas and programs unfettered by your government:

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight.

Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comThursday, January 26, 2012

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.


%d bloggers like this: