Liberals Lose the Gun Wars: Supreme Court Extends More Gun Rights; Cities & States Cannot Ban or Regulate Gun Ownerships & another Washington Liberal Career Democrat Bites the Dust:

Liberals Lose the Gun Wars: Supreme Court Extends More Gun Rights; Cities & States Cannot Ban or Regulate Gun Ownerships & another Washington Liberal Career Democrat Bites the Dust:

By Marc Chamot

Anti-gunners biggest fears are now realized. When cities like Washington D. C., Chicago, New York, and San Francisco embarked on their quests to ban gun ownerships, they all knew their day of reckoning was soon coming with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anti-gunners were all warned not to enact harsh anti-constitutional gun laws; they were also told if they lost the Supreme Courts battles, it would cause adverse reactions towards future gun ownerships, people would end up buying more not less.  They were warned again and again, they didn’t want to listen, but instead chose to go ahead with their draconian laws anyways, and now they’ve lost the gun wars.

And Robert Byrd epitomizes what’s wrong with our U.S. congress, career politicians, who don’t know when to quit or retire. That’s three in a row who passed away in office, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha and now Robert Byrd, all Democrats.

I don’t blame Robert Byrd; it’s those West Virginia Democratic VOTERS, who keep voting for these old useless dinosaurs, instead of looking for youth in their candidates.  

I don’t know much about Mr. Byrd, but as one conservative blogger put it in the past, when Ted Kennedy passed away, he came out with an excellent point, if we don’t have real term limits, then God will instill his own kind of term limits in congress.

Will Robert Byrd’s death cause another big setback for the Obama’s liberal policies, and will there be another Republican version of Scott Brown coming out of West Virginia? It’s too early to tell on future candidates, but one thing for sure, Obama and the liberals have lost big time behind Robert Byrd’s death.

Sen. Robert Byrd dies at 92

"The West Virginia lawmaker was the longest-serving member of Congress in U.S. history and cast more votes than any other member since taking office in 1959.

Robert Carlyle Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who was often called this generation's conscience of the Senate for his devotion to the system of constitutional checks and balances and the prerogatives of power, died Monday. He was 92.

Byrd, who served longer than any member of Congress in U.S. history and cast more congressional votes than anyone since taking office in January 1959, died at about 3 a.m. at Inova Hospital in Fairfax, Va., a spokesman for the family said.

He was admitted to a Washington-area hospital late last week suffering from what a spokesman said was believed to be heat exhaustion and severe dehydration as a result of the high temperatures in the capital.

In recent years, the wheelchair-bound Byrd was not as strong a presence in the Senate as he once was, making rare speaking appearances. Byrd showed up at a Senate hearing in May and read a statement cautioning colleagues against severely limiting use of the filibuster, a device he used to hold the Senate floor for 14 hours and 13 minutes in an unsuccessful filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

The United States Supreme Court has re-affirmed our rights to bear arms. As expected, it went right down the wire between the conservative members of the high court vs. the anti-gunners liberals. And as expected, President Obama’s last Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor, proved her anti-constitutional colors, by voting against gun rights. Why aren’t we surprised by Obama’s choice? Didn’t she say she was constitutional during her confirmation?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservatives have been making VERY GOOD anti-liberal, anti-Obama and lefties calls lately, overturning restrictive campaign financing laws. And it shouldn’t stop them there, when it comes to making people pay for healthcare and possibly even, for Arizona’s enforcements on border security law SB 1070, they'll be there.

High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its two-year-old conclusion the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous." He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

At issue was whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question had remained unanswered for decades, and gave the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights.

A key question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."

His application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

The justices two years ago affirmed an individual's right to possess such weapons, tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of the District of Columbia.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws or can they be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gun rights groups applauded the decision.

"Today marks a great moment in American history," said Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. "It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending."

Some gun control advocates tried to put a positive spin on the opinion.

"There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws," said Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The court majority refused to limit its 2008 District of Columbia ruling. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. The Chicago ruling now extends that right significantly.

The Justice Department estimates as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.

Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.


Live At The Troubadour [CD / DVD Combo]The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

Deferred Action and Parole; Obama’s Poll Ratings Collapsing, His Party in Big Trouble & Saving Unpopular Left-Wing Liberal Agendas, Like Amnesty for Illegal’s through Executive Orders:

Deferred Action and Parole; Obama’s Poll Ratings Collapsing, His Party in Big Trouble & Saving Unpopular Left-Wing Liberal Agendas, Like Amnesty for Illegal’s through Executive Orders:
By Marc Chamot

I can’t help remembering talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh’s famous words, soon after President Obama’s inauguration, “I hope Obama fails.” It’s still ringing in my ears, loud and clear. 

But times are very cruel for President Obama. It’s never been a big kept secret, but I always knew, conservative bloggers knew, Internet commentators on major news websites around the Web also knew, Obama’s downfall was fast, furious and coming. He’s collapsing like a cheap folding chair.

Obama: Bad times, bad polls Not a good time for President Obama, and the polls are starting to reflect it. Obama's job approval rating is now down to 45 percent, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll; meanwhile, 48 percent disapprove of the president's performance. 

In perhaps worse news for the White House, 62 percent of adults surveyed feel the country is on the wrong track -- the highest level since before Obama's election in 2008.

The results also show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."

And 49% rate him positively when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities,'' down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January.

Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.

Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.

The results also show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats." 

As I said before, the mainstreams presses cannot keep covering up for him. But unfortunately, one of my biggest fears, this president might come to the point in resorting to petty paybacks, to push his agendas through. And it’s showing with his debonair and aloof attitudes, towards responding to the Gulf oil spill and other issues. He might be bypassing the U.S. congress soon, to get the rest of his left-wing agendas through. 

Obama knows, if he doesn’t stop pushing those very unpopular left-wing agendas on Americans, if he doesn’t move more to center and right on issues, it’s all over but the crime for the Democratic Party.

So desperation is finally showing, his unpopular agendas are slipping, and he’s got to find a way to save his left-wing liberal agendas and left-wing liberal philosophies, no matter what. So he NEEDS new breeds of Democratic voters, the Latino voters FAST.  

From Fox News; now, "the Obama administration is drafting a plan to "unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.

The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.

"It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill -- that it's a plan that they can actually put forward ... circumventing Congress," an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

"Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books," they wrote.

Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.

Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.

"Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using these underhanded method smacks of despotism," reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign."

President Obama will be taking BIG political risks doing this, knowing full well the anger and rage of the VOTERS. If he follows through with this screwy idea, especially with the way political climates are going dead set against Democrats.

You will begin to hear impeachment talks; people will DEMAND impeachment and nothing less. And they will VOTE their U.S. congressman and Senate to do it. 

 

Is this American president ready to take that chance? Is he willing to sacrifice his career and party, and his future family’s presidential pensions over this PLOY? 

GOP Lawmakers Warn of Administration Plan to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants

Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to "unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws. 

The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.

"It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill -- that it's a plan that they can actually put forward ... circumventing Congress," an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

In their letter, the senators -- Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- urge the president to "abandon" what they say is a move to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States."

"Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books," they wrote.

Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.

Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing "outrage" at the alleged plan.

Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she's been hearing for weeks from "sources close to the Democratic leadership" in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant "amnesty" for all illegal immigrants in the country.

"They're trying to figure out ways around a vote," she said.

"Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using this underhanded method smacks of despotism," reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign.

The White House has not responded to a request for comment.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States; other estimates have ranged higher. Any move to grant blanket legal status, even temporary, would raise questions about how Homeland Security would be able to handle the caseload. Jenks said Congress certainly wouldn't grant the administration the funding for more caseworkers.

The purported discussions of a blanket amnesty come in the middle of several concurrent and heated debates over illegal immigration. The recently signed immigration law in Arizona has divided the country, with some states trying to replicate the state's tough legislation and other jurisdictions boycotting the state in protest. The Obama administration plans to file a court challenge.

Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to round up support for an overhaul bill in Congress, and the Interior Department is facing renewed criticism from Republican lawmakers over restrictions it places on Border Patrol officers policing the border on federal lands. 

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., shocked several Arizona residents last week when he told them that Obama had said he would not beef up border security because it would leave Republicans without an incentive to pass broader immigration reforms.

Jenks said the talks about Homeland Security allowing illegal immigrants to stay are "serious."

Under the law, immigration officials can grant deferred action to temporarily postpone removing an illegal immigrant from the country. That status does not offer a guarantee that they won't face deportation, but Jenks said illegal immigrants granted parole are often allowed to seek permanent legal status.

If a "Plan B" is being discussed, it's unclear how far along the talks might be. Another GOP Senate aide said the discussions started after Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in April to stop deportations of undocumented students who could earn legal status under a bill they introduced.

A Senate Democratic aide said the Obama administration never responded to the April letter.

Confidence Waning in Obama, U.S. Outlook Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. 

The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment.

Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.

Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.

The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."

Mr. McInturff said voters' feelings, typically set by June in any election year, are being hardened by frustration over the economy and the oil spill. "It would take an enormous and seismic event to change the drift of these powerful forces before November," he said.

Mr. McInturff added that any "little, faint signs" in the spring that voters were adopting a more optimistic outlook have now been "squished by feelings from this oil spill."

For Democrats, the results underscore the potential for major losses in November. Both parties have been forced to contend with an anti-establishment wave this year. But Republicans, through strong fund raising and candidate recruitment, have put enough seats in play in the House and Senate to give the GOP a realistic shot at winning control of both chambers.

Support for Mr. Obama and his party is declining among centrist, independent voters. But, more ominous for the president, some in his base also are souring, with 17% of Democrats disapproving of Mr. Obama's job performance, the highest level of his presidency.

Approval for Mr. Obama has dropped among Hispanics, too, along with small-town residents, white women and seniors. African-Americans remain the firmest part of Mr. Obama's base, with 91% approving of his job performance.

In winning the presidency, Mr. Obama conveyed an image of remaining steady and focused during the banking crisis and economic downturn. Now, amid the oil spill and a weak economic recovery, Americans are taking a dimmer view of his personal qualities and leadership style.

Some 30% in the poll said they "do not really relate'' to Mr. Obama. Only 8% said that at the beginning of his presidency. Fewer than half give him positive marks when asked if he is "honest and straightforward.'' And 49% rate him positively when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities,'' down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January.

Just 40% rate him positively on his "ability to handle a crisis," an 11-point drop since January. Half disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the oil spill, including one in four Democrats.

"As a Democrat and as a woman, I am disappointed in him," said poll respondent Melissa Riner, a 42-year-old law clerk from Mesa, Ariz. Referring to the oil spill, Ms. Riner added, "I don't think he's handling it. He doesn't seem to be doing anything. He just talks."

James Ciarmataro, a 23-year-old stay-at-home dad from Macomb, Mich., said it was difficult to relate to Mr. Obama, because the president is "eating steak dinners at the White House and playing golf" while the country is suffering.

An independent, Mr. Ciarmataro said he would vote in November for "whoever seems the newest, and doesn't seem to have any ties to anybody else."

Tina Becker, a 47-year-old homemaker and registered Democrat from Wauseon, Ohio, who identifies herself as an independent, said she still strongly supports Mr. Obama. "But it might have made him look better if he communicated more about how things were progressing," she said.

In the survey, 45% said they wanted to see a Republican-controlled Congress after November, compared to 43% who wanted Democratic control. But even more telling is the excitement gap between the core voters of each party.

Just 44% of Obama voters—those who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 or told pollsters they intended to—now express high interest in the midterm elections. That's a 38-point drop from this stage in the 2008 campaign.

By contrast, 71% of voters who supported Republican John McCain in 2008 expressed high interest in this year's elections, slightly higher than their interest level at this stage in that campaign.

The gap helps explain why the Democratic National Committee is spending $50 million on a campaign to try to lure Obama voters back to the polls this year.

Nearly two-thirds in the survey said they wanted more regulation of oil companies. Majorities also favor more regulation of Wall Street firms, health insurers and "big corporations."

While a majority still favors greater offshore drilling, support has slipped considerably over the past month as the Gulf oil spill has grown worse—from 60% in May to 53% now.

Sixty-three percent support legislation to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy sources, even if it means an increase in energy costs.

Boycotting Mexico? Mexico Suing Over Arizona’s SB 1070 Immigration Laws; regardless to their OWN Toughest, Anti-Immigrant & Discriminatory Immigrations Laws Around:

Boycotting Mexico? Mexico Suing Over Arizona’s SB 1070 Immigration Laws; regardless to their OWN Toughest, Anti-Immigrant & Discriminatory Immigrations Laws Around: 

By Marc Chamot

“Gringos shouldn’t stick their nose where it doesn’t belong,” were Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silvas’s exact words, in regards to American and European environmentalists, protesting plans on hydroelectric dam being built in the Amazon.   The proposed dam would flood about 190 square miles of the rain forest.

That's how they feel about us when we meddle into their affairs, but then there's this from Snopes;

1.   If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language
2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers
allowed.
3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no
special ballots for elections; all government business will be
conducted in our language.
4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.
5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT
options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property.
That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign
flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his
policies, if you do you will be sent home.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down
and sent straight to jail.
Harsh, you say? The above laws belong to the immigration laws of
MEXICO!

And here at home, Mexico challenges Arizona's immigration law

Mexico has waded into a legal challenge to a new immigration law in the US state of Arizona.

"In papers submitted to a US federal court, the Mexican government argues that the law is unconstitutional and would damage bilateral relations.

It says it is concerned that it could lead to unlawful discrimination against Mexican citizens.

The law - which comes into force on 29 July - makes it a state crime to be in Arizona without immigration papers.

It also requires police to question people about their immigration status, if officers suspect the person is in the US illegally, and if they have stopped them for a legitimate reason.

The Mexican government submitted arguments as a "friend of the court", or amicus curiae, meaning it is not a party to the case, but is offering a legal opinion which it believes has bearing on it.

It is in support of a case brought by a group of civil rights organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

'Discriminatory acts'

It urges the federal court in Arizona to declare the law unconstitutional and stop it coming into effect.

"Mexico has a duty to protect its citizens and ensure that their ethnic origin is not used as a basis for committing discriminatory acts," the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement.

It said it would respond forcefully to any violation of the fundamental human rights of all Mexicans in Arizona, independent of their immigration status.

The action is one of five separate challenges to the Arizona immigration law.

The measure has widespread support in Arizona, where there is growing concern at the flow of illegal migrants across the border from Mexico.

Arizona governor Jan Brewer has said she was forced to act because the federal government had failed to tackle illegal immigration.

Other states are considering similar moves. President Barack Obama has called the law misguided.

He has made immigration reform a priority, amid pressure from US border states for action to help curb illegal immigration and drug violence.

Last month, he said he would seek more funding and deploy up to 1,200 extra troops to help secure the US-Mexico border."

The most discriminative and anti-migratory law nation in Central America, Mexico, wants to dictate us in how to run our OWN immigration policies.  

This is all borderline insane, since when have we ever had a foreign country sue any of our sovereign states, over immigration? Here is another example, of the Mexican government avoiding their responsibilities, to caring for their own citizens.

They want the United States to care for them, regardless to the plight and miseries they bring into our own communities. 

This fight shouldn’t be about those boycotting Arizona, it should be more about boycotting Mexico. Any American who spends money and travel to Mexico, is borderline traitorous. 

Progressive Liberal Party's Gone Awry; 49% Believe Democratic Party Just Too “Liberal” to Their Liking & Obama Using Border Security as Hostage/Trade Offs for Amnesties to Illegals:

Progressive Liberal Party's Gone Awry; 49% Believe Democratic Party Just Too “Liberal” to Their Liking & Obama Using Border Security as Hostage/Trade Offs for Amnesties to Illegals:

By Marc Chamot  

“President Obama is refusing to secure the border until Congress reaches a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said at a recent town hall meeting. 


They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform," Kyl said. "They frankly don't want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty."

Is this another Obama and Joe Wilson, “You Lie” affair? Obama’s White House Claims; it isn’t TRUE what Senator Jon Kyl said, but then again, suspicions arising as to why, Obama is half heartedly engaged into the border issues, and as to why he wants to SUE Arizona, for solving their OWN border problems through SB 1070?

But it’s not too surprising, President Obama is holding border security hostage for amnesties to illegal aliens. It’s the liberal left agenda and that’s what he is.

We all know that. New public opinion polls are showing Democrats sliding downwards into oblivion. They are doing everything they can, to keep pushing their left-wing agendas on Americans, regardless of the consequences to the party and the people.

Obama’s job approval ratings, according to new Gallup polls are reminiscent to last week’s Scott Rasmussen’s, they’re GOING DOWN into the meat grinder. 

The bigger deal behind this latest poll, after a year and a half, of empty “hope and changes,” 49 % of American electorates, consider the Democratic Party, “too liberal” for their liking. The interesting thing about all this, it's a growing sentiment among many Democrats. 

Americans as a whole are having enough of Liberal Democrats, whereas only 39% of Americans felt this way, the time Obama got elected back in 2008.

There hasn’t been such discontent towards this party, since the 1994 Republican landslides. That year, they lost 10% support from the working man, the blue collar folks, and CNN poll still showing 56% do not like or approve of Obamacare.

Americans still haven’t forgotten the disastrous $862 failed stimulus package, which pushed national debts to the extremes, where we have no moneys available to help common folks. It also failed to put a dent on unemployment as promised.

President Obama is going down that same road of infamy; his predecessors went through, all promises but never delivering. He seems so bent into with illegal aliens, left-wing special interests and government employees unions.

They are still bent into pushing JOBS KILLING “global warming” reforms. While China and India are the world’s gross polluters, they want Americans to sacrifice jobs, and livelihoods for global warming sakes. They want more price caps on emissions. In other words, send all pollution making jobs overseas, making us sacrificial lambs to global warming, while global warming still persists.

Regardless of what President Obama and his left leaning Democratic cronies want to do, Illegal aliens’ bans are going national. Americans have finally hit the breaking point on illegal immigrations and they are fighting back-MAD.   

People in the United States are OUTRAGED, and are demanding more ACTION on poor enforcements of federal laws, to prevent more illegal immigrations.

In Fremont Nebraska, they are coming with their own anti-illegal aliens’ laws. Folks in Fremont got sick and tired of their meat packing plants, employing undocumented aliens, while they were OUT of WORK. These meat packers in Fremont were IN-YOUR FACE, hiring undocumented aliens, without any federal concerns.

Never let a serious crisis go to waste; but of course, President Obama is using those same progressive liberal playbooks. It’s the one he’s using with the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, let the carnage keep happening, until the people have had enough, and then they’ll see it my way, and they’ll deal with me on Cap and Trade and energy bills.

 

He’s using that very same philosophy for illegal immigration. “I won’t do anything to secure the border, until you DEAL with me,” kind of thing.

Obama, being African American, knows full well that Illegal Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are decimating jobs, for the most vulnerable minority of all, his own RACE.

But he doesn’t care about that. To President Obama it’s not about his RACE, it’s much more than that; it’s bigger than his race. It’s all about using illegal aliens for future Democrats, to help dilute, destroy and rid the Republican Party from ever controlling American politics in the future.  That’s the left-wing Democratic agenda strategy as whole.

In my opinion, I think President Obama’s liberal agendas are pretty much OVER, until after the midterms and ONLY if Liberal Democrats win by a struck of luck. 

Kyl: Obama Won't Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package

The No. 2 Senate Republican, in a video clip posted on YouTube showing the senator speaking to a local Tea Party crowd on Friday, said the president told him during a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office that he was concerned he wouldn't win GOP support on immigration legislation if he took care of border security first. 

"The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform," Kyl said, as the crowd in the room gasped loudly. "In other words, they're holding it hostage." 

The White House denied the claim on Monday. Spokesman Bill Burton and Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer both said Kyl "knows" Obama did not make that comment to him in their meeting. 

"The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," Pfeiffer said in a written statement. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system." 

Burton repeated the claim at the press briefing Monday afternoon. 

But Kyl's office stood by the senator's account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, "There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them." He said Pfeiffer's call for comprehensive immigration legislation "only confirms" Kyl's story. 

While Obama has pledged to send an influx of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, Kyl said in the clip that the president made clear to him that border security is just a political tool in the broader goal of passing an immigration package through Congress. 

Kyl said he was "not so sure" the president's concern about GOP support was legitimate, but that regardless, the administration has an "obligation" to secure the border. 

Arizona Under Siege; Americans Banned from 5,500 U.S. National Park Acres Overrun by Dangerous Mexican Drug Cartels & Smugglers of Illegal Aliens:

Arizona Under Siege; Americans Banned from 5,500 U.S. National Park Acres Overrun by Dangerous Mexican Drug Cartels & Smugglers of Illegal Aliens:

By Marc Chamot

A National Tragedy: “We have now surrendered our sovereigns’ rights and Arizona national park lands to Mexican drug cartels and smugglers of illegal aliens.”  

Are we now becoming lawless, with “no man’s land,” and “badlands” in the United States?  We’ve heard about it in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, including around most third world nations on earth. But here in the United States; have we got our own lawless and “no man’s land” too?

Believe it or not folks, yes we are. We have now surrendered our sovereigns’ rights and national park lands to Mexican drug cartels and smugglers of illegal aliens.   

The truths and ramifications of federal government officials’ neglect of this nation, is fast becoming the “Tip of the Iceberg” of scandalous gross negligence’s and mismanagements of our nation’s border security and public affairs.

Americans are now banned from 5,500 U.S. National Park Acres overrun by dangerous Mexican drug cartels and smugglers of illegal aliens. Five federal lands in Arizona have been declared too dangerous for Americans to travel through.

Since 2006, when Democrats took control of both, U.S. senate and house, ceased border enforcements of 3,500 acres of Buenos Aires National Wildlife refuge along the Mexican border.

With strict “environmental controls,” and no off roads vehicles being allowed in National Parks, so our border patrols are relegated to foot and horseback patrols. And the worst parts of it, there are no plans to enforce border measures, and or re-open these parks, because of Obama and Democratic U.S. congress reluctances. 

And now, insane President Obama wants to sue Arizona, over their border security bill SB 1070. That in its self tells you, where the mind and thoughts of this U.S. president is at, and it certainly isn’t for the SECURITY of the people in America or Arizona.

The state of Arizona has great PROOF, showing that the federal government has totally FAILED in border security for the safety of all Americans. But however, with contradictory ACTIVISTS federal judges, those who support tougher federal hold over state rights, always NEVER rule the way they should for the PEOPLE.

That is why, we must all rise up and stand for Arizona and other states who are taking serious actions against these foreign criminal invasions in their states. Arizona can, and must tell the Feds and the Fed judge to butt-out, state rights prevail for the security of its citizens. If Arizona fails, then we all fail as a nation.

Me, with the Che Guevara mentality, you know what folks? If we ever have a revolution in this country, I would support open systematic judge, jury and executions of Washington political TRAITORS, who have brought MY country down to the brinks of ruin. 

Five Federal Lands in Arizona Have Travel Warnings in Place “Imagine the federal government closing a section of the Lincoln Memorial because it was under the control of Mexican drug lords and bands of illegal immigrants.

That scenario is playing out as reality in southern Arizona, where parts of five federal lands -- including two designated national monuments -- continue to post travel warnings or be outright closed to Americans who own the land because of the dangers of "human and drug trafficking" along the Mexican border.

Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge -- about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park -- have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.

"Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns," the website reads.

On another page titled "Border Concerns," the website warns that visitors should be aware that "drug smuggling routes" pass through the park.

"If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene," the website reads. "Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States."

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

"All suspected illegal activities should be reported to [the Bureau of Land Management] or local law enforcement authorities," Ironwood Forest's website reads. "Visitors should stay safe by avoiding contact with persons exhibiting suspicious behavior or engaged in dangerous activities. Drive with caution and look for fast-moving vehicles and pedestrians on back roads."

Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona office, said roughly a dozen signs were posted earlier this month along the Sonoran Desert National Monument advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to "active drug and human" smuggling. The signs are not far from where a Pinal County deputy was shot and killed during a confrontation with marijuana smugglers in April and the fatal shooting of two men suspected to be drug smugglers.

"It is a corridor for smugglers of all types," Godfrey told FoxNews.com.

Similar signs have been posted at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Forest, which covers nearly 1.8 million acres in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.

Estimates of exactly how many acres of federal land are closed due to safety concerns near the border were not immediately available, but at least one lawmaker told FoxNews.com that the policy of "ceding" federal land to drug and human trafficking is unacceptable.

"This is one of those things that the Department of Interior does not want to publicize," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, ranking Republican on the House Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee. "These bad actors are now being channeled into federal lands along the border because it's so easy to make that access. The situation is getting worse on federal lands and will only get worse until we make some proactive activity to change the status quo."

"Frankly," Bishop continued, "the status quo is failing. We are failing to control our borders."

Bishop, who has introduced legislation that would remove environmental restrictions the Department of Interior imposes on U.S. Border Patrol agents, questioned the message sent by federal authorities by closing off part of the Buenos Aires Refuge.

"That is a ludicrous message," he said. "That policy in unacceptable. That strikes of running a policy of appeasement to drug cartels instead of fighting back. Someone has to say that not one inch of American property will be given to the bad guys and not one death is acceptable."