Trump, Newsom and Bass: all in.

With the deployment of Marines and additional National Guard, the leftists running California and L.A. HAVE to keep the riots going.

They have no choice now.

If Trump succeeds, it will be ANOTHER political disaster for both Newsom AND Bass, who proved their political incompetence in the recent fires that rocked LA.

If Trump's deployment of troops is successful, then he will get the credit and Gov. Incompetence along with Mayor Moron will look like complete idiots that Trump had to come in and bail out in SPITE of them, their opposition notwithstanding.

Trump, for his part, now MUST end these riots by whatever means he can for the same reason.

The ripple effects of this will likely determine the mid-terms and play a major role in '28, either way.

Both sides are all in. Now, we've got to see what The River will deal.

A few thoughts on DUI, crime, drug manufacture or sale and illegal aliens:

 Actually, the ways to deal with DUI are rather simple:

1. Make it illegal to drink any amount and drive. Simply stated, reduce the BAC level to 0.0.
2. Impound the vehicle. If convicted, auction the vehicle off, paid for or not.
3. Permanently suspend the driving privilege. For life.

The responsibility for DUI begins and ends with the driver.

Knowing these are the penalties for ANY DUI conviction would sharply reduce DUI, and end any ambivalence on the part of drivers: "Did I drink too much to drive?"

Drinking and driving at all is automatically too much.

We either want to end this problem or we don't.

And that philosophy could be applied to any criminal issue confronting us: Use a weapon in a crime, gun, knife, baseball bat?

Life in prison. No parole.

We need to make the illegal use of weapons so expensive in terms of prison time to the offender that they'd never think of using a weapon illegally for any purpose.

Illegal drugs?

Anyone involved in the manufacture, importation or distribution of any illegal drug?

Life in prison. No parole.

200,000 deaths attributed to fentanyl over the past two years. The outrage that SHOULD be evident is strangely muted. Locking people up for life that have imported or manufactured the tools for those deaths should be job one.

Illegal aliens?

Immediate deportation. End the illegal alien destination resort we've built here that brings them here by the millions. If they want to appeal deportation, they may, from outside the US.

Any illegal is automatically banned from legal residence or citizenship, ever.

Illegals are to be denied ownership of property, businesses, and/or licenses.

Illegal alien criminals serve their sentences in prisons and then are immediately deported.

Proof of citizenship or legal status needs to be required to attend schools at any level, or to get medical assistance, save to make the patient stable and then deport them.

End the bastardization of the 14th Amendment which was never meant to confer automatic citizenship to illegal aliens of the children they deliberately come here to have.

We take expensive, time-consuming and by no means guaranteed efforts to stop DUI's. PSA's abound about drinking and driving... but we effectively say it's OK to drink, just don't drink too much.

I'm pretty sure that idea is small comfort to the dead and crippled that result from such a wink, wink; nod, nod concept.

As a nation, we either want to end these issues or, at least, dramatically curtail them or we don't.

We keep doing the same things, over and over, achieving the same dismal results.

It's long since passed time to do something that will work. Doing the same things, over and over, while expecting a different outcome is insane.

How much longer do we put up with it?

When is enough, enough?

Fascinating Question about the Arizona illegal alien decision.

.
Like a lot of other people, I frequently get emails passed around that the senders don't check out before they forward, or in the case of whoever was running the Clark County GOP web site a year or two ago, stupidly put one of those up, only to receive national ridicule (rightfully) for being gullible enough to believe the tripe they posted.

Well, I got one of those last night... one of those damning, to-good-to-be-true indictments of government. The person who sent it to me admitted that they hadn't checked it out... just forwarded it (Which means that there was a very high likelihood that it's false in either one or more critical elements used to buttress the case.)

But this one...

In a nutshell, it's rather simple:

As we all know by now, a federal court judge hacked up Arizona's HB 1070, the local enforcement effort to stop state government generally and state taxpayers particularly from being overrun by illegal aliens and the services they require as a result of federal government malfeasance in their deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws in the state.

The problem?

A plain language reading of the United States Constitution seems to indicate that the judge in question had no right to rule, and that the US Supreme Court should have been the jurisdiction from the beginning which resolved this case.

Here's Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial
shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The boldfaced portion above says "In all Cases.... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

A relatively recent Supreme Court decision, Carcieri, uses the plain language standard to invalidate Interior's right to take land into trust for Indian Tribes.

(a) When a statute’s text is plain and unambiguous, United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1 , the statute must be applied according to its terms, see, e.g., Dodd v. United States, 545 U. S. 353 .

Now, I understand that the Constitution is NOT a "statute." But I cannot see and have yet to hear where the Constitution is not held to the same standard.

Which, of course, brings us to the case in question:

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

vs.

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity,

Defendants.

Can anyone in the legal profession tell me:

How is it that any court, outside the plain-language requirement described above, may rule on this case?

Looks rather straight forward to me.
.

When the President is a lying S.O.B.

.
The New York Post is reporting that the Liar-in-Chief stated the following during his whining, sniveling, vacuous bitchfest early yesterday::

President Barack Obama said Thursday that being American “is not a matter of blood or birth,” but said that “no matter how decent” the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are, they should be held accountable for breaking the law.

God save us from moronic blithering idiots such as this.

Being American is PRECISELY a matter of "blood and birth." Yes, we have an administrative way to become American citizens that you want to give to 12 million illegal aliens in the hopes they will either vote for your dumb ass or the dumb asses who share your warped view. But for the rest of us, we either wait in line and follow the law, or, in fact, we're born here, as I was; or blood, as my son was born in Germany while I was a serving Army officer... making him no less an American than I.

But at the end of the day, Mr. President, this "world citizen" crap you're stuck on, where borders are mere suggestions to fringe leftists such as yourself has as a direct result the very law you assail, a law that is a direct result of YOUR intransigence and YOUR decision to allow the drug cartels to slaughter US. Your deliberate, politically motivated decision to allow what amounts to open borders is inexcusable and stands as a direct violation of your oath.

You have, once again,. managed to make me ashamed of my government. You sir, are a despicable President and human being.
.

My new favorite National League manager: Tony LaRusso

.
Speaks for itself. H/T Orbusmax.


.

Woodland's city council allowed illegal aliens to carry the day.

.
I was at the debacle of the Resolution 588 last night, where the resolution supporting law and order lost to those who would advocate complete lawlessness in violation of their oaths.

Two of the more ignorant council members, Al Swindell (Who had his bogus democrat talking points down pat) and Marilee McCall made frequently untrue and outrageous claims concerning the Arizona law, HB 1070, the controversial and completely Constitutional law recently adopted by the State of Arizona.

I went there to observe, hopping that at least the council members would be informed, and that they would uphold their oaths of office. Clearly, they did not.

Those advocating the violation of our laws made observations concerning the impacts of this resolution supporting HB 1070 that were bald-faced lies. That the cowards on the council (Burke, Swindell, McCall, Mattson (who didn't bother to show up) and the mayor (Blum) who cast the subsequent tie-breaking vote to oppose supporting the law allowed the illegal aliens and their lobby to carry the day will put the city of Woodland at risk for bankruptcy as they bleed money for services and jailing the increasingly larger and now welcomed illegal alien population.

Not one of the illegal alien lobby advocated the enforcement of the laws of the country they were so cavalierly violating. Not one of those supporting the enforcement of our laws could put that aspect of our country aside.

From the opponents, I heard deliberate lies and ignorance as to both what the Arizona law contains and what it's impacts would be. From those voting "no" on this resolution, I heard the same.

The City Council of Woodland had the opportunity to go down in history as a courageous, far-seeing group whop wanted to put an end to this massive insult to the laws of this country.

It was an utterly shameful display. And the people of Woodland should do something about it.
.

Cudos to Costa Mesa, CA: a "Rule of Law" community

.
H/T to Michelle Malkin: Costa Mesa, CA: A “rule of law” community

Costa Mesa Declares Itself 'Rule of Law' City

Updated: Wednesday, 19 May 2010, 10:39 AM PDT
Published : Wednesday, 19 May 2010, 7:59 AM PDT

Text Story by: City News
Posted by: Dennis Lovelace

Costa Mesa - Striking back at so-called sanctuary cities, the Costa Mesa City Council declared itself a "Rule of Law" city, setting itself up as a lightning rod in the latest wave of debate over immigration reform, it was reported today.

The vote came last night at the urging of Mayor Allan Mansoor, who was condemned by the Orange County branch of the Anti-Defamation League in April when he called for city efforts to help enforce immigration laws.

In 2005, Mansoor proposed training Costa Mesa police to enforce federal immigration laws, and that touched off a debate that culminated in a First Amendment lawsuit. Costa Mesa prevailed in the case when a jury rejected the ACLU-backed lawsuit in December.

Mansoor's "Rule of Law" proposal was criticized by five public speakers, the Orange County Register reported. No one spoke in favor of it.

More:

It's the rare government at any level that shows this kind of courage. How long will it be before Obama and his Winged Monkeys come out and condemn these people?

Costa Mesa: Change *I* can believe in.
.

A suggestion for Arizona's response to the moronic "boycotts."

.
We all know what's gone on in Arizona: The federal government has been failing to enforce laws concerning illegal aliens for years, and the people of Arizona (not to mention the people of this country) are sick of it and have had enough.

Arizona, unfortunately for them, borders the agonizing, unending train wreck that is California. As a result of that moronic bigotry on the part of LA, were I in Arizona's legislature, I would introduce legislation tomorrow morning to end all contracts of any kind with any entity located in California. In short, I would launch a counter-boycott.

Compared to California, Arizona's economy is Heaven on earth. I would embark on a series of policies that would cause business in California to re-locate into Arizona at warp speed. I would use any incentive possible short of government subsidies to get these businesses to close down and move to where sanity reigns: Arizona.

I know that I, personally, will do no business of any kind with any company located in CA. I will not buy their products, vacation, transit or in any way set foot anywhere in the entirety of the state.

Taking it a step further, I would cut off any state funding to any city or municipality WITHIN Arizona moronic enough to challenge this law.

Any city engaging in this nonsensical crap would be put on my "Do Not Patronize" list. Hopefully, I will be joined by 49 other states and millions of others in telling LA to stick it in their ear.
.

It's not often that I agree with the Administration about anything, but this approach to illegals has been needed for a long time.

.
There's a little town in Okanogan County called Brewster. (pop 2200 or so)

To read this article, one would come to the belief that the economy of this town is almost fully dependent on the illegal alien trade.

In this instance, what's happened here is that Immigration has notified a large farm that they would be subjected to an audit. as a result, they notified the work force of the following:

That because many of the forms and identifications used for employment were suspect, unless those employees could prove they were in this country legally, the company would let them go.

The result?

Five hundred and fifty were fired.

As they should have been.

This is, I believe, the missing link in "enforcement" (using the term euphemistically) of our immigration laws.

It's not the only step, of course. All locations doing anything concerning illegal aliens, including schools and hospitals, should be reporting them to ICE, who should then, in turn, deport them.

Further, we should make absolutely sure that they receive no government assistance at any level for anything, and we should eliminate the bizarre laws that make birth in this country an automatic qualification for citizenship.

But most importantly, we must hold those who would employ illegals the most accountable.

If we were to take these steps, then the illegal alien problem would be severely curtailed and it would be curtailed in the fairest way possible.

By that, I mean that those who break the laws of this country by being here illegally are in no way favored over the millions of others who would immigrate to this country by following the rules.

The nonsensical idea that those violating our laws are more qualified to be here then those following those laws is just that: bizarre.
.

The latest on the illegal alien front, and how unions make it worse

.
Fascinating article about the amateurish steps taken by the Obama Administration to address the growing illegal alien problem.

Seems the administration is taking the stealth approach to doing the same thing Bush did... Bush was just a lot louder about it.

Now, I don't fault the Obama effort to actually address this issue: the effort itself is part of a strategy I actually support, which is to hold employers accountable for holding up their end of the illegal alien destination resort equation. I DO fault them for failing to round these scum up and deport them, but half a loaf is better than none.

And I also fault the efforts of both this administration's, and the last's, efforts to avoid checking out the union membership the same way.

Unions should undergo the same types of audits that employers face. And if unions have illegal aliens on their membership roles, then they, too, should face the same penalties.

They don't, of course. Here's the money quote:

Service Employees International Union Local 6, which represents about 280 of Seattle Building's workers, said as many as 150 of them might be undocumented.

So, if the clown running this union KNOWS that,,, then why isn't the union held accountable for aiding and abetting these illegal aliens? How is it that these scum can HELP these people break the law with impunity?

Sergio Salinas, SEIU Local 6's president, said the union has filed grievances against Seattle Building over the firings but admitted there's nothing it can do to stop them.

So, this union KNOWS that these scum are here illegally; knows they've been HIRED illegally, knows they've been FIRED legally, but filed grievances ANYWAY?

He said unlike other immigration investigations elsewhere, Seattle Building used E-Verify to ferret out those on its payroll who might be illegal — something a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security, which administers the program, call an "inappropriate" use of E-Verify. The system is intended to be used for new hires — not to check existing employees.

So, using a tool provided by the government to ferret out illegal hires is "inappropriate?" WHY can't "existing employees" be checked? In fact, why shouldn't the unions use the same thing to check THEIR MEMBERSHIP?

So, you truly do learn something new every day: you learn that, in part, unions break the law much like they did in the days of Hoffa.

And no one is doing anything about it.
.

Why yes, Blanca Catt SHOULD be deported... why do you ask?

.
I get that Blanca Catt has been given a free education she shouldn't have received. I get that she was adopted.

But I also get two other things:

1. She's an ILLEGAL ALIEN

2. She's suing US for a million dollars.

Of course, I believe that if she is kicked out, as she and all other illegal aliens should be kicked out, then she loses any standing to sue.

But she is now an adult; she is a Mexican national; she does not deserve to be here and she should leave... and take her bogus, nonsensical lawsuit WITH her.

The screw up actually took place when she was placed into foster care when she was 5.

She should NOT have been placed into foster care when she was 5; she should have been DEPORTED when she was 5... as should her then parents.

Apparently, Oregon KNEW she was an illegal alien, and that didn't make any difference at the time.

She needs to leave this country and wait in line like everyone else. That, as her lawyer put it, "Her Spanish speaking skills are very poor," first, isn't our problem; and second, I'm sure that all the bilingual and welfare programs for those unable to speak the native language of the country they're in will absolutely take care of all of her needs.

Right?

Good bye; good luck and good riddance.
.

More illegal alien idiocy: Fla. hospital defends secretly deporting patient

.
There's nothing to defend here. This guy is lucky to be alive. That said, he had precisely ZERO right to be here.... let alone burn through $1.5 million dollars.

The hospital did precisely the right thing... and I hope the idiot that filed suit here gets the thrill of being required to pay all of the hospital's legal bills.

Fla. hospital defends secretly deporting patient

All sides agree on one thing in the strange case of a South Florida hospital that secretly repatriated a seriously brain injured patient back to Guatemala.

By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ

AP Hispanic Affairs Writer

STUART, Fla. —

All sides agree on one thing in the strange case of a South Florida hospital that secretly repatriated a seriously brain injured patient back to Guatemala.

During the early hours of a steamy July 2003 morning, Martin Memorial Medical Center chartered a private plane and sent 37-year-old Luis Jimenez back to the Central American country without telling his relatives in the U.S. or Guatemala - even as his cousin and legal guardian, Montejo Gaspar, frantically sought to stop the move.

There, things get murky. Gaspar is suing the hospital for essentially deporting Jimenez, who was an illegal immigrant. The hospital, which spent more than $1.5 million on his care over three years, says Jimenez wanted to go home.

Underlying the dispute is the broader question of what's a hospital to do with a patient who requires long-term care, is unable to pay and doesn't qualify for federal or state aid because of his immigration status. Health care and immigration experts across the country are watching the case, which could go to a jury Thursday, and which could set precedent in Florida and possibly beyond. Lawyers for Jimenez said this appears to be the first time a lawsuit has been filed in such a case.

More:

So, why do legislative democrats put our security at risk: Those in US illegally should not be able to obtain state identification

.

Yet, Washington is one of three states that allows non-legal residents to obtain driver's licenses.

That's the headline question of the Walla Walla Union Bulletin this a.m. from their editorial of 2 days ago.

Here locally, we've had this massive brewhaha because Commissioner Tom Mielke has and is attempting to implement reform of the local illegal alien benefit package, much like some counties in California, including Sacramento, are taking those very steps.... and erstwhile mayoral candidate Vancouver City Councilman Tim Leavitt is playing the local hispanic population like a fish for his own political ends...

And among the many benefits we offer our illegal alien population in this destination resort state, is the right to secure a driver's license, accurately described as the "gold standard" of identification within the United States.

Why?

Many, many people read this blog. Hopefully, at least one will stop by with an explanation that makes sense. Maybe the rabidly leftist editorialists of the Columbian will do a piece demanding that this state actually take this small, common sense step when it comes to say, issuing driver's licenses... or, perhaps, the more mundane and certainly more important aspect of, well, proving your citizenship before you can vote in this state.

Nah. Dems benefit from the illegal alien vote. They will do nothing to stem the tide of their illegal political support, because a voter tally doesn't know or care where the votes come from.

Returning to Mr. Leavitt, one need look no farther than his recent hate crimes soap opera. In the maelstrom of his bogus, pure-political-ploy hate-crimes resolution, he COULD have brought up this and other illegal alien benefits. But he actually remained silent on illegal alien issues because, well, you can't let "doing the right thing" go beyond the massive scam of the concept of "hate crimes" and besides, had he brought up that little bit of unpleasantness, do you believe for one moment the leftist hispanic activists would have come to his support?

No.... here in the Soviet Socialist Republic, the leftists running the show like things the way they are. So, don't expect any change any time real soon.

from Archives: Daily Editorial Updated: Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Those in US illegally should not be able to obtain state identification

Yet, Washington is one of three states that allows non-legal residents to obtain driver's licenses.

By the Union-Bulletin Editorial Board

When it comes to acceptable forms of ID, the driver's license is generally viewed as the gold standard within the United States.

The assumption is that folks who have a state-issued driver's license are who they say they are. It is also assumed they are living in the country legally.

But those assumptions, particularly on legal status, can be wrong in Washington, Hawaii and New Mexico. These are the only three states that don't require applicants to show they are in the United States legally before issuing a standard driver's license. Utah has a two-tiered system that allows illegal immigrants to have driver cards that can't be used as ID.

Allowing illegal immigrants to have state-issued driver's licenses -- accepted ID -- is a threat to national security. It also makes it easier for criminals to obtain ID that can be used for mischief.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has urged states to tighten their policies. Specifically, it believes that verifying a person's Social Security number and legal presence in the U.S. reduces the risk of trouble.

More:

My take on the illegal alien issue: is it time for a National ID?

.
We can easily presume that Mr. Obama will reverse most of, if not all of, Mr. Bush’s efforts, weak as they were, to address the immigration issue.

Estimates vary. Some say the number of illegals is 10 million. Some, 12 million. Others, even bigger numbers. What is beyond dispute is that we are currently possessed of millions upon millions of people who are breaking the laws of this country merely by their presence.

We are possessed of millions of illegal aliens when Mr. Bush assumed office; we are possessed of them now that he is leaving… 8 years later. It is perhaps one of, if not the, most colossal failures of the Bush Administration and one of the main reasons for his massive lack of popularity.

The costs to this country are really incalculable. Illegal voting. Illegal health care. Illegal “sanctuary cities.” Massive impacts on social services. Illegal attendance at public schools. Using up college slots that could be filled with legal residents. Massive negative impacts on drug manufacture and transportation.

Leftists demanding that illegal aliens get the same rights and considerations as citizens, including those citizens who went through the legal process to become citizens… who applied legally, waited their turn legally, and became citizens, legally.

Leftists know they benefit from the illegal vote. Leftists demand immediate amnesty, open boarders and complete forgiveness of the violation of our laws.
The illegal alien issue has not gone away. At some point, soon, the leftists, emboldened by the election of The One, will push for this “reform” because there’s trouble looming on the horizon and leftists want to avoid a 1994 off-year election re-run.

I advocate that we enforce immigration laws much like we enforce illegal drug manufacture laws.

That is, if you hire an illegal alien for anything, you suffer the same penalty as you would if you were convicted of manufacturing meth or some other illegal drug.

This is not an arbitrary requirement. I recognize that such an obligation would require a functioning information clearing house so that perspective employers could pick up the phone and check social security numbers and other information to verify citizenship… but that system should be in place regardless, so that anyone can find out how many people are using their own social security number.

That said, if you hire an illegal, you should go to prison. You should lose your business. You should lose your house and your cars and your jewelry and your… and your…

We are either enforcing immigration laws, or we’re not.

Sending this mixed message… that we’re kinda-sorta enforcing them sometimes depending… does nothing to discourage those who would violate our laws from doing so. Putting the onus on those who make it possible; the employers; would do the trick.

Further, all government funding should be withheld from any municipality that does not aggressively enforce immigration laws. Taking it a step farther, I would put a requirement on our school systems to require proof of citizenship for all students before they’re allowed in.

In short, it’s time for a national identification card. And if anyone’s got a better idea, I’d love to hear it. And Mr. Bush’s amnesty program is not a “better idea.” Nor is “amnesty.”

As a nation, we should never reward the violation of our laws. And either of those programs would accomplish that very thing. Further, either program would STILL result in millions here illegally… solving nothing.

Lock down the border, fence and National Guard. Hold ALL employers accountable, from the largest employers to Joe down the street.

We must do what has to be done. But we won’t… because Mr. Bush lacked the guts and the vision; and Mr. Obama and the democrats are not remotely interested in doing what has to be done.
.

Who kidnapped our Governor... and who did they replace her with: Gov calls for deportation of jailed illegal aliens

First, she comes up with a budget that looks like Dino Rossi wrote it.

Then, she comes up with the idea of actually DEPORTING illegal aliens... jailed or otherwise?

It's almost like someone kidnapped her and stuffed someone with common sense into a Gregoire Suit.

Gov calls for deportation of jailed illegal aliens

Local E-mail this Print this RSS
Last updated December 30, 2008 4:58 p.m. PT

By MANUEL VALDESASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SEATTLE -- To save money, Gov. Chris Gregoire wants illegal aliens serving time in state jails deported.

Her proposal estimates that deporting illegal aliens - who are serving or would serve time in state jails for drug or property crime convictions - will save the state more than $9 million in the next two-year budget.

The state faces a $5.7 billion budget deficit over the next 2 1/2 years, and Gregoire has proposed a no new-taxes budget proposal laden with cuts, including about $200 million from the Department of Corrections, the Attorney General's office, and other public safety programs.

The deportation proposal is modeled after a program in Arizona that has saved the state more than $18.5 million since 2005, said Eldon Vail, Secretary of the state Department of Corrections.

"It's not an ideal choice, if revenue was there, I'd say have them do their time," Vail said. "Is justice better served? It's a tough question to wrestle with when you don't have resources."

More: