No More Anchor Babies!

Received today from RightMarch.com

ALERT: We have a chance today to "plug up" one of the biggest holes in American national security -- a hole that has led to millions of illegal immigrants being granted the "right" to stay in this country, even though they broke the law to get here.

That "hole" is called "birthright citizenship" for so-called "anchor babies" (children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents) -- and a bill has been re-introduced to STOP it.

After the Civil War, the 14th amendment was introduced into the Constitution to allow slaves to become US citizens after the emancipation. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined. Since then it has been misused for decades to allow literally millions of illegal alien "anchor babies" -- and their illegal parents and families -- to remain in this country.

These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an "anchor" for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some hospitals in Texas, administrators estimate that 70% or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. It's the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is, most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We MUST end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally -- including the anchor baby incentive.

TAKE ACTION: No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens.

You read that right. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Thankfully, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) has once again introduced his Birthright Citizenship bill that would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. The "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R.1868) would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make it more difficult for children born in the U.S. to gain citizenship.

Under the proposed legislation, a person born in the United States, in order to gain citizenship, must have at least one parent who is:

• a U.S. citizen or national;
  
• a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
  
• an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

PLEASE, send a FREE message right away, urging YOUR U.S. Representative to co-sponsor and actively support H.R. 1868, the "Birthright Citizenship Act":

https://writerep.house.gov/

It's time to END "anchor baby" citizenship for illegal aliens!

1OO days Of the pOser [Obama]

Here is the link to the low down.

Do you remember his promise of "No more politics as usual." ? Yeah, that was funny.

Do you know the President?

We're in for a long four years.

TEA Party

I haven't blogged for a while. This administration DAILY demonstrates that they have NO interest in being financially responsible. See you at the TEA party.
http://taxdayteaparty.com/

TEA = Taxed Enough Already!

Siege at Wounded Knee 1973

The header to this blog says (as part of the explanation of the name of the blog) "I'm not talking about the war [on terror]. The title of this blog is an argument that an armed citizenry will keep any governing body in check better than an unarmed citizenry."

I checked with a couple people that were pretty aware of what made the national news in 1973 (about the Siege at Wounded Knee) and one told me:

"I believe it was reported as the government trying to control a bunch of terrorists."

That just gives me cold chills because I personally remember watching the news in 1993 and hearing reports that the government was "trying to control a bunch of terrorists" in Waco, Texas. (I think we all know what a sham that turned out to be)

I also remember hearing in 1992 that "an officer and a suspect in Idaho have been killed in a firefight between Federal Agents and suspected domestic terrorists".

The truth about the 1992 incident (Ruby Ridge) isn't so clear cut in favor of the government.

Witnesses have said the sharpshooter fired as Mrs. Weaver, 42, held open the cabin door, her 10-month-old baby in her arms, to let Randy Weaver, their daughter and Mr. Harris inside.
Given what I know of the track record of Federal law enforcement, it is EASY for me to give the Native Americans at Wounded Knee the benefit of the doubt.

It really doesn't matter two hoots who occupies the oval office when it comes to federal law enforcement bending the rules and abusing their power. It has happened over and over again under Democrat and Republican presidents and I don't see any reason to believe that this One will take any steps to "Change" this.

"Buy 'em cheap and bury 'em deep".

Another one owes taxes

He can run a successful presidential campaign but he can't find qualified individuals that pay their taxes on time?

I really can't believe that somebody as smart as Barack Hussein Obama is this ignorant. These nominations of people who don't follow the law and don't pay their taxes is just another example of his attitude that "we won so we'll do what we want".

Are any of the Obamaniacs waking up yet?

Here is the story on Ron Kirk, the latest Obama tax evader.

How will the "Stimulus" bill effect our economy?

Sound is optional (but fun) on this one. You will want to watch it full screen so you can see the graphs and (trust me) you're going to want to pause it at least a couple times because some details go by pretty quickly.

As I've mentioned before, the GOP made two attempts (Bush-2003, McCain-2005) to stop the economic train wreck that we're currently in and they were thwarted both times by the DNC.

This video tells us what we're in for now.

No surprise - Racism in the Stimulus Package

Robert Reich basically says "If you have skills (and could actually contribute to ending a recession) or you don't have enough melanin in your skin, you can't have any stimulus money."

(That translation is for my liberal friends - the rest of us understand what is going on)





Can I now apply for government aid because I'm "melanin challenged"? (translation for liberals: that was a joke)

Question: if "wealth redistribution" is such a great idea, why aren't Barack Hussein Obama ( and his toadies) giving away their own personal money? It doesn't take any kind of great political acumen to steal one man's money and give it to another man. And it doesn't solve any problems.

Another Question: Where are all the altruistic liberals?
Answer: They are few and far between.

How Congress FAILed to protect our economy

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) "...safety and soundness...is not an issue",
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) "...we do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac",
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) "...theres nothing that's indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae...".
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Jack Reed (D-RI), and other elected Democrats DEFENDED Freddie and Fannie in 2003 & 2005 and REFUSED TO LISTEN to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL), Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) and other elected Republicans.

Why???

WAtch the video and just check out the list of receipients of campaign contributions at 5:17 ... even the "One" and "Only", the great "hOpe" of the democratic party is listed. Don't expect much in the way of "change" any time sOon.

Alan Keyes on Barack Obama

Just listen.

Obama's Numbers Continue to Drop

Hmmm.... interesting.

Favorability ratings dropped 19% in less than one month? That's quite an accomplishment.

Obamacide

OBAMACIDE - the music video.

Join the resistance at www.fightFOCA.com

Here is Obama in his own words speaking to Planned Parenthood.

Obama Inaugural Ratings Fall Short of Reagan’s

This article from NewsMax.com points up an interesting historical fact that we didn't hear from the main stream media outlets.

Although the number of viewers watching the presidential inauguration coverage of Barack Obama was impressive, they fall short of those who saw Ronald Reagan take the oath of office for his first term in 1981.

According to Nielsen Media Research, 37.8 million television viewers tuned in Tuesday to watch the swearing-in ceremony, which was the largest inaugural audience in 28 years. Reagan's first inauguration in 1981 drew a whopping 41.8 million.

The article goes on to remind us that...

Obama's figures include telecasts on 17 broadcast and cable networks, while Reagan’s swearing-in ceremony nearly three decades ago could only be seen on ABC, CBS and NBC.

Interestingly enough, Obama's approval rating has done nothing but slide downhill since inauguration day.

Montana Wildlife Impact

From an internal US Forest Service memo, late October 2008:

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect wildlife here in the United States . . .

Anticipating a sweeping Democratic Party victory in the November elections, animals that were formerly self-sufficient are already modifying their behavior to take advantage of what they expect to be a new set of societal norms in the next four to eight years.

This black bear from Montana has ceased hunting for a living and is sitting outside the US Fish & Wildlife Service office in Kalispell, apparently waiting to be fed and to have his winter den dug by government employees.

The residents of Kalispell are calling him 'Bearack Obama'.

[Dear Liberal: The preceding is a joke. I'm only telling you this because, by voting for Obama, you demonstrated that you can't tell when somebody is pulling your leg. Have a nice day.]

Worth A Thousand Words