Which makes a lot of sense to me, as it apparently does to Ann Coulter, as well.

My first post today addressed, in part, the “homosexuals rule!” attitude prevalent in Obama’s America ©.

But there’s more.

From One News Now:

A border-enforcement advocate is blasting President Barack Obama over the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to allow illegal aliens with American same-sex partners to be eligible for consideration of having their deportation orders put on hold.

The announcement was made public late Friday afternoon. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano said a memo to Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices will state that binational same-sex couples in long-term relationships would meet the definition of family that government lawyers can use as grounds for deferring a foreign citizen’s removal from the U.S.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), reacted to the announcement in an interview with OneNewsNow.

“… Here’s the Obama administration again giving legal status - a legal “family” status - to homosexuals as part of an amnesty for illegal immigrants,” he says. “He’s also expanding the unlawful, unconstitutional amnesty measures, which started with the DREAM Act kit.”

According to Gheen, Obama is acting outside the Constitution of the United States in an effort to strengthen his hold on “unlawful” political power.

“He’s creating legislation,” says Gheen. “He is a tyrant, he is a dictator, he is an authoritarian, [and] he is acting outside the law.

“He is contradicting the U.S. Constitution, and [he's] appealing to any group of people that he believes that he can appeal to to be loyal to him politically and possibly further than that. He’s calling on people that he can count on to mobilize for him politically and possibly anything else that he wants.”

Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth About Homosexuality concurs with Gheen.

“They’re trying to an end-run around Congress by promoting homosexual relationships,” says LaBarbera. “It’s bad enough if it were to be passed by Congress and then signed into law by the president — but here again, we have Obama going around Congress and just enacting these radical policies.”

Welcome to Obama’s America ©….

From Front Porch Politics

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will not be bullied by the Obama administration’s new illegal immigrant policies. According to a new executive order she issued on Wednesday, she has instructed state agencies to deny benefits to illegal immigrants regardless of whether they get temporary work permits or amnesty under Barack Obama’s disregard for the law in his new immigration policy. Brewer has labeled the new policy as “backdoor amnesty.”

Wednesday was the first day that illegals were to apply for work permits under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy and thousands lined up across the country to do so. But according to Brewer’s EO, state agencies will be denying IDs and benefits to those individuals.

You have to ask yourself: Why can’t all governors be as responsible and smart as Brewer when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants?

Jan BrewerTelling Obama to insert his backdoor amnesty where the moon don’t shine…

As readers may recall, Hard Astarboard was one of the blogs that whole heartedly supported Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo in his primary bid for the Presidency during the campaign season leading up to November, 2008 elections and the tragic results that placed a Bolshevik Barack Hussein Obama in the White House.

Unfortunately, as the very conservative Mr. Tancredo was the liberals’ and therefore mainstream media’s worst nightmare, he was largely ignored by MSM networks and print media and therefore never had much opprtunity to get his message across, eventually dropping out of the primary race.

This past Monday, he had an OpEd in the Washington Times I would have liked to post here, but I’ve been tied up all week and away from any computers.

The Supreme Court twice last week abandoned the Constitution to give new powers to the federal government and the Obama administration. The question for conservatives and patriots is: What can be done about it?

In Monday’s Arizona ruling, the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, creates a totally novel and illogical doctrine of federal pre-emption. In Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. goes through unprecedented contortions to effectively rewrite the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a taxation measure, not an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause.

It will strike many Americans as especially noxious and foolhardy to give Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his Justice Department lawyers such broad discretionary powers of law enforcement when Congress is moving toward removing him from office.

There also is a weird irony and alarming disconnect at play when the Supreme Court says the executive branch may defer to the feelings and interests of foreign governments in enforcing our immigration laws at the same time the Justice Department is under investigation for running an arms-smuggling operation in flagrant violation of Mexico’s sovereignty.

The Arizona ruling is overshadowed by the more far-reaching Obamacare ruling, but it has implications far beyond immigration law. That ruling looks into the constitutional history of pre-emption doctrine and discovers new territory never mapped before. States are forbidden not only to enact laws that go againstfederal law in the realm of immigration, but to enact laws that are totally consistent with federal law and, in fact, support and enhance federal enforcement.

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal government is justified in not enforcing a law - and forbidding a state government from such enforcement as well - if its enforcement might trespass on the federal government’s foreign-policy interests. This doctrine opens up a huge can of worms for law enforcement generally, and not just immigration law enforcement.

Mexico and other nations in the people-export business are objecting to enforcement of U.S. immigration law because it adversely affects Mexican nationals living unlawfully in our country. The Supreme Court says this is a legitimate concern of the federal government and therefore a legitimate reason to not enforce laws. To have this idea codified in a Supreme Court ruling, to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia, truly boggles the mind.

There are legitimate and well-understood grounds for federal pre-emption when a state legislates in an area which either the Constitution or Congress has claimed for exclusive federal jurisdiction. States cannot establish their own currency or undertake diplomatic relations with foreign nations. But in many areas, Congress has legislated without claiming exclusive jurisdiction, and even when it is claimed, state laws that merely supplement federal law always have been deemed constitutional. Thus, Justice Kennedy had to resort to a tortured reading of congressional intent to reach his decision in the Arizona case.

The article in its entirety is here, and well worth the read.

Well, the Supreme Court have rendered their decision on Arizona’s Immigration law.

Amid all the pronouncements of liberal victory against Arizona’s immigration law since the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it struck down three of four provisions of SB 1070, there’s an important point that some in the mainstream media are overlooking.

Obama lost. Big time.

The court, in 5-3 votes with Elena Kagan recusing herself, struck down three provisions having to do with state criminal penalties for immigration violations.

The fourth provision gives police the right to stop and demand to know the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally.

Of course, they’re dealing with The Obama here.

It’s the fourth provision at the heart of the law that really had the administration worried, and that’s the provision that the court upheld unanimously.

Historically, a unanimous Supreme Court decision on anything seals the deal. Challengers need not bother. Adios. Hasta la vista, baby.

And, as we’ve been learning, even the Supreme Court can’t usurp the power of our king, you know, that guy up there in the White Castle House.

But the justices didn’t realize they were dealing with King Obama. Instead of accepting the decision of the court with good grace and committing himself to upholding the ruling as is the president’s duty, Obama immediately set about finding ways to get around it.

First came the promise that Attorney General Eric “Blind Eye” Holder was going to watch Arizona very closely for any signs of “racial profiling.” I give it two weeks before he sues Arizona again.

Then, just to hammer home the point that His Majesty was not pleased, almost immediately following the court’s decision came the announcement that Homeland Security was suspending existing agreements with Arizona law enforcement regarding immigration, meaning they would ignore most immigration calls from Arizona.

With a president like Obama, who needs a supreme court or, for that matter, even a congress, anyway, when that one man there in the Oval Office is, evidently, all the government we need?

But don’t they always, when a policy endangers their own policies of endangerment to the United States and our way of life here?

At least, what’s left of it after all the gnawing, eroding and carving the political left has been doing to it. Morality, limited government, economic security, border security, liberty… If they have their way, the “progressives” will turn this place into a kind of Sodom and Gemorah meets the Bolsheviks — confusing, wouldn’t you say, but whoever said liberals made sense?

So.

From Hot Air:

A program that gives federal immigration officials access to the fingerprints of undocumented immigrants booked into local jails will start Tuesday across New York state despite staunch opposition from advocates and lawmakers, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

A law-enforcement official familiar with the program, called Secure Communities, confirmed that New York City and 30 other jurisdictions would join the 31 communities that already have the program in place. Suffolk, Nassau and Westchester counties, among others, have participated in Secure Communities for more than a year.

Right off the bat, this one should ring up significant support – or so you might think – because it’s actually nothing new. We’re not talking about some program where cops are cruising the parking lot at Home Depot asking people for “their papers” every morning. This is simply taking the fingerprints of illegal immigrants who are already in jail and charged with a crime and getting them into the right database. The prints were already being sent to the FBI, so shipping them over to ICE shouldn’t be much of a leap.

A representative of the immigration enforcement agency is quoted as saying that the program has already delivered results, and “has helped ICE remove more than 135,000 convicted criminal aliens, including more than 49,000 convicted of major violent offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children.” So what could possibly go wrong?

Asked about the program at a Friday news conference, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said “we prefer that they not do that here.”

….

Speaking on the radio Friday, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said there will be a rally on City Hall’s steps on Monday to urge the federal government to refrain from forcing the city’s hand.

She also said the police were being put in a “terrible position.”

“It’s just so counter to what New York is about as an immigrant city,” she added. “And I’m real proud of our mayor and our governor, who have all spoken out…. The police can’t disregard the law at the end of the day, but it’s a terrible thing to put them in when they should be focusing on real crime.”

New York – particularly the Big Apple – does have a great tradition of welcoming immigrants. Legal immigrants. They built the city and the harbor and made New York a focal point of the economic development of an emerging nation. Unfortunately, its vast size and compressed population also eventually made it a haven for gang activity and illegal trade, including illegal immigration. Contrary to what Ms. Quinn may feel, a program such as Secure Communities is not contrary to “what New York is about.” It’s precisely what New York was and should always have been about. A safe haven and open door for those who follow the legal process we have in place and wish to join America as citizens.

Which, I think, puts things as succinctly as they can be put.

But the lefties will keep on fighting it for the obvious reason that they believe we should be a lawless nation rather than a nation of laws because… because it would be, well, it would be soooooo cooooolllll….

Or something like that. I suppose you have to be a liberal in order to understand exactly where they’re coming from.

When you give liberals an inch, they will not be satisfied to take a mere mile and, like terrorists, they will continue pushing the envelope to see how far they can get. Such is the case with political correctness, and the way the left keeps pushing more and more of it on the rest of us as a way of knocking down our defenses against their various agendas, none of which are in the least bit friendly to America and the American way of life.

Here we have yet another example of this phenomenon in action;

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at MoveOn.org says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

As usual, they alter the context to make “illegal” aliens out to mean that the peoples, their existences, are illegal rather than their undocumented presences in the United States, semantics intended to villify enforcement of federal law.

It irks me to no end that this practice is allowed to continue, but I suppose that this is the essence of a country like ours, one endowed with freedom for all, including those that would destroy us from within, taking away those same liberties that allowed them to do so.

Having said that, here is the article quoted above, complete with video.

Once again, Arizona is proving to be the only wet-back infested state in the nation that’s thinking with anything other than its nether regions.

“Anchor babies” isn’t a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation’s toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they’re on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country:

Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone’s immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists — things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential “anchor baby” bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the “anchor” and leave.

This issue is serious business; Using childbirth as a means to evade the law of the land and its acceptance as such by authorities is the kind of affair that should leave, at the very least, a bad taste in the mouth of any thinking individual.

It’s just as pitiful that the pro-amnesty/pro-illegals crowd, using the usual left-handed tactic of laying guilt trips, defends the acceptance of anchor babies by claiming that sending the parents back to “the old country”, wherever it may be, will divide families.

However, it doesn’t have to, does it? Simply deport the cute little tyke in the company of his/her parents. Problem solved.

Naturally, the supporters of illegal immigration and of amnesty for those felons who have swum the ol’ Rio Grande or come across the border in a dryer context will lay guilt trips, the only weapon of the “progressives” that is second to accusations of racism, distorting a Constitutional law to fit their scenario:

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government’s control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been “hijacked” by illegal immigrants. “They use it as a wedge,” Pearce says. “This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we’ve created.” Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. “We will write it right.” He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Anchor babies spring forth from illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are illegal.

You know that, I know that and the illegals know that. So do the Democrats and their far left “progressive” masters, yet they continue to insult the intelligence of the American people by remolding laws to suit their agendas, expecting citizens to emulate simpletons and go unquestioningly with the program…

The rest of the article.

It’s about time, you say? C’mon, do you really believe it mattered, in the scheme of things, that Obama met head-to-head with the governor who signed the “controversial” anti-illegal immigration bill?

They met for half an hour and, of course:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) said Thursday that President Obama assured her that he would send White House staff members to her state to talk with officials about efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

The governor said her meeting with Obama in the Oval Office was cordial, despite their disagreement over the widely criticized state law she signed in April, which gave police greater powers to enforce federal immigration laws.

She said Obama declined to discuss whether the Justice Department plans to file a lawsuit to block the law before it takes effect next month.

The White House said in a statement that the meeting went well but that Obama reiterated his concerns about the law, including that a patchwork of state immigration regulations would complicate the federal government’s role in setting and enforcing immigration policy. The White House said Obama would like Brewer to work with him to help pass comprehensive changes to the immigration system that would provide a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally.

Of course Obama didn’t say whether or not his Attorney General and chief legal henchman, Eric Holder, was going to file a lawsuit to block the Arizona law; Assuming that Holder’s even gotten around, finally, to reading the ten page document, he’s probably busting his (pick a noun) trying to find something to take to court. Seeing as it’s pretty much the same thing as the federal law that the federal government hasn’t been enforcing, he probably doesn’t yet know if there’s anything in it he can use.

As regards a “patchwork of state immigration regulations”, maybe there would be no need for that, either if, once again, the federal government had been doing its job in that arena.

Moving right along, comprehensive changes to the immigration system that would provide a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally would do what, exactly?

I’ll tell you, and you can call me a racist if you’d like, though I assure you I am anything but. I am merely stating facts.

The “progressives” assure us fiscally concerned types that awarding U.S. citizenship to illegals would mean that they would start paying taxes, now that they’d have social security numbers and employers would report their wages to the IRS.

Right.

You’ve got millions of people earning low wages, people who — and this is fact, not a “racist” diatribe — tend to have a lot of children in their families. Four, maybe five children in a family whose total annual income is in the ballpark of $20-25,000.00, maybe as high as $30,000.00.

Folks, have you ever heard of earned income credit?

These newly minted American citizens will not be paying taxes, they’ll be receiving anywhere from $3,000.00 and change to $5,000.00 plus, depending upon whether they have 1, 2, 3 or more children.

Multiply those numbers by anywhere from 6,000,000 to 12,000,000.

I’ll tell you one thing, that Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely no compunction when it comes to plunging our nation ever deeper into “unprecedented” (one of his favorite terms when describing his dubious “accomplishments”) debt.

When Obama says he wants somebody to “work with him”, he means, “My way or the highway”, so…

I don’t really see as that meeting between Brewer and Obama really meant much.

Do you?

Chuck here.

By now, most of us have heard about the La Raza mayored Mexican colony City of Los Angeles proclaiming a boycott of Arizona (I’ll tellya’, folks, if you ever want to see some real political comedy, along the lines of Dumb and Dumber meet the cook in Fawlty Towers, you have only to go as far as the lefties and Mexican nationalists whom Los Angelinos elect to run their city for them).

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.

Spokesman David Beltran told Fox News that the message didn’t even warrant a response.

“We’re not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights,” Beltran said.

If I were a druggin’ man, I’d be after David Beltran to get the name and phone number of his dealer.

isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights is laying things on a little thick, even for an obvious hack like Beltran who, unless he’s stoned on something so illegal you probably couldn’t get a prescription for it, or simply a collossal bonehead, would never have said that.

That was after Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Villaraigosa slamming his City Council’s decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State — in protest of its immigration law — by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Anyway, the “Make my day” moment;

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.
“Doggone it — if you’re going to boycott this candy store … then don’t come in for any of it,” Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to “send a message” by severing the “resources and ties” they share.

“I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the ‘resources and ties’ we share with the city of Los Angeles,” Pierce wrote.

“If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.”

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

“I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands,” Pierce wrote. “If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.”

I’d love to see that, I truly would.

You see, L.A. is filled with “talk the talk” liberals, the kind who are more than happy to “send messages”, but most of them just ain’t “walk the walk” types. Having to go without electricity would be too large a sacrifice to make, and the politicians responsible would receive an even louder message from their constituents.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

That ain’t what the lying liberals are worried about. They’re simply concerned that a state has opted for survival over political correctness and so decided to enforce a law that’s already on the books.

The racial profiling outrage is merely a leftist tactic to discourage enforcement of laws that the kommies and their ilk would prefer are not enforced.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he’s “supportive” of the state’s efforts to control the border.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.

Seems pretty clear to me, but…

Go ahead, L.A., make Arizona’s day.