Jun 29

Unbelievably, Some Federal Agencies May Be Boycotting Arizona Because of Its New Immigration Law To Protect Its Citizens!

In yet another approach, several agencies of the federal government under the Obama Administration appear to be enacting their own boycott of Arizona due to its new immigration law. Whether this is partially a consequence of tacit pressure from above is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, such actions by federal agencies are whole inappropriate and should not be tolerated – at least without consequence.

Though it may be a novel idea, why don’t the federal agencies actually just attend to the business that they were authorized to engage in? After all, they are supposed to serve the citizens of this country, not attack or wantonly thwart their constructive efforts and activities.

Wouldn’t it be great if all Arizonans could deduct from their federal income taxes the cost that each has to bear in the state to deal with the illegal alien problem which is around $420 per citizen per year? After all, these expenses are directly related to the federal government not fulfilling its legal responsibility to protect and secure the border. They are not doing their job – so they shouldn’t get “paid” for it.

Furthermore, the state of Arizona should countersue the federal government to recoup all its accrued illegal alien related costs plus punitive damages for the federal government’s willful abdication of mandated (legal) responsibility.

Arizona Dem: Federal Agencies Nixing Conventions Over State's Immigration Law June 24, 2010

Two federal agencies have joined the "boycott Arizona" trend and nixed conferences there out of concern over the state's immigration law, a Democratic Arizona congresswoman said, calling the development "very troubling."

Any cancellations by the Department of Education and the U.S. Border Patrol may have been more out of a desire to steer clear of controversy than outright protest of the law. But Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who has written to dozens of cities and groups in a campaign to persuade them to end their boycotts, said it was disturbing to learn that the federal government would withdraw from the state over the issue.

"It is very troubling when the federal government becomes involved in a boycott against our state," Giffords said in a written statement. "Although I personally disagree with the immigration law, it came about because of growing frustration over the federal government's unwillingness to secure the border. The federal government's participation in this boycott only adds to that frustration."

The Department of Education issued a statement to Fox News confirming that a program administrator, though not the Education Department itself, canceled a 2010 convention "at the request of one of our trilateral partners."

According to Giffords, the department's North American Mobility program convention set for October at a Tucson resort was nixed after the Mexican government said it would not send any representatives to the meeting. The department then moved the event to Minnesota.

Further, her office said the Border Patrol "verbally" canceled a conference set for May at a resort in Prescott after an official asked that it be moved out of concern over the immigration law debate. The Border Patrol -- which has more than 4,000 agents in Arizona, representing nearly a quarter of its force -- had booked 40 rooms for the event before canceling, though there was no contract signed for the event, according to Giffords' office.

The Border Patrol disputed the claim, saying in a statement it had "not canceled any conferences in Arizona."

"We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case," the statement said.

But Giffords' office said the cancellations were confirmed by the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association. The congresswoman is among a number of Arizona officials who argue that the boycotts imposed by cities across the country do nothing to change the law and only punish workers and businesses there. The boycotts would hit the hospitality industry, which is made up in large part of Hispanic workers, particularly hard.

Colleagues in Arizona slammed the federal government over the cancellations on Thursday. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., called the news "very disappointing."

Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks said the apparent cancellations show the administration is using "federal agencies as political tools" to "harm our state's economy for having the audacity to protect our citizens."

"These boycotts completely disprove the Obama administration's disingenuous claims that they are in any way interested in strengthening border security," he said in a written statement to

In the letter she has been sending to cities and groups that have imposed boycotts, Giffords wrote that the punitive measures have "unfairly targeted" her state's businesses.

The Obama administration is planning to file suit against the Arizona law, citing its sustained concern about the move to subject some residents to routine checks on their immigration status.

So far, a couple of cities have written Giffords back defending their actions against her state.

El Paso Mayor John Cook wrote in a letter to the congresswoman June 10 that his city was not "condoning" illegal immigration by passing a resolution that prohibits city officials from attending conferences in Arizona.

He said his city's measure, though not a full-fledged boycott, emphasizes the importance of passing a comprehensive immigration overhaul and "expresses our concerns with the possibility of law enforcement racially profiling people."

Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell also wrote this month that its ban on employee travel to the state -- and a reconsideration of city contracts there -- was imposed out of concern for racial profiling.


Print This Post Print This Post
May 20

Arizona Official Threatens To Respond To California’s Boycotts By Cutting Off The Power That It Sends There

Arizona won’t be bullied by Obama and his inept, corrupt, racist and divisive Administration. And it sure won’t be intimidated by the sanctimonious, arrogant elitists of California, er – Mexifornia.

This is David fighting Goliath.

A fight for what is right versus corruption, hypocrisy and moral and financial bankruptcy.

A state based on good work ethic, virtue and fairness versus one replete with handouts, indolence, high taxes and class warfare.


Now it is time for the rest of the country to follow.

Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott
Judson Berger   -  May 19, 2010

A member of Arizona's top government utilities agency threw down the gauntlet in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution for the city's boycott of Arizona.

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

That's the message from a member of Arizona's top government utilities agency, who threw down the gauntlet Tuesday in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote the letter in response to the Los Angeles City Council's decision last week to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

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

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."

Pierce told that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona -- a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

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.

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.


Print This Post Print This Post
May 9

Note To All Famous People Who Want To Give Their Two Cents On Politics: It Will Cost You In Money And Reputation

It has become an epidemic in America that those who have the public stage for one specific reason (such as in entertainment or sports) feel entitled that they can exploit their bully pulpit for other issues that they usually are ill or complete uninformed about. Yes they are entitled to do so in America because of their right of free speech but it will be at their own peril. They risk offending their audience, supporters, fans, etc. who can then express their discontent by boycotting their endeavors which translates into them earning less money. This can include refusing to patronize movies that these individuals (such as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon) are in, not attending concerts, canceling season tickets or not attending games (Phoenix Suns).

Plus, even if they are successful in their field, they can appear quite moronic  (or traitorous) when making statements that are clearly based on blind emotions and supported by ignorance and a general intellectual deficit. And people will not forget even years later.

Right, Hanoi Jane (Fonda)?

The owner of the Phoenix Suns, Robert Sarver, the team’s GM, Steve Kerr, and its biggest star, Steve Nash, all publicly condemned Arizona’s recently passed immigration law. They can surely disagree with the law – that is their right but when they go out of their way to derogate the legislation which an overwhelming majority of Arizonans (and Americans in general) support, they deserve any backlash that occurs.

If they had availed themselves to read the legislation first, which is essentially identical to the federal law that is not being enforced, before opening their uninformed mouths, we think that they might have reached a different conclusion. Sarver claims that the law "is not the right way to handle the immigration problem."

Really? Did you explain why it is not and offer an effective solution?

He also stated that the team would wear bilingual jerseys to put the team "on record that we honor our diversity in our team."

What? That is a non sequitur. This is not about diversity or the legal citizens in Arizona who are of Hispanic or even Chinese, Russian, Israeli, Polish, British, or even Canadian descent. This is about people who flagrantly violated the law and who are now costing Arizonans billions of dollars, an artificially elevated crime rate, identity theft out of control and the second highest kidnapping rate in the world.

You don’t like the law, Mr. Sarver. OK. Since you don’t feel that Arizonans should be able to protect themselves we have a proposal for you which we feel that could help your understanding of the issue:

All fans of the "Los Suns" can now attend the playoff games and any or all future games for FREE in support of  the anti-anti illegal immigration movement and to show support for your bold national stance on this issue.

Those who want to attend the games will bring their bolt cutters and climb or cut through the fence behind US Airways Center and enter the facility. If they are caught entering illegally, your personnel will have no right to ask them for proof of tickets. They have a right to attend “Los Suns” games and not be confronted and asked to prove they are attending the game legally.

That’s racist and discriminatory!

Therefore, even though others pay to see the team, your security employees should not enforce the rules.

Imagine how unfair it is to be caught at the game illegally, and asked to prove you are there legally! That's simply misguided, mean-spirited and not the American way. It's shouldn't be illegal to commit a crime and be here illegally! It's just like you stated, Mr. Sarver.

By the way, those who do decide to attend the Suns games without purchasing tickets will also get all the free refreshments and food that they want. And, we feel that their children should be entitled to season tickets for life.

You can also tell Steve Nash to donate millions of dollars from his exorbitant salary and endorsements to help cover some of the budget shortfall that these illegals are costing Arizona and which the taxpayers will be forced to pay. Steve Kerr can also do the same.

Maybe now, Mr. Sarver, you can appreciate a little more what the citizens of Arizona have to put up with. You may also want to thank Governor Brewer for bravely dealing with a difficult situation that the Federal Government has refused to seriously address.


Print This Post Print This Post
Dec 20

New York Times Publishes Advertising Section for “People of Color”. Is This Really Constructive and Prudent?

The New York Times, the bastion of far-left liberalism and anti-Americanism whose slogan should be “only liberally biased news that we want to print”, has added to its reverse racist contributions with a new one: a gift section devoted exclusively to people of color. Whites can just move on to the next section.

Imagine the outrage if a conservative paper contained a similar section labeled specifically for Caucasians? There would be relentless outrage spewing largely from the black “community” (aka demagogues) with accusations of racism and privilege.

Such actions do not serve to advance harmony and assimilation but instead encourage more divisiveness and racism (as can be seen in the comments following the post). Just advertise the products and let people determine whether or not they may be interested without introducing a racial component.

Of course, our position is that the New York Times has long practiced irresponsible and severely biased journalism with anti-American posturing and should not be patronized by most Americans. Let economics do the talking and facilitate them going bankrupt.

Read:NYT Gift Guide Includes A Separate Section for "People of Color"

The specific section from the New York Times: Of Color | Stylish Gifts


Print This Post Print This Post
Sep 12

Film Maker Oliver Stone and Tyrant Hugo Chavez – Soul Mates

The far left film maker Oliver Stone has long expressed anti-American sentiments both in his statements and in movies. His most recent one which is premiering at the Venice Film Festival, called “South of the Border, provides an apparently flattering portrayal of Hugo Chavez, the belligerent dictator of Venezuela. This is the same Chavez who has ruthlessly suppressed the rights and freedoms of the Venezuelan people, is actively engaged in supporting insurgencies to overthrow democracies in surrounding countries, supports totalitarian policies, hobnobs and reveres Fidel Castro, and relentlessly threatens American interests and companies as part of the “Axis of Evil”.

Because Americans still have “some” freedom of speech and rights accorded by our Constitution, Stone is free to express his radical sentiments in support of the tyrant Chavez and opposed to general American interests and views. The same can’t be said of the Venezuelan citizens under Chavez.

Stone’s next reverential work: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran! Can’t wait.

We can effectively express our disdain for Oliver Stone’s radical agenda and his active support and propagandist portrayals of such tyrants by exerting our rights – both verbally and economically. strongly recommends that Americans boycott all films and merchandise that Stone would benefit financially from.

The following editorial more extensively elucidates the dangers that Chavez poses to South America, the United States and the World in general

Read: Chavez's Deadly Star Turn In Venice


Print This Post Print This Post
Sep 10

Why the Majority of the News Media Should be Ignored and Boycotted

Those Americans who follow more conservative or “balanced” media for their news were well informed of Van Jones, Obama’s “green jobs” czar, including his background and egregious utterances. He wasn’t some low level non-descript player buried within the governmental bureaucracy but rather one of Obama’s handpicked appointees ostensibly to aid in advancing the green movement. Furthermore, he did have some international renown on environmental issues.

We have covered his radical, hateful and racist philosophies in recent postings. He has a long and despicable history of gratuitous racism, vehement black nationalism, and anti-Americanism, is a staunch supporter of communism and is pro-Islamic. His goals also include the spread the wealth philosophy and suppression of individual rights and liberties. The hate mongering that he tries to disseminate is quite similar to that espoused by Reverend Wright.

We find it a total outrage and an abrogation of their responsibilities (though not unexpected) that the broadcast and virtually all of the print media consciously elected to ignore these stories until the last few days. This is a quintessential example of why they are becoming marginalized by a majority of the American public and are in dire financial straits. This includes such purveyors of selective partisan news reporting as CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

You can be absolutely sure that if the tables were turned and this was a conservative individual whose only stain was a misinterpreted statement made years ago regarding the KKK, he would have been pilloried in the press from the moment his name became public. The NAACP, ACLU and countless black demagogues would be lining up and issuing disparaging statements and Congressional Democrats would be calling for inquiries.

Since none of these groups, media organizations or politicians could find anything wrong with Van Jones despicable, hateful, racist and anti-American rhetoric, their posture should provide further reasons why they should be marginalized and ignored in the future, not patronized where financial issues are in play, and as for politicians – fight against their re-election.

Read: Most Major News Outlets Largely Ignore Van Jones Controversy


Print This Post Print This Post
Jul 18

Supporters of Sonia Sotomayor Seek to Discredit and Destroy Firefighter Ricci Who Won Reverse Discrimination Case in the Supreme Court

The brutal intolerance and inexorable vicious personal attacks orchestrated by the liberal media and far left zealots against those who hold different opinions has reached a new low in civility. These attacks are ruthless, classless, abhorrent and know no limits and they must be stopped. Wanton vitriolic articles and on-air commentary by news people should be quashed by their superiors but they are not. Why is it not being done? The reason is because this reprehensible attitude pervades virtually all levels of most of the media and the attacks are supported and encouraged.
We are not talking just about relentless ad hominem attacks against public figures like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or even Joe Arpaio (America’s Sheriff). What about the average private citizen like Joe Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber) who just happened to ask Obama a great and innocuous question during the Presidential campaign that exposed inconsistencies in Obama’s rhetoric? The far left then unleashed vicious personal attacks against him and conducted unwarranted and illegal investigations including on tax and other issues which were then made public. Some of this was perpetrated by government employees who were never charged for their crimes.
Another example is Carrie Prejean, Miss California 2009, who was asked about gay marriage during the Miss America contest by the hateful radical gay activist Perez Hilton. He did not like her answer which happened to be very tolerant and then proceeded to rip her to shreds including on ranting internet posts. Much of the far left piled on as well, trying to discredit her with a relentless smear campaign. By the way, where were the “women’s” groups who claim that they are the defenders of the women’s rights? They only defend women who support far left view points.
Now word is out that the new target is Frank Ricci of Ricci vs. The City of New Haven fame, whose appeal was rejected by Sonia Sotamayor of the 2nd District Court of Appeals whose decision was then overturned by the Supreme Court. These attacks on private American citizens are intolerable and we must unite and fight them aggressively and take action against these groups and individuals which also includes boycotting.

Read: Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter


Print This Post Print This Post
Jul 7

Jamie Foxx is a Blatant Racist Who Should be Economically Punished With a Boycott

We deplore racism no matter what form or towards which group it is directed. Since Obama’s election, there has been a proliferation of racist sentiment spewing from the black community and directed towards other racial groups, particularly Whites. It is as if they see this intolerable behavior as their right in victory akin to the destructive celebrations that transpire following basketball championships such as with the Lakers this year.
This behavior is reprehensible and must be punished and stopped. Appallingly though not surprisingly, Obama and the far left news media have been irresponsibly and abjectly silent on the matter. They surely would not condone it if the KKK or other white-supremacist groups issued vile racist comments.
The most recent high profile racist vitriol can be claimed by Jamie Foxx who is a repeat offender. The videos below display two separate incidents which patently reveal his hateful, despicable racist character. The first one is an excerpt of his comments after the death of Michael Jackson. There is no spin here, no “taken out of context”. Jamie Foxx is a blatant RACIST whose behavior should be punished. We therefore strongly recommend that you BOYCOTT his movies and any events in which he participates in as well as refrain from purchasing any products from which he collects royalties such as DVD’s.
Jamie Foxx is officially added to our Boycott list.


Print This Post Print This Post
Jun 15

Outrageous Arrogance and Condescension Pervades MSNBC – One More Blatant Example

In the following video clip, MSNBC host Contessa Brewer interviews John Ziegler, a commentator and radio talk show host, about David Letterman’s attack on Sarah Palin and her daughter. Right from the beginning, she assumes an arrogant, condescending and belligerent demeanor which is so typical of the far left media when dealing with or interviewing individuals with conservative ideals. (See May 4th post - The Far Left “Mainstream” News Media Hard at Work - Attacking Average Americans for another video clip example.) Her question of how Sarah Palin could possibly be offended by David Letterman’s joke about Alex Rodriguez raping her under aged 14 year old daughter (in addition to other gratuitous personal attacks against the Palins) is inconceivably contemptuous and ideologically perverted. We can only imagine the rampant outrage from the media if a conservative commentator made an ad hominem attack or sexual references to Michelle Obama or her children.
Remember the outrage that transpired when Bill O’Reilly made an innocuous comment on the appearance of Helen Thomas, the vitriolic and hateful 89 year old far left journalist who inexorably attacked Bush and Cheney and could not admit that terrorists exist. Women’s groups, the news media and other liberal organizations came out of the woodwork to condemn O’Reilly and defend Thomas. Where are they now? Why haven't they ever come to the defense of Sarah Palin or her daughters or even Carrie Prejean (Miss California)? The answer is self evident. They will only defend those that are ideologically liberals. A well established and known double standard.
This is another example why MSNBC should be boycotted!
See video below:


Print This Post Print This Post
Jun 13

Underwhelming Response to Despicable and “Hate Rape” Rant by Playboy Writer

A piece by Guy Cimbalo was posted on the Playboy website titled “So Right It’s Wrong” where he listed 10 conservative women with whom he would like to have violent hate sex with. Vindictive rape. Only after a massive outpouring of outrage largely from Conservatives was it removed from the website. Many in the liberal media found nothing offensive about the writing. Some, in fact, found it humorous. Did Playboy fire him. Of course not!
The response from Playboy could not even be considered to be an apology. It was more of an advertorial. Despicable!

See Megyn Kelly’s response to this hate rape writing:

NewsBusters discusses the dichotomy of the media’s responses and clearly shows the double standards present.

Read: Politico Apologizes; Politico Sanitizes Vile Playboy Attack on Conservative Women

This was followed up by AOL Playboy Controversy Continues

In the June 5th post on her site, Michelle Malkin also exposes AOL’s censoring of criticism of this article. She also notes that AOL is a subsidiary of TimeWarner which has considerable financial dealings with Playboy including distributing Playboy TV. Quite constructive actions by these left-wing media organizations.

Read: Playboy “hatef**k” list fallout: AOL did what?


Print This Post Print This Post