Neither D.A. King or the Dustin Inman Society has any assocoiation or dealings with Joe Newton or CATSofGA.org.

TIME magazine January, 2011: ” Globalism — the free flow of money, people and goods ” HERE
—–
“Globalization can pertain to a lot of things. Over the years, the term has spawned contradicting, and even absurd, definitions. Thankfully, the United Nations has come up with a definition which asserts that globalization should be viewed in an economic context. The United Nations defined globalization as free trade, which includes the removal of tariffs and other impediments to the free flow of capital, goods, labor, and services.” HERE
—–
glob·al·i·za·tion
noun \ˌglō-bə-lə-ˈzā-shən\

GLOBALIZATION:

the act or process of globalizing : the state of being globalized; especially : the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets

Merriam Webster HERE

HERE

But first a quote from Jerry Gonzalez: “We cannot afford to enforce the rule of law, because are agriculture industry, along with other industries, desperately need immigrant labor in order to be successful. Without that labor, even more jobs would be lost.” HERE

USCIS

New Countries Eligible to Participate in H-2A and H-2B Programs
Jan. 14, 2011

WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the Department of State, has identified 53 countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs for the coming year.

The H-2A program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs; the H-2B program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States for temporary nonagricultural jobs. USCIS, with limited exception, approves petitions only for nationals of countries designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. A new list of eligible countries publishes in a Federal Register notice on January 18, 2011 , and the designations are valid for one year from the date of publication.

Effective Jan. 18, 2011, nationals from the following countries are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs: Argentina, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Nauru, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Samoa, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Vanuatu. Of these countries, the following were designated for the first time this year: Barbados, Estonia, Fiji, Hungary, Kiribati, Latvia, Macedonia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

After considering a number of relevant factors under the governing regulations, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State have determined that Indonesia currently does not warrant a renewed designation as a participating country in the H-2A and H-2B programs for 2011.

This new list does not affect the status of individuals who currently hold valid H-2A or H-2B visas or status. A national from a country that is not on the list may be the beneficiary of an approved H-2A and H-2B petition if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in her sole and unreviewable discretion, that it is in the U.S. interest for the alien to be a beneficiary of the petition.

HERE

HERE

Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies
by Ann Coulter

08/04/2010

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

.. MORE

“Martinez also stated one of her first priorities is to revoke driver licenses issued to illegal aliens, pointing out since Arizona passed SB 1070, illegal aliens have been pouring in to New Mexico, which does not require proof of citizenship to obtain licenses.”

Sonoran News — Cave Creek, Arizona

New Mexico’s governor plans to revoke licenses issued to illegal aliens

New Mexico’s newly elected Gov. Susana Martinez has come out swinging with a budget proposal that would cut spending and close the budget deficit without raising taxes or making cuts to classroom spending or health care for New Mexico’s most vulnerable. — Martinez also stated one of her first priorities is to revoke driver licenses issued to illegal aliens, pointing out since Arizona passed SB 1070…

HERE

Southern Political Report

Hey liberals, will John Lennon straighten you out?

By Matt Towery

January 13, 2011 — We’ve already heard or read nearly everything that can be said or written about the shooting tragedy in Tucson, Ariz. this past week — and about the left-of-center’s effort to politicize it.
Let’s turn history around on the more liberal side of the media and government. Let’s cite another example of a well-known “liberal” — as self-defined by his song lyrics, among other things — who himself might have heightened political or social tensions in his day by means of his “rhetoric.” I’m talking about the late rock star, the Beatles’ John Lennon.
Growing up in the ’60s and ’70s, I was a huge Beatles and Lennon fan, as were most kids. As the Vietnam War seemed to drag on endlessly, teens my age couldn’t understand its purpose. It became “cool” to oppose the war.
And then there was John Lennon. My Beatles hero was still one, despite the fact that even at such a young age I could not understand what he saw in Yoko Ono, particularly when she painfully yelped and screeched on some of his later albums. But admittedly, even as I grew older, I was confused about the rhetoric coming from his songs and interviews with the press when it came to our government and the war.
Before some left-of-center “intellectual” jumps in and says “he was advocating peace, so how could even an adolescent not have understood that,” they should take careful time to review some of Lennon’s statements and comments in the late ’60s and early ’70s as they related to the war in Vietnam.
Lennon was enjoying, as a nonresident visiting on a visa, the same freedom of speech guaranteed to citizens of the United States. In the late ’60s, mostly college students were staging public protests — some peaceful and some not so much. In the spring of 1970, some students protesting at Kent State University in Ohio became aggressive, as passionate young people are susceptible of doing sometimes. That’s when some National Guardsmen — also young, but armed, too — confronted the most threatening of the Kent students. Soon, four students lay dead.
During the same era, Lennon and Ono released a record album that included a song, “Give Peace a Chance.” It became the unofficial anthem for antiwar protesters around the world. And why not? The song expressed nothing but peaceful intentions, right?
But not all Lennon’s songs did. Many people during those years also heard him seem to urge unrest in a song called “Revolution.”
A paranoid Richard Nixon presidential administration certainly viewed the various comments made by Lennon during those volatile years as potentially threatening to the public, the peace and — most importantly, at least to them — Nixon’s re-election.
Last month, the media focused on another anniversary of the night John Lennon was shot in 1980 by a deranged and psychotic “fan,” Mark David Chapman. He was obsessed with many things, including the book “Catcher in the Rye” — and John Lennon.
The brilliant political analyst Charles Krauthammer, who at one time was a young practicing psychiatrist, has made it clear that from all of the confused emails and YouTube postings, plus the observations by acquaintances of the Tucson gunman, Jared Loughner, this was, as with Chapman, the act of a severely mentally ill person. It appears that Loughner had a “nonpartisan” obsession with Rep. Giffords, much as Mark David Chapman was obsessed with Lennon.
Now, many of the same columnists, commentators and politicians who have moved quickly to conclude that the “heated rhetoric” of politics is likely a partial or root cause of tragedies like the one in Arizona would never have even considered that the yesteryear rhetoric of John Lennon and Yoko Ono might have triggered leftist violence or social unrest. (Of course the commentariat’s condemnations of overheated rhetoric today are mostly a not-so-subtle try at discrediting conservatives and the tea party.) “That was all about peace back then,” they would say.
That’s true. And so, too, it’s true that those who’ve won political office thanks to grass-roots conservative movements have been speaking about liberty and restraining an overweening federal government…

More HERE

You decide. I have.

HERE

Will this woman be fired? (NO)