Jesse Watters’ ‘Chinatown’ video: Producer crosses fine line between ‘politically incorrect’ and ‘giant jerk’

jesse-watters

Fox News regularly fights the refrain that it is filled with a bunch of racists and bigots. Given that, one would think that producers would shy away from material that feeds the narrative. If you thought that, then you would be wrong! O’Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters came out with a “Chinatown” segment this week that was one of the most disgusting things I have seen on a cable news station in years.

As a staunch conservative, I will now explain to you why friends of limited government should vehemently condemn the network for putting this “political humor” on the air.

Conservatives like to think of themselves as politically incorrect, but there is a difference between speaking uncomfortable truths and being a low-life jerk. Jesse Watters does not know the difference between the two because he approached people who did not understand English, asked them culturally insensitive questions, and then exploited their inability to communicate to mock them.

That, dear reader, is not “politically incorrect” — that is mean. And for some reason people on social media do not seem to get this.

jesse-watters-twitter

As I told multiple individuals over the past few days, what Jesse Watters did was one step removed from asking a Chinese stranger what “Ching-Chong Ching-Chong” means. The guy literally asked people if he should bow to say hello, if it was the “year of the Dragon,” and if they knew karate. He preyed on the ignorance of an old woman for a cheap joke, and issued a non-apology apology when he was called out by millions of people with a functional moral compass.

What is extra grating about Mr. Watters is that he did what all bullies do — he went after an easy target.

Would Jesse Watters go into a Muslim neighborhood and makes “jokes” to Arabic-speaking women about washing feet in the sink? No.

Would Jesse Watters go into a community of Somali immigrants and joke about child soldiers? No.

Would Jesse Watters go into a Jewish community and joke with people who only speak Hebrew about rhinoplasty? No.

The reason why Mr. Watters created this “joke” the way he did was because he knew he could get away with it in an asian community. If he pulled that level of racial or cultural insensitivity in other areas, then he would have received a black eye and a trip to the hospital.

If you ever wondered why minority groups tend to shy away from the Republican Party, then Jesse Watters’ “Chinatown” is a great learning tool. There is nothing wrong with racial jokes in the appropriate forums (e.g., Comedy Central roasts), but it is certainly beyond the pale to use an immigrant’s language barrier as a springboard for ridicule.

Sean Hannity, who ‘evolved’ on immigration after Romney loss, now bashes Rubio

Regular readers of this blog know that I generally have great distain for cable news celebrities because they seem to care more about ratings than intellectual honesty. I also have a thing against blatant hypocrisy, which is why Fox News’ Sean Hannity attacking Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a “pawn for [the] establishment” needs to be exposed.

Politico’s Marc Caputo was told by a Rubio staffer that it was ridiculous that Hannity passively watched ersatz Republican Donald Trump bash rivals for months, only to now take offense that Rubio was punching back (e.g., Trump would be selling fake watches in New York City if he didn’t inherit $200 million from his dad).

Hotair did everyone a favor by capturing the exchange below:

Sean Hannity Tweet

Sean Hannity, who has blindly echoed RNC talking points for years, now calls Rubio an establishment “pawn.” That would be like Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster admonishing other people for eating cookies.

Let us take a visit in the “way back” machine, shall we?

After Mitt Romney got hammered in the 2012 election — particularly with Hispanic voters — Sean Hannity “evolved” on immigration. The following audio by Hannity was posted to YouTube on Nov. 9, 2012 by FreedomLightHouse:

“We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue all together. It’s simple for me to fix it. I think you control the border first, you create a pathway for those people who are here, you don’t say you got to go home. And that is a position that I have evolved on because, you know what, it just, it’s got to be resolved. The majority of peopel here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home but if people are here, law abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here — you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done. You know, whatever little penalties you want to put in there you want. But then it’s done. But you can’t let the problem continue. It’s got to stop. — Sean Hannity on immigration reform, Nov. 9, 2012.

Hmmm. That sounds strikingly familiar to Marco Rubio’s position on immigration right this very second. Hannity came to this realization after Romney was crushed and America’s changing demographics finally began to sink in. But yet now he casts his “evolution” as a mistake that was predicated on the failed “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill.

Here is what is really happening: Sean Hannity zipped his lips about a “Republican” candidate who donated to the Clintons, supported Obamacare, supports eminent domain, and (ironically) once bashed Romney for harsh rhetoric on immigration. The Fox host is terrified of being seen as “the establishment” with his viewers now that Trump is the Republican front-runner, which is why he desperately tries to slap the label onto Rubio.

I rarely watch Sean Hannity’s television show these days, but if I did then it would only be to see him “evolve” and “devolve” on issues like a butterfly that turns back into a caterpillar.

Side note: Even conservative wave-surfer Ann Coulter is now calling Sean out for his hypocrisy. Classic. These two were made for one another.

Ann Coulter tweet

German court: ‘Shariah police’ patrols are wunderbar

Germany-Shariah-Police

Imagine, if you will, a situation where the “Jesus police” were arrested in 2014 for harassing citizens as they went into bars and casinos.

Imagine, if you will, a situation where that German court ruled one year later that the “Jesus police” — adorned with bright orange vests that specifically saying “Jesus police — were granted permission to continue their “patrols.”

Would U.S. media cover it? Of course it would, which makes its silence on the very-real “Shariah police” ruling in Germany this week stand out even more.

BBC reported Thursday:

A German court has ruled that Islamists who patrolled a city’s streets as “Sharia police” did not break the law and will not be prosecuted. …

The group of Salafists – ultra-conservative Islamists – included Sven Lau, a preacher whose passport was seized this year after he visited Syria and a photo surfaced, showing him posing on a tank, with a Kalashnikov rifle slung around his neck.

He is suspected of trying to recruit Muslims to join jihadists fighting in Syria or Iraq and has spent some time in prison previously. He said he had gone to war-torn Syria in 2013 on a humanitarian mission.

Media will occasionally report on “no-go” zones in France. Similar debates have been made about parts of London. These “debates” are odd since it is quite obvious to objective observers that mass migration is radically transforming Europe.

The nonprofit organization Gatestone Institute reported in January:

  • A 120-page research paper entitled “No-Go Zones in the French Republic: Myth or Reality?” documented dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”
  • In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law.
  • The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.
  • The television presenter asks: “What if we went to the suburbs?” Obertone replies: “I do not recommend this. Not even we French dare go there anymore. But nobody talks about this in public, of course. Nor do those who claim, ‘long live multiculturalism,’ and ‘Paris is wonderful!’ dare enter the suburbs.”

People wonder why Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslim immigration resonates with primary voters, but they never put that support within its proper context: The “Average Joe” can see what is happening in Europe — and he sees what empowered “Shariah police” in Syria and Iraq have done — and then the president of the United States literally says terror in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam.

The police are the enforcers of the law. The threat of physical violence for non-compliance always looms when they are present, which is why unauthorized “police” forces are so frightening.

Non-religious activists like to say things like “all religions are the same,” but that is not true. All religions are not the same.

There are no serious Christian terrorist networks around the globe, and there are certainly not communities where groups of men go out dressed as the “Jesus police” to harass people.

Christians are called to be witnesses. They will attest to the glory and power of Christ, but they are not naturally disposed to violence.

They would much rather “turn the other cheek.”

They would much rather “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.”

They celebrate life — because Christ defeated death.

Fire and brimstone speeches given by certain preachers speak of God’s coming judgment — not some human responsibility to carry it out for Him.

Christian beliefs are worlds apart from “police” forces and suicide bombers and tens-of-millions of Shariah Law advocates — who would rather have people “behave” at the point of a gun than allow them to use the free will God has given them.

Who is the better person — the man who is free to do evil but chooses good, or the man who only “behaves” because he lives in a physical, mental, and spiritual police state?

Germany will have absorbed nearly 2 million refugees from the Middle East and North Africa by the end of next year. It doesn’t take a genius to realize there will be more “Shariah” problems in the decades to come.

Nick Spencer’s Captain America: No time for Ranger-run task forces — conservatives are the enemy

Sons of Serpent Captain America

Regular readers of this blog know that I am a U.S. Army veteran. What they might not know is the last thing I did before walking into the recruiter’s office as an 18-year-old — I sat and stared at a Captain America comic book in my local comic shop. I thought about what it would mean to serve my country, where it would take me, and whether or not I should take that leap into the super-unknown. That is why it saddens me when a writer like Nick Spencer infuses characters with his own petty politics.

I went on record when it was first announced that Sam Wilson would be Captain America that I was on board with the decision. I wanted to support Marvel financially. Why would I do that, however, when the first issue of Sam Wilson: Captain America turns conservative Americans into the enemy over an issue like illegal immigration?

The Daily Caller reported Friday:

The action — and the political preaching — unfolds in the Marvel-produced “Captain America: Sam Wilson #1,” as noted in a video released by the MacIver Institute.

In the issue, Captain America beats up members of a white supremacist militia called the Sons of the Serpent as they attempt to apprehend a group of illegal aliens crossing the desert from Mexico into Arizona.

The leader of the group, the Serpent Commander, makes statements that are similar to what Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been criticized for saying during his White House run. The Commander longs for the construction of “the mighty wall” and laments the “trouble and disease and crime” that the border-crossers are bringing with them.

Sam Wilson

When Captain America isn’t on stage at a gay pride parade, he now fights silly depictions of conservative Americans. A similar thing happened in 2010 when Steve Rogers took on … the Tea Party.

  • Where are Captain America’s missions with Joint Special Operations Command?
  • Why isn’t he working with Ranger-run task forces to take down individuals in the Haqqani Network?
  • Why have we never seen Captain America in Kandahar province, Afghanistan?
  • Why have we never seen Cap on a mission in the Sulaiman Mountains?
  • Why have we never seen Steve Rogers perform a HAHO (high-altitude, high-opening) jump into Abbotttabad, Pakistan?

Shall I go on?

It is embarrassing that Marvel regularly wastes potential of a character like Captain America on the myopic tit-for-tat politics of men like Nick Spencer.

In the one book that should attempt to unite all Americans, we now have immature political pot-shots that a.) will not stand the test of time, and b.) turn off readers who would otherwise be interested in purchasing the product.

Perhaps Sam Wilson or Steve Rogers will eventually be written by someone whose mind operates outside the domestic public policy squabbles of short-lived news cycles. Until then, I won’t be picking up Sam Wilson: Captain America.

Three cheers to Marvel, and its highly unique business model of needlessly alienating potential customers.

Related: Captain America exists — and his name is Kyle Carpenter

Imagine if Donald Trump read Francis de Sales: Man deported 5 times admits to Kate Steinle murder

Francisco SanchezOnly days after Donald Trump essentially painted the vast majority of Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers, Kate Steinle, 32, was gunned down by one in broad daylight. The federal government had deported the man five times. San Francisco is a sanctuary city and refused to hand over the suspect when it had the chance.

Kate SteinleReporter Cornell Barnard was able to interview apprehended suspect Francisco Sanchez on Sunday.

A local ABC Affiliate reported:

[Francisco Sanchez] says he was wandering on Pier 14 after taking sleeping pills he found in a dumpster.

He claims he kicked the gun into the San Francisco Bay, lit up a cigarette, and walked off, not knowing he shot someone until he was arrested by police hours later. Sanchez reportedly first told police he was shooting at sea lions.

He appeared frail and nervous when he talked about returning to the U.S. after being deported back to his native Mexico five times.

Barnard: “Why did you keep coming back to the U.S., why did you come back to San Francisco?”
Sanchez: “Because I was looking for jobs in the restaurant or roofing, landscaping, or construction.”

Sanchez said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.

Mr. Trump was one of only a few high-profile individuals to bring attention to this story when he tweeted it Friday night. Sadly, it doesn’t matter how much truth there is to a man’s message if his delivery convinces others that he is a bad person.

Trump TWTConsider what Francis de Sales said in “Treatise on the Love of God”:

“We dislike imitating those we hate even in their good qualities. The Lacedaemonians would not follow the good counsel of an evil man unless some good man stated it after him.

On the contrary, we cannot help conforming ourselves to those we love. It is in this sense, I think, that the great apostle says that ‘the law is not made for the just.’ In fact, the just man is not just unless he has holy love. If he has love, there is no need to urge him on with the rigor of the law, since love is a more cogent teacher and solicitor to persuade a heart possessing it to obey the will and intentions of its beloved. Love is a magistrate who exercises his authority without noise, without bailiffs or sergeants-at-arms, but merely by that mutual complacence whereby, just as we find pleasure in God, so also we reciprocally desire to please Him.” — Francis de Sales.

Yes, it is possible to learn a thing or two from men who lived in the late 1500s and early 1600s.

If you have an important message to deliver to a skeptical audience, then it is crucial that the vehicle for that message not come across as a bully, a jerk, a racist or an evil man.

I am not saying that Mr. Trump is any of those things, but the way he carries himself in front of a microphone makes it incredibly easy for his detractors to make such a case.

Large scale illegal immigration brings with it a whole host of (often deadly) problems. When you have “sanctuary cities,” criminals will gladly take politicians up on the offer. Innocent people pay the price for officials who do not take the rule of law seriously. That is why we need serious and articulate men and women to explain what is going on to the American people.

It is not good enough to simply be correct when speaking on public policy issues like illegal immigration; one must also be able to show empathy. Sadly, too many people who are right on the issue seem to have little to zero empathy for the millions who are trying to flee dysfunctional and oppressive hell holes.

People will often vote for a man with horrendous public policy ideas if he seems like he cares about his constituents. People will often not vote for the man with great public policy ideas if he seems cold, detached or weird. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Republican Party could run a candidate who actually had good ideas and he or she exuded the kind of empathy skills that could win over Independents and Democrats?

Perhaps if Donald Trump read the works of Saint Francis de Sales years ago, then he could have been that man.

Obama amnesty response? 5 million Americans should march on the White House

White HouseIt’s been said that President Obama is going to do his best Venezuelan dictator impression and issue a far-reaching decree to undermine the rule of law. Newspapers all around the country are asking “What will the GOP do?” if Mr. Obama grants amnesty to 1-5 million illegal immigrants in the absence of any bill passed by Congress. At this point, it’s not what the Republicans should do — it’s what Americans should do. Millions of them should march on the White House.

Fact: Mr. Obama said himself that what he now threatens the country with is a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution. He said so himself.

Hotair nicely consolidated a few choice quotes by the constitutional lawyer who now plans to completely disregard the U.S. Constitution:

“I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. This could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. (President Obama, July, 2010).

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” (President Obama, March 2011).

“I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true. We are doing everything we can administratively,” (President Obama, Sept. 2011).

“Until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. (President Obama, March 2014).

There must be millions of Democrats out there who know that what the president plans to do would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. The constitutional crisis that will result from attempting to use an executive order to do something of such magnitude for millions upon millions of Americans is unconscionable. It is short-sighted, but it is also something out of a tyrant’s handbook.

The media is doing its best not to talk about the constitutional implications of such an action, and instead focusing on the politics. That is an abdication of its important role in keeping those with their hands on the levers of power honest, but at this juncture all that matters is that the American people — not just politicians in Washington — must stand up to the utter lawlessness of such a move.

Impeachment? Budgetary tricks? Republican-led government shutdown? It’s beyond that. If 5 million Americans marched on up to the White House, then it would give members of Congress — of any party — the political cover they need to check a U.S. president who takes cues from the ghost of Hugo Chavez.

‘Tiger mom’ Amy Chua touts U.S. minority success; feminist Suey Park raises the flag for mediocrity

The Tiger mom has returned. Yale Law professor Amy Chua made headlines a few years ago when an excerpt of her book, ‘Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,’ ran in the Wall Street Journal. The headline: “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” In February, ‘The Triple Package’ is set to hit bookshelves. Media outlets are already talking about it, and feminists are creating hashtags like NotYourAsianTigerMom to mobilize opposition; the flag for mediocrity has been raised (but not too high) on Twitter, and the troops are ready to fight (but not too hard) for their right to settle for less.

Forbes reports:

Prediction: Amy Chua’s new book will not sell as well as her last one. In her latest tome, Yale law professor Chua together with her husband Jed Rubenfeld, also a Yale law professor, argues that some groups like Jews, Indians and Mormons, do better in America than other groups like African-Americans, Hispanics and Protestants. Though they don’t rush to name the inferior groups, they imply them by leaving them off their list of the top eight “cultural groups,” as they carefully call them, presumably because they don’t want to be labeled as racists. The other superior groups: Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians and Cuban exiles.

The book is called The Triple Package, which stands for the three traits the authors insist groups need in order to get ahead: a superiority complex, a feeling of insecurity, and impulse control. Only when that trifecta comes together do people “generate drive, grit, and systematic disproportionate group success.”

Enter Suey “only white people can be racist” Park:

Suey.Park.Not.Your.Asian.Tiger.Mom

But wait — Ms. Park tells her Twitter followers that only white people can be racist? How is that so?

Remember: In Suey Park's world, only white people can be racist. Have fun trying to build a movement on that line, Ms. Park.
Remember: In Suey Park’s world, only white people can be racist. Have fun trying to build a movement on that line, Ms. Park.

Who is right? Suey Park or her mom? How can Amy Chua be racist against black people when her research shows that Nigerian immigrants in the United States fare rather well? How can she have some sort of innate hatred for brown people when Cubans and Indians make it onto her list of successful minority groups that she believes the rest of us would be wise to emulate? While one can agree or disagree with Ms. Chua’s parenting skills, it seems to be a stretch of the imagination to conclude that extolling Nigerians for their speedy attainment of the American Dream is somehow racist.

When you get down to it, Ms. Park really just wishes people would stop thinking so highly of the work ethic Asians have become known for in the United States. Previous generations of asians worked hard to gain the respect of their fellow countrymen; Suey Park works hard to tear this “myth” down. Priorities, priorities, priorities…

Suey.Park.Not.Your.Asian.Sidekick (1)

When you’re white, American feminists of the Suey Parkian mold want you to know that you’re damned if you do and if you’re damned if you don’t. Criticize aspects of a culture that doesn’t value education and hard work? Racist. Behave indifferently towards a specific minority culture because you think they just want to be left alone? Racist. Hold up aspects of a minority immigrant’s culture as something all Americans should admire and respect? Racist.

In the mind of the progressive feminists, every turn is a bleak one. They are never happy, and instead of acknowledging that their own inner demons prevent them from reaching their full potential they blame whatever boogeyman their minds can conjure up. Hint: he usually comes with low levels of melanin.

Enter Suey Park disciple Tim Chng:

Tim.Chng

Translation: “As Asians, we must band together to fight — fight I tell you — to overcome those pesky positive associations white Americans have with Asian people. And so, we must fail. Not spectacularly (as that is what they would expect of us), but dismally, in the kind of fashion that progressive comedian Aziz Ansari expects of black men.”

Enter Quang Do, who spouts the kind of gibberish that will rank your tweet among Suey Park’s favorites:

Suey.Park.stereotypes

Tens-of-millions of Asian immigrants come to American shores, work hard, and establish a name for themselves as an industrious and reliable people — and progressives see it as oppression. Classic.

Here's another way to get on Suey Park's "favorite" tweet list: refer to "whitey."
Here’s another way to get on Suey Park’s “favorite” tweet list: refer to “whitey.”

Check out the NotYourAsianTigerMom hashtag when you get a chance. Take in all the negativity and then ask yourself whether the people posting there are really “oppressed” in the sort of way that would prevent them from attaining the vast majority of their hopes and dreams, or if they’re just the architects of a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

You can't make this stuff up.
You can’t make this stuff up.

Related: Quintessential feminist Suey Park blames ‘structural whiteness’ for her personal problems

Related: U.S. feminists worry over pressure to ‘wear Ugg boots’ while India still deals with dowry

Liberals Channel Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger’s Jokers On Immigration.

I’ve written on immigration a few times since Arizona stirred the melting pot (or was that a hornet’s nest?) not so long ago. Usually I tend to focus on guys like Seth Macfarlane running to his drug-smugglerless mansion after essentially branding advocates of reform Nazi skinheads, or Kanye “I’m dating The Ultimate Gold Digger: Liberalism” West teaming up with guys who want his mansion taken over by Neo-Aztlán warriors, who see Zach de la Rocha as their John Conner.

The Federal Government models its immigration reform after Jack Nicholson's Joker. "Hubba! Hubba! Hubba! Who do you trust?... Me? I'm giving out free money!"

The federal government shouldn’t model itself after Jack Nicholson’s Joker, calling everyone in for the entitlement goodies (“Hubba, hubba, hubba, who do you trust?…  Me?  I’m giving out free money!”). It would only end badly for the country.  And the idea that anyone who opposes that route is somehow racist or “anti-immigrant” is a red herring. Yes, conservatives want to take away the Joker’s Entitlement Balloons, because when they pop or leak…it all goes to hell in a hand basket.

“Have you ever danced with the Devil by the pale moonlight?” I don’t suggest it.

With that said, I also have another suggestion for the idiot who runs across professional baseball fields during play with Mexico’s flag fluttering in his wake: it’s not helpful to your cause, buddy. Americans don’t mind immigration, provided it’s an orderly process and that those who come here want to be Americans. Do I know what message this guy was trying to get across by prancing around with his Mexican flag? No. But I know that perception can often be reality, and if the majority of the people at that ballpark went home feeling as though his antics were an affront to American principles and American Heritage, then he did his cause a great disservice.

“Why So Serious?”, you ask? Because it’s a serious matter. Period. Liberals are trying to create the impression that we have to choose between being “pro-immigrant” and “anti-immigrant” when that simply isn’t the case.  Many conservatives get so caught up in the politics of it all that they fail to realize how possible it is to transcend politics and speak directly to the people when change is needed (something Reagan understood).  We need to keep our head on straight and artfully articulate how true immigration reform allows others from around the world to become part of our country, while simultaneously ensuring that the bedrock foundations of freedom and liberty are passed on to future generations.

"Why So Serious?", you ask? Answer: Because death-by-entitlement-spending and the Balkanization of America due to liberal multi-culturalism and moral relativism can't be allowed to happen. Conservatives need to articulate how their vision of immigration reform provides a legal, orderly path to citizenship that ensures our bedrock principles are passed on to future generations.

Robert Rodriguez: From Dumb Till Dawn? Say it Ain’t So!

It looks like director Robert Rodriguez is trying to slowly step backwards from the May 5th Machete trailer he released:

“The movie is very over-the-top satirical, and it’s only because of what’s happened in Arizona that some scenes actually feel at all grounded in reality, which is pretty nuts and says more about Arizona than any fictional movie.”

Here’s the deal: I like Robert Rodriguez. When I was younger and wanted to

Robert: I love hispanics. I love your movies. I loved Salma in From Dusk Till Dawn. So please don't act like an idiot because I disagree with you over complex public policy problems facing the nation.

make movies he was an inspiration to me. I think every aspiring filmmaker should read Rebel Without a Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker with $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player.

I thank Robert for introducing me to Salma Hayek as a teenager in From Dusk Till Dawn. The first Spy Kids was incredibly fun. And Sin City is a classic. Period.

Robert seems like a really nice guy, but like other Hollywood liberals he needs to realize that when you insinuate that people who disagree with you over complex public policy issues are racist…there’s going to be blowback. I’ve supported Robert Rodriguez in the theaters for years, and introduced countless friends to El Mariachi—yet the guy has the nerve to label me a racist because I think not having control of our borders is detrimental to the country? I’m sorry Robert, but as Hartigan might say, you’ve “made a terrible mistake.”

“It’s time to prove to your friends that you’re worth a damn. Sometimes that means dying…and sometimes that means killing a whole lot of people.”

Robert, this isn’t worth killing your career over. Hispanics know you’re a good guy. I know you’re a good guy. But if you want to go down the Sean Penn path I’ll refuse to ever spend a dime on one of your movies ever again. Stick to the Bruce Willis balancing act and you’ll do just fine.

Listen to Bruce Willis, Robert. He's a smart man.

Now get going on Sin City 2, because I’m getting impatient.

Liberals: Fourth Amendment Odious, Racist. Isolated Mansions? Very Cool.

I normally wouldn’t write three immigration posts in one week, but a

My fellow Americans: Stop reading The Constitution. You're making me look bad. Like, really really bad.

number of events have forced my hand. One: I can’t resist the opportunity to expose more people to Mark Steyn. Two: it turns out more people are pointing out that actually reading a particular bill or law is a better option than listening to the major media outlets. You don’t need to waste your time listening to the talking heads on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. with the internet, because you can usually get the source material on your own and come to your own conclusions. I’m glad that I pointed out that exact same point earlier in the day, (although I’m still uber jealous I don’t have a FOX News contract).

The fact that you don’t need traditional media drives the suits up a wall. And it really is getting under their skin that the Tea Party movement is composed of a bunch of “rabble rousers” who actually read the Constitution (which can be delivered to your door FREE of charge thanks to The Heritage Foundation)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,”(Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution).

Americans don’t have to be familiar with famous court cases like Entick v Carrington (1765), Wilkes v Wood (1763), Illinois v. Gates (1983), or Horton v. California (1990) to come to accurate conclusions about the new Arizona immigration law. And they don’t need to listen to Seth MacFarlane and his clueless liberal friends, provided they have common sense and basic knowledge of The Constitution.

As I asked earlier: Is it reasonable to ask someone to provide documentation in regards to their citizenship status if they’re shooting at cops or using your back yard as a staging ground for who knows what? Mark Steyn nails it:

I spoke this week to a lady who has a camp of illegals on the edge of her land: She lies awake at night, fearful for her children and alert to strange noises in the yard. President Obama, shooting from his lip, attacked the new law as an offense against “fairness.” Where’s the fairness for this woman’s family? Because her home is in Arizona rather than Hyde Park, Chicago, she’s just supposed to get used to living under siege?

Most people living along the border don’t have ornate mansions to retreat to in order to avoid the “inconveniences” of the free-for-all immigration policy that the federal government seems to be content with.  Seth MacFarlane does. And if you’re President Obama, you get a fancy-pants motorcade and snazzy guys with guns and earpieces. The mom with two kids in close proximity to Arizona’s border? Not so much…