Archive for the ‘border’ Tag

‘Invisible Gorilla’ Test Shows How Little We Notice   Leave a comment

This is an interesting article.  I remember this test.  No, I didn’t see the gorilla the first time way back when, but I saw him this time.  Even in the second video, but I won’t tell you what other monkey business was going on that I sorta noticed but not enough to make a definitive announcement. 😛 

It’s my feeling that this is how the media works with the people.

I KNOW it sounds nuts, but hear me out…

Mainstream media focuses on certain events in any given time.  Sometimes they are focusing on events (Lindsey Lohan anyone?) while OTHER events are taking place and, unless you are PAYING ATTENTION, you will miss it.  I guess the consensus is that if CNN, MSNBC, ABC and the like are not showing something over and over and over again and talking about it nonstop, then it must not be important.  Thus, the subject or event is lost and no one thinks anything of it. 

It is also fair to note that people don’t generally research things for themselves.  They expect the media to do that for them, but those people that aren’t paying attention, will then fail to realize that the media is only feeding them what they want to hear. 

Case in point: The Arizona anti-Illegal Immigration Law.

The liberal left-leaning media railed against this act.  They cried foul and bashed it into the ground, spreading misinformation and fear to the populace.  Even Obama did the same by illustrating that the bill supports Nazi-style stops while going out for ice cream.  Then, the media praises Obama for suing Arizona with backing from Calderon and the like and is shocked into speechlessness when polls come out that a majority of American’s support the Arizona law.

What they are NOT saying (the “invisible gorilla” of the situation) is that racial profiling is NOT the case.  What they are NOT saying is that THAT accusation, the one that EVERYONE is focused on, the one that EVERYONE brings up and STILL brings up, is not even IN THE affidavit against Arizona!  

What they are NOT saying is that Mexico, a foreign power, is backing Obama in suing Arizona, and it is AGAINST the Constitution.

What they are NOT saying is that American land has been handed back over to Mexico.

What they are NOT saying is that the Arizona law IS THE FEDERAL LAW and IS MEANT TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW that is currently NOT BEING ENFORCED by the federal government.

What they are NOT saying is that there are cities in America, mostly in California, that are ‘Sanctuary Cities’ that openly DEFY FEDERAL LAW BY OVERLOOKING THEIR ILLEGAL STATUS!

What they are NOT telling you is that Mexican terrorists and drug cartels are shooting American police officers on American land, robbing Americans on American land and sucking American taxpyers dry, planning to cause mass American deaths on American land, threatening the American people on American land in their rallies, that Mexican Military helicopters are flying in American Airspace, that the border isn’t complete, that 74% OF AMERICAN’S SUPPORT THE ARIZONA LAW!

Oh there is a lot more.  But, that’s just what I can think of atop my head.

Here is the article in question…

‘Invisible Gorilla’ Test Shows How Little We Notice

livescience.com – Tue Jul 13, 10:00 am ET

A dumbfounding study roughly a decade ago that many now find hard to believe revealed that if people are asked to focus on a video of other people passing basketballs, about half of watchers missed a person in a gorilla suit walking in and out of the scene thumping its chest.

Now research delving further into this effect shows that people who know that such a surprising event is likely to occur are no better at noticing other unforeseen events – and may even be worse at noticing them – than others who aren’t expecting the unexpected.

The so-called “invisible gorilla” test had volunteers watching a video where two groups of people – some dressed in white, some in black – are passing basketballs around. The volunteers were asked to count the passes among players dressed in white while ignoring the passes of those in black.

Watch the video for yourself:

These confounding findings from cognitive psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris detailed in a 1999 study revealed how people can focus so hard on something that they become blind to the unexpected, even when staring right at it. When one develops “inattentional blindness,” as this effect is called, it becomes easy to miss details when one is not looking out for them.

“Although people do still try to rationalize why they missed the gorilla, it’s hard to explain such a failure of awareness without confronting the possibility that we are aware of far less of our world than we think,” Simons told LiveScience.

Gorilla infamy

Of course, these results are utterly counterintuitive, with 90 percent of people now predicting that they would notice the gorilla in the video. The problem is that this video has become so famous that many people know to look for a gorilla when asked to count basketball passes.

In new research, Simons decided to use the infamy of the invisible gorilla to his advantage, creating a similar video that asked for the same results from the audience.

“I thought it would be fun to see if I could monkey with people’s intuitions again using almost the same task,” Simons said.

Stop now! Before reading further, try his test out:

The idea with this new video was to see if those who knew about the invisible gorilla beforehand would be more or less likely to notice other unexpected events in the same video.

“You can make two competing predictions,” Simons said. “Knowing about the invisible gorilla might increase your chances of noticing other unexpected events because you know that the task tests whether people spot unexpected events. You might look for other events because you know that the experimenter is up to something.” Alternatively, “knowing about the gorilla might lead viewers to look for gorillas exclusively, and when they find one, they might fail to notice anything else out of the ordinary.”

Expecting the unexpected

Of the 41 volunteers Simon tested who had never seen or heard about the old video, a little less than half missed the gorilla in the new video, much like what happened in the old experiments. The 23 volunteers he tested who knew about the original gorilla video all spotted the fake ape in the new experiment.

However, knowing about the gorilla beforehand did not improve their chances of detecting other unexpected events. Only 17 percent of those who were familiar with the old video noticed one or both of the other unexpected events in the new video. In comparison, 29 percent of those who knew nothing of the old video spotted one of the other unexpected events in the new video.

“This demonstration is much like a good magic trick in which a magician repeatedly makes a ball disappear,” Simons said. “A magician can lead the audience to think he’s going to make the ball disappear with one method, and while people watch for that technique, he uses a different one. In both cases, the effect capitalizes on what people expect to see, and both demonstrate that we often miss what we don’t expect to see.”

“A lot of people seem to take the message of our original gorilla study to be that people don’t pay enough attention to what is happening around them, and that by paying more attention and ‘expecting the unexpected,’ we will be able to notice anything important,” he added. “The new experiment shows that even when people know that they are doing a task in which an unexpected thing might happen, that doesn’t suddenly help them notice other unexpected things.”

Once people find the first thing they’re looking for, “they often don’t notice other things,” Simons said. “Our intuitions about what we will and won’t notice are often mistaken.”

Simons detailed his new findings online July 12 in the journal i-Perception.

Advertisements

Oh Noes! New York Woman Questioned Again and Again Over ID Mix Up   Leave a comment

Well this made me laugh!  I know its old news and been overdone but I just haven’t had a chance to comment on it.

I think my initial response was >clears throat>: OH NOES!  I am interrupteds for my shoppings!  Bad border people!  Bad!

Purely sarcasm of course. 

And why is this front page news?  Does mainstream media want us to feel sorry for her?  Oh noes!  We must open the borders so this snobby woman can shop!

Okay, I might be a little mean.  I was fine on feeling bad for her until I found out she refused to take any initiative by calling ahead.  If it’s so troublesome to go back and forth, and you KNOW there are issues where you can be descended upon and handcuffed at gunpoint, then perhaps the best alternative in this situation until it’s fixed is to park your car and walk into the border control office and explain yourself.  That way, there is less of a chance that you will be embarrassed in front of everyone coming through the border and your children.  That way, they can see who you are and that you are completely unarmed.  The director of that particular crossing gave her his personal cell number to keep this from happening and the spoiled brat refuses to use it.  Give me a break, girl!  Get over yourself!

Sorry that Border Patrol wants to protect our country from bad guys!   

But, that’s just me.  Instead of whining about it to the liberal media, I would man up, so to speak, and inconvenience myself in the name of protecting my country from terrorists and illegals. To me, this just sounds like a ploy about the difficulties of crossing the border and for the country to have border issues on their mind as a negative, inconvenient thing that must be ended.  It really feels like Obama doesn’t want any borders on our country.  We already have a North American Federation Trade Associasion (or something like that) and they are building roads from Mexico through the US and up into Canada, no one is that excited about putting more money into the broken border with Mexico . . . gives me the willes to think about it.

Does that make me weird to feel that way? 

Anyway, here is the article:

NY woman questioned again and again over ID mix-up

AP – In this June 18, 2010 photo, Sylvie Nelson, executive director for the Saranac Lake Area chamber of commerce, …

By MICHAEL HILL, Associated Press Writer Michael Hill, Associated Press Writer – Sat Jul 10, 3:49 pm ET

SARANAC LAKE, N.Y. – Sylvie Nelson’s border crossings are anything but routine. Customs agents sometimes order her out of her car. Twice, they handcuffed her in front of her young children. Once, agents swarmed her car and handcuffed her husband, too.

She tells them: It’s not me you want, it’s a man with the same birth date and a similar name. Agents always confirm that and let her go.

Then it happens again. And again.

“I can understand one missed identification,” Nelson said. “But over and over and over again?”

Nelson, a 44-year-old white woman, keeps getting snared at the Canadian border because she apparently shares some key identifying information with a black man, possibly from Georgia, who is in trouble with the law. While such cases of mistaken identity at border points and airports are not unique, Nelson’s case is unusual in that only some of her crossings set off an alarm and because federal officials have not fixed the problem after almost two years.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials told The Associated Press they cannot discuss Nelson’s case, and they have shared few details with her. Still, it’s clear from their correspondence with Nelson and her congressman that they acknowledge the problem, saying they have taken “positive steps” to address it.

The nation’s 4,000-mile boundary with Canada is tested regularly by people trying to smuggle cigarettes, drugs and illegal immigrants. In New York, the drive-through crossings also are kept busy by steady streams of shoppers, tourists and people with personal ties to both countries, like Nelson.

Nelson was born in Canada, married an American and lives with him, her 6-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son in Saranac Lake, where she runs the chamber of commerce. She became a U.S. citizen in 2008.

Nelson crosses the border several times a month to visit relatives, friends and her family’s second home, using her Canadian passport to leave the country and her U.S. passport to get back in.

Her U.S. passport first triggered an alarm in August 2008. Agents told her the mix-up would be corrected, and she crossed without incident many times after that.

In December, she was ordered from her car and handcuffed as she came back from a Montreal shopping trip with her children. Nelson was mortified and melted into tears but was soon told she was free to go.

It happened again in February at a different New York crossing. Agents surrounded her car and her husband also was handcuffed. Again, she was let go.

“They never apologize,” Nelson said. “They basically tell you that they’re doing their job for the better good of the world.”

Nelson has struggled to get information from Homeland Security officials. They will not tell her who she is being confused with or why the problem persists. She doesn’t know why her passport triggers alarms some days but not others.

Much of what she knows comes from bits of information gleaned at her border stops or from U.S. Rep. Bill Owens, who has been trying to help her.

There is no indication Nelson is on the terror “watch list” that makes headlines when babies or politicians are mistakenly entered into the database. She believes another agency’s computerized index of criminal justice information may be at fault.

Nelson says the man appears to be wanted in DeKalb County, Georgia, though neither the county sheriff’s office nor the Georgia Bureau of Investigation came up with a match for a man with Nelson’s birth date and last name.

Owens said he was told the problem endures because of a “technology issue.”

Customs spokeswoman Joanne Ferreira said the agency cannot discuss individual cases for legal and enforcement reasons. Ferreira wrote in an e-mail to the AP that “CBP strives to treat all travelers with respect and in a professional manner, while maintaining the focus of our mission to protect all citizens and visitors.”

A customs official told Owens in a May 19 letter that there were “positive steps” in Nelson’s case. She triggered an alarm since then, though her last two crossings were uneventful. Nelson now warns agents at the border about her problem before they scan her passport. She is no longer handcuffed.

“I think it’s been reduced from embarrassing and nerve wracking to just frustrating,” Owens said.

The head of New York’s Champlain crossing gave Nelson his cell phone number so she can call before crossings so he can help. She refuses to call ahead, reasoning that the government should be responsible for fixing its own problem.

“Right now, I’m frustrated,” she said, “but the terrifying could be right around the corner. Who knows?”

Arizona poll finds big surge for Brewer   1 comment

Good news!  Gov. Jan Brewer’s popularity is surging due to her bill!  Awesome!  She has my vote, even though I’m not living in Arizona lol!  We could use more gutsy politicians to stand up for what’s right in this country and FOR this country for that matter! 

My hat is off and my prayers are with her and her state!  To stand up to the President of the United States with such an important and controversial issue in the political world and NOT back down when said president viciously turns on her for doing the right thing?  That is amazing! 

Anyway, my two cents! 

GO ARIZONA!  YOU HAVE MY FULL SUPPORT!

Arizona poll finds big surge for Brewer

A new poll says Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s popularity surged in recent months, with the Behavior Research Center saying she surfed “a political wave” from signing Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

The Phoenix-based center’s survey was conducted June 30 through July 11. It found Brewer with support from 57 percent of surveyed Republicans and independents planning to vote in the Republican primary on Aug. 24. That’s up from 22 percent in April, when roughly half of the republican voters undecided. 

The combined sample of 236 registered Republicans and independents had a margin of error of 6.5 percent.

The new poll found Buz Mills with support from 12 percent and State Treasurer Dean Martin with 9 percent. Both have suspended their campaigns.

Justice: ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Safe from Law–Arizona ‘actually interferes’   Leave a comment

Wow–what an amazing statement!

Ug there is too much here to comment on so I am taking it line by line, but the article speaks for itself.  How lame that our congress refuses to stand up for its own law and chooses to back down from those who openly defy it–backing down from both illegal immigrants and the sanctuary cities that offer them safe shelter.  THIS is why we are having so many issues!  If you give them incentives to come and stay here then they will never leave.  If they are forced to stay in their own country then they will actually have to deal with their own political problems and stand up for themselves instead of sneaking across the border and leaching off of us.  Maybe they’ll have a revolt and put a new party in government, a non-corrupt one, or maybe not.  Either way, that’s something we could deal with down the road, AFTER we seal the borders and send them all back.

Anyway, just my two cents. 

Here’s the article:

Justice: Sanctuary cities safe from law

Arizona’s policy ‘actually interferes’

A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”

”There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

THIS doesn’t make sense!!!!!!!!  I mean it LITERALLY doesn’t make sense!!!!!!  Laws are SUPPOSED to be UPHELD!  Right?  Am I right?  Or am I just reading too much into it…?

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is “flimsy justification” for suing the state.

“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law  who fail to comply with the law  is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

Officials in Arizona say they’ve been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona’s new law, arguing that it could lead to a patchwork of state immigration rules.

Obama is also making a laughing stock of our country by doing this!  What are other countries THINKING about us?  If America was a family (which it is, I suppose) and the president was the father (which he is, I suppose) then HOW does it look when the father sues a family member?  It’s sick!  It’s foolish!  It’s not right!  Obama needs to support Arizona because OBVIOUSLY there is something very wrong!

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities  — localities that refuse to check on someone’s legal status or won’t alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants  — are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Mr. Smith said the administration doesn’t appear to understand his law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

“The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law – it does not ‘interfere’ with it,” he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of any detained person about whom they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer‘s office Wednesday were not returned. But in a statement last week, she said Arizona was being targeted.

“President Obama‘s administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials,” she said.

Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, first telling a reporter it would get an answer about the president’s thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.

In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.

When it was filed July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit attacked the law only as an infringement on federal prerogatives. It did not make any accusations that the law violates civil rights, though Mr. Holder threatened a second lawsuit on that issue during on Sunday’s political talk shows.

The REASON WHY they couldn’t sue for racial profiling IS BECAUSE THE LAW SPECIFICALLY IS AGAINST RACIAL PROILING!!!!!!  D’UH!

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society that the federal government can’t tolerate different policies.

“You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can’t have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system,” Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.

But defenders say Arizona’s law would be a problem only if it conflicted with Congress’ immigration policy.

Which it doesn’t.  It supports the current anti-Illegal Immigration law already on federal books.

On Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal lawsuit arguing that Arizona’s law is consistent with what Congress intended. He was joined by attorneys general from eight states and one territory.

The Arizona law has become a flash point for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters supporting the crackdown.

Arizona officials have said the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and the state is experiencing a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They have said the new law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators – Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana – announced that they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit by denying it federal funding.

Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department‘s inspector general found 15 cities that don’t regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn’t regularly tell authorities when a known illegal immigrant was being released from custody, either of which could be viewed as shielding illegal immigrants from detection.

The IG report said two jurisdictions – Oregon, and the city and county of San Francisco – acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries. It also said that many cities that are categorized as sanctuaries include language in their policies requiring local authorities to cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

A 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service listed 32 jurisdictions it said might be considered sanctuary cities.

UPDATE: 9 States Back Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law in Court!   1 comment

YAY 9 STATES BACK ARIZONA ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW!

I WOULD have chosen a USA Today article to post but…I don’t like them much >rolls eyes< call me picky…LOL!

Anyway, here ya are!  We need to get more states to back Arizona up!!!  Come on, America!  Stand up for what’s right!

Brief for 9 states backs Arizona immigration law

By David Runk The Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:25 pm |

DETROIT – States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama’s administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law’s backers say Congress isn’t doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it’s the state’s duty to step up.

“Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement.

Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox’s office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents “a lot of states,” considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

“By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person’s immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government,” the brief states.

The brief doesn’t represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.

Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can’t seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.

“It’s a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor,” Boyd said

Sour grapes much, Ms. Boyd?

Take The Poll: Should the American Flag be Banned From School?   Leave a comment

WHAT KIND OF SWILL IS THIS?

Ban the American Flag in AMERICAN SCHOOLS???????????????  I’m horrified by this!

I’ve been horrified a lot today–let me tell you.  I’m having computer issues again folks–had at least ten posts prepared to upload and something happened to it . . . so I’ll get it all up tomorrow once I figured out what I did.  But, seriously, most of it just involved me being horrified!!!!

But THIS?  Wow.  Just wow!

When I was in school, the American Flag wasn’t a question.  It was a statement.  Of course, I was an Army Brat and I went to school with other Army Brats.  Even in the second grade, you better BELIEVE that if you made fun of the pledge in any way or goofed off during pledge there would be a group of Army Brats waiting to ‘speak with you’ during recess.

I did it.  ONCE! 

Never again . . . I learned my lesson really quick.  It wasn’t a beat-down or anything–it was just a gang up on you shame session. 

That was during the Gulf War though and most everyone’s dad was fighting in it and away from home.  I was lucky, my dad didn’t get sent over–but there were a LOT of resentful kids who made sure that I didn’t forget that their dads were gone.  We had bomb scares and had to evacuate our base too.  LOL–the kids even had a saying: we were stationed at S.H.A.P.E in Belgium.  The acronym stands for ‘Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe’ — but during the Gulf War we all called ourselves “Saddam Hussein’s American Personal Enemies’! 

I feel wierd now that I’m an adult and I don’t have to say the pledge every day.  I was very blessed to have my son in a good preschool and kindergarten–they raised the flag, said the pledge and sang the National Anthem every single day.  The local country station always played an instrumental National Anthem at 7am in the morning and so we would turn it on on our way to daycare/work in the mornings.  My son wasn’t even four years old yet and he was singing along to the music of the National Anthem, word for word, and it was a beautiful thing!!!!!!! 

Anyway–if this poll is still up–please vote on it!  I think it’s just sick!  If people don’t like OUR FLAG IN OUR COUNTRY THEN THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM TO GET OUT!  End of story!  There needs to be tolerance, but there also needs to be an understanding.  In America, we fly American flags.  Our forefathers fought and died for this country and for these colors, not for any other country.  To take down the American flag is to disrespect the very freedom that we have in this country and the very FREEDOM immigrants–both LEGAL and ILLEGAL–come here for.  As Americans, we tolerate flags from other countries on our soil, paraded by both ILLEGAL and legal immigrants because they are proud of their country of origin, but more than likely, they just refuse to accept an American identity and heritage.  I’m fairly sure that this is where this garbage is coming from.  I am half Belgian and I have Belgian flags–but I hold no allegiance to them.  I love Belgium, I have pictures and a few paintings of historical buildings from there–but I KNOW WHERE MY LOYALTY IS!  AMERICA IS MY COUNTRY AND I AM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! 

People who can’t handle that need to get off their high horse and come back down to REALITY!  You want to come here and drain our taxpayers dry, then you need to RESPECT our flag and THOSE PEOPLE THAT FIGHT FOR IT AND DIE FOR IT!

End of story!

I mean…WHY should this even BE an issue?  Have we sunk THAT low?  Do OTHER countries have this issue, or we the only ones?  Has ANY country EVER had this issue?

ARRG!

Here is the poll results when I took it:

Share your thoughts. First, answer our question below. Then click “Leave a comment.”

Thank you for voting!

No. This is a lame decision. Teach the kids what the flag means, instead of banning it. 60% (1,172,889 votes)

Yes. The safety of students comes first. 31% (595,063 votes)

Not sure, but of all things to ban, the American flag would seem the least ‘incendiary.’ <1% (3,992 votes)

Other (post a comment) 9% (173,755 votes)

Total Votes: 1,945,699View Comments (78)

Poll Shows 74% of American’s Support Arizona Law   1 comment

Well, TECHNICALLY the article states 57%.  But this IS a liberal, unscientific media poll and there is a consideration I think that either they overlooked because they put it up too quickly, or they overlooked because they don’t want the numbers to be too high.

If you would observe the pie chart in the article (you have the click on it, I can’t copy and paste it) you will notice that there are several categories:

New Arizona Law on Illegal Immigration:

Don’t Know: 3%

Goes too far: 23%

Doesn’t go far enough: 17%

About Right: 57%

Now, consider if you will that, while I am making an assumption, the ‘Doesn’t go far enough’ crowd TECHNICALLY wold be siding with the ‘About Right’ crowd that was picked out as the ONLY crowd that supports the Arizona law. 

Would I be wrong to state that, in fact, there is a total of 74% of those polled that support the Arizona law?

Here’s the article below.  Sorry I can’t get the chart to copy/paste on my post!

OH and no one bothered to ask me MY opinion again 😉 hehe!

Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent

//

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

Public support for Arizona’s controversial new immigration law has increased slightly, a new CBS News poll shows, with 57 percent of Americans characterizing the law as “about right” in the way it addresses the issue of illegal immigration.

Support for the measure increased five points since May. Since then, the Justice Department has filed suit against the law, claiming that it usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.

The measure in question, signed into law in April and slated to go into effect later this month, makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. It also requires local law enforcement to question a person about his or her immigration status during all “lawful stops” if there is “reasonable suspicion” that person may be in the country illegally.

Twenty-three percent of Americans think the law goes too far, according to the poll, conducted July 9 – 12. That’s down five points from the 28 percent who said in May that the measure goes too far. Another 17 percent said it doesn’t go far enough.

  

About half of Americans – 52 percent — say states should be able to enact laws regarding illegal immigrants, while 42 percent think only the federal government should able to do so.

There is a sharp partisan divide on this question: most Democrats (58 percent) say laws covering illegal immigration should be the responsibility of the federal government only, while Republicans (64 percent) and independents (58 percent) think the states should be allowed to pass such laws.

Half of Americans think illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don’t want, while fewer – 42 percent — say they take jobs away from Americans.