Another immigration brawl set for Arizona, death via World Cup and Kate Gosselin refuses her destiny

- Arizonans, are you ready for another all-out immigration brawl? Once your legislature reconvenes this fall, you’re going to have one whether you like it or not. Fresh off its controversial bill that would force immigrants to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times and the national uproar the bill caused, lawmakers have now proposed a law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. Coming on the heels of passing the nation's toughest immigration law, this new measure is sure to cause plenty of controversy as well. It is already receiving support from numerous lawmakers, including John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at "anchor babies," and said that the idea does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution. "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh. It’s worth nothing that Kavanagh also supported the controversial Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers, so he isn’t afraid to stand for something unpopular. Under current federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status. It’s a bad arrangement that basically encourages pregnant Mexican women to make dangerous trips across the border just to have their Mexican children in the U.S. and guarantee citizenship for the kiddos. Lining up on the opposite side of the proposed law are mostly Democrats, like Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative. "Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said. "While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government. Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona." I don’t know, I’d say not having to pay for the well-being and other support of babies that are not really Americans would seem to address a few problems, but what do I know? Arizona Republicans plan to introduce the legislation this fall, so the fight will commence then………..

- Believe it or not, it seems that not everyone in South Africa is enraptured by the World Cup. That’s especially true for the family of David Makoeya. The Makoeya family was sitting down at its home in the small village of Makweya, Limpopo province when a dispute not uncommon to families in any country broke out. The four members of the family - Makoeya, his wife and two children - disagreed on what to watch. David Makoeya wanted to watch Germany play Australia in the World Cup, but the rest of his family wanted to watch a gospel show. "He said, 'No, I want to watch soccer,'" police spokesman Mothemane Malefo said Thursday. "That is when the argument came about.” Calling it an argument is a bit of an understatement, given what happened next. A literal fight broke out, with a 3-on-1 handicap match of sorts pitting David Makoeya against his wife and children. The 61-year-old Makoeya fought as hard as possible, but in the end, his family literally beat him to death. "In that argument, they started assaulting him," Malefo said. Apparently Makoeya wanted to change the channel but was refused the remote control. He got up out of his seat to change the channel, at which his 68-year-old wife Francina and two children, 36-year-old son Collin and 23-year-old daughter Lebogang, attacked. Malfeo was unsure what was used to kill Makoeya, but the carnage in the family living room suggested a violent struggle. "It appears they banged his head against the wall," Malefo said. "They phoned the police only after he was badly injured, but by the time the police arrived the man was already dead." What a scene that must have bee after these fools realize that dear old dad wasn’t getting up and that he was in serious trouble. All three were arrested Sunday night, but Lebogang was released on $200 bail Tuesday while the other two were still being held in custody. Francina and Collin Makoeya will reappear in the local Seshego Magistrates Court on July 27 and here’s hoping they receive the strictest possible punishment for their indefensible actions…………

- Has someone stolen your dream with a fraudulent mortgage? If so, Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Housing and Urban Development Inspector General Kenneth Donohue want you to know that they are on your side. With each representing their own agency or government entity, the trio held a news conference in Washington to introduce "Operation Stolen Dreams," a three-month-long "takedown" of mortgage fraud schemes throughout the nation. The Justice department blew its own horn about its efforts to crack down on mortgage fraud, laying out an interagency plan to detect the scams. So far, the operation has already resulted in the arrests of 485 fraud artists. By the way, should we be calling them fraud artists? Doesn’t that glorify their efforts a bit much? It’s a bit like labeling a crack dealer a narcotics distribution artists, don’t you think? But I digress…….there are a whopping 21 agencies involved in Operation Stolen Dreams, looking to put a stop on scams that have already resulted in losses of about $2.3 billion. "It presents a significant risk to economic stability," Holder said. The 485 arrests seem impressive…..until you learn that the FBI remains in pursuit of more than 3,000 mortgage fraud cases, according to Mueller. He added that more arrests are expected and that the fight is far from over. "Mortgage fraud ruins lives, destroys families and devastates whole communities, so attacking the problem from every possible direction is vital," said Holder. "We will use every tool available to investigate, prosecute and prevent mortgage fraud, and we will not rest until anyone preying on vulnerable American homeowners is brought to justice." In all seriousness, this is a terrible crime and every effort to stop it should be made, but am I the only one who places some of the fault with the naïve, clueless and IQ-deficient fools who get suckered in by these scams? As with those who lose their life savings in Ponzi schemes, if you’re not smart enough to outthink the scam artists, then maybe they are not the only one to blame…………

- Why not, Kate Gosselin? What on Earth could possibly keep you from accepting your destiny as the first person to spend her entire adult life subsisting entirely on the notoriety and income created by your existence as a vapid, detestable and moronic reality show cast member? You’ve already exploited your now-defunct marriage and eight kids for the sake of pursuing your 15 minutes of fame, so what could cause you to turn down a reported chance at your own reality dating show? Sure, reality dating shows are ridiculous, contrived and the least-likely route to take if you’re searching for actual love, but what standards are you clinging to, K. Goss? You’re single and looking to date, so go ahead and have a network assemble 25 equally vapid, meat-headed and pathetic losers in a tricked-out mansion, vying for your affection (for the next two months until your inevitable breakup). Reports suggested that Gosselin has been "working on a deal to do a new reality dating series on ABC," and could possibly end up as the next "Bachelorette." While I wish both the “Bachelor/Bachelorette” franchise would just die, the fact is that if it’s going to continue, there is no better candidate for it than Kate Gosselin. Even “Bachelor” and “Bachelorette” host Chris Harrison admitted on the radio show of teeth-bleaching, man-blouse-wearing, tip-frosting ass hat Ryan Seacrest that many people have asked him about the possibility of Gosselin becoming the "Bachelorette" for the show’s next season. “[Gosselin] said she would never do [‘The Bachelorette’], and then somebody asked me about it, and I said I don’t remember ever asking her to do the show. But I followed that up by saying, ‘From all I hear she’s actually a lovely woman and as nice as can be and I think that would be a phenomenal show,' " Harrison said. Showing his revolting, soul-less core, Seacrest chimed in that he idea was “genius,” and that if ABC isn’t trying to get Kate, they should start. Thanks for showing what a tool you are, Ry. Gosselin’s rep (am I the only one who finds it sickening that this woman has her own PR rep?) shot down the rumors as if his client has some sort of personal standards that would keep her from a reality dating show. “She doesn’t want to do a dating show; she was never going to do a dating show,” the rep said. “She’s very busy at work on her ‘Kate Plus 8’ specials and ‘Twist of Kate.’ Plus, you know, being a mom to 8 kids. Whatever you say, PR hack…………

- All of those jokes about cell phones ultimately killing you with the radiation they pump into your head may finally compel a city to slap cell phone companies with a mandate to disclose how much radiation their gadgets emit. San Francisco, California is about to become the first U.S. city to require cell phone companies to provide detailed information on radiation emissions. The city's board of supervisors voted 10-1 on Tuesday in favor of a law that would force handset makers to post in stores how much wireless radiation their phones give off, although the law presumably won't be able to force tech junkies to actually pay attention to the signs. Mayor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the measure into law, much to the annoyance of cell phone makers. The suits on the city’s board of supervisors seems to believe that consumers will use the information to differentiate between cell phones that emit relatively low and high levels of radiation, whereas I think they will completely ignore the warnings and buy the iPhone or BlackBerry they want regardless of how much radiation it emits. Obviously, the law is based on scientific research suggesting that radiation emissions from cell phones is linked to cancer and brain tumors, although there is no scientific consensus on the matter. The law bears some similarities to measures requiring food makers to reveal trans fat levels in their products, revelations that are ignored in exactly the manner that I believe the phone radiations warnings will be overlooked. "It's information that's out there if you're willing to look hard enough," said Tony Winnicker, a spokesman for the mayor. "And we think that for the consumer for whom this is an area of concern, it ought to be easier to find." Perhaps the number of people who actually seek out that information should be a hint as to just how much people care, T. Winn. As expected, the mobile phone industry opposes the new law and insists that the lack of evidence that cell phone radiation is harmful to people should guide the decision-making process. "Rather than inform, the ordinance will potentially mislead consumers with point-of-sale requirements suggesting that some phones are 'safer' than others, based on radio frequency emissions," whined John Walls, a spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. According to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, cell phones must not have a "specific absorption rate" of more than 1.6 watts per kilogram. That amount is "the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone," according to the FCC. If you leave outside of San Francisco and want to find this information for your current or future cell phone, it is available online from manufacturers. The intent of the San Francisco law is to put the information in a place where it cannot be ignored. I wish the suits on the board of supervisors lots of success with that because I have seen Americans ignore warnings and advisories in the face of nearly every type of disaster or harm, so I think they have it on them to ignore this one too…………