The Politics Of Ugly: Arizona, Immigration, Obama’s Birth Certificate, Rezko, Cap And Trade, Jobs, – And The Beautiful Hillary Clinton

After today, Americans will be more disgusted than ever. We predict the disgust will mean even bigger wins for Republicans this November. That does not mean that Obama’s Dimocrats will not try every gruesome trick to gin up voters with extra bamboozlement. It’s the Politics of Ugly. Let’s survey the battlefield of “no Red State, no Blue State” America, under the heel of “uniter not divider” Barack Obama.

Before the Big Ugly, let’s bask in a little bit of Hillary Clinton sunlight. Regular readers will note our increased attention [HERE, and HERE] to matters Hillary. We are not alone (the Big Media types read Big Pink) and others have noted the same phenomena we do. Although, some back yard know-little bloggers proclaimed Hillary Clinton “has no base to keep, her political years [are] now behind her” and Obama lover Ben Smith of Politico proclaimed “Game Over – The Clintons Stand Alone” in his Hillary political obituary, we opened the coffin and found Hillary had broken free.

Today, less infatuated Politico writers abandon the old silly Ben Smith narrative and adopt a much more sober, Big Pinkish, narrative. According to Politico today, political Hillary lives:

“Nearly two years after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended her losing presidential campaign and endorsed rival Barack Obama, Clinton’s allies maintain a triad of groups that have continued to make her presence felt in the political world — and could serve as a platform for the next phase of her public life. [snip]

The three entities operate almost completely apart from Clinton, who is barred by protocol from active involvement in outside groups (particularly those involved in partisan politics). But their operations are intertwined, sharing the same Washington offices and drawing from the same pool of supporters and staff.[snip]

“No Limits has allowed a core group of Hillary supporters who were with the campaign from the beginning to the end to continue to interact with each other, and that’s important, because if you don’t keep them together, then they are going to go off and do other things,” said Kevin Thurman, who, as deputy new media director for the Clinton campaign, helped build and manage Clinton’s online presence, including the e-mail list. [snip]

The group’s first conference in November was described in a story circulated by No Limits as “really more of a reunion” for supporters of Clinton’s presidential campaign.[snip]

Clinton has said in a series of interviews that, though she loves being secretary of state, she finds the job grueling and can’t imagine doing it beyond one term. “It wears you out,” she told Esquire.

Doug Hattaway, a senior aide in her presidential campaign, said “her brand is as strong as it ever has been. Her approval rating is as high as anyone in Washington, and she’s building a global following.”

As for what that future would be, Clinton told PBS’s Tavis Smiley that she could imagine “ going back to private life and spending time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel … just focusing on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered ‘realpolitik’ and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.”

All the disclaimers by the Hillary campaign operation to what has always “fascinated” Hillary appear in the article. But clearly Big Media is aware that something is up, and it’s not poll flaccid Barack Obama.

On a side note, Politico yesterday whined about how Big Media is hostile to Barack Obama. A certain Rabble Rouser observed what any and all sentient beings thought: “I hadn’t noticed that they were “down on President Obama,” had you?” No, Big Media mostly continues to protect Barack Obama. What the real complaint by Big Media outlets amounts to is that they want the Obama thugs to feed them, not just the New York Times, the articles to publish. No sympathy from us, Big Media – you bought him, you own him.

Now the ugly.

Rezko

Are we the only ones that notice the lack of attention to a certain birth certificate and other missing papers in the whole debate about the new Arizona law and the issue of immigration, as well as in the Blagojevich subpoena of Obama? If Obama had his official documents open to public inspection maybe he would feel less anxiety about the “undocumented” (both alien and incorporated) in the United States and would have more credibility when asking corporations for their papers and documents. (If ever he had actually worked Obama would not try to tell people when they have made enough money.)

And where are the boxes of Illinois Senate papers that Obama has yet to produce? These papers would answer questions about the freezing tenants and whether these abused African-Americans called Illinois State Senator Obama to complain about the tenements Obama “real estate fairy” Antoin “Tony” Rezko purchased with the assistance of Obama. Maybe that’s what those bags of cash from Rezko to Obama (the latest allegations from the Blagojevich subpoena of Obama) were for? [Hey, Big Media, this is not a story that Obama will feed you, you will have to find it out for yourselves. That’s right. “Work”, that thing you hate to do.]

Barack Obama’s Illegal Alien Aunt

Are we the only ones that notice the non-mention of Obama’s illegal alien Aunt Zeituni in the entire illegal immigration and the Arizona debate? Isn’t that sort of pertinent? You know, illegal aliens (“undocumented aliens/workers” for the politically correct), and an Aunt of Obama who was invited to the Obama inaugural? Isn’t that at least a point of interest?

But of course when it comes to Obama we don’t expect questions to be asked. Especially not about the Aunt that Obama exploited then dumped – at least publicly. As we wrote long ago, Aunt Zeituni seems to be a very nice woman and the sins of her vile nephew should not be held against her. But she did donate money to the Obama campaign even though she is very poor and in the United States illegally and supposedly not eligible to donate money to political campaigns. Questions anybody? Big Media? Anybody?

Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

Questions? That is so old hat. Today we find that instead of answers, what Americans get about Obama is – “shut up with your questions”. This is probably the third or fourth time we have written about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Our view on the Barack Obama Birth Certificate issue was enunciated in July 27, during the Gates “racist” Crowley period of Hope and Change. We are in favor of full source materials and full documentation. Today Hawaii Dimocrats say “shut up”:

“The Hawaii legislature has now officially passed a measure that would allow state officials to legally ignore each month’s dozens of repeated requests by persons or organizations seeking to see the infant Obama’s actual birth certificate.

For personal privacy reasons the certificate resides under government lock and key in Hawaii and, as is his right, Obama has never authorized its release.

That’s a refusal that has only inflamed conspiracy theorists who theorize that if it’s really legit, what’s Obama’s problem with disclosing it? The repeated non-response of spokesmen has been that’s a silly issue. [snip]

Tuesday Hawaii’s Legislature approved a bill that would allow state officials to make a surgical exception in the state’s public records law allowing the state to ignore any such repeated requests, meaning, of course, those for the sitting Democratic president. Since not too many other Hawaiian babies have been involved in such stubborn situations.”

For years Big Media protected Obama with the lie that the actual Birth Certificate has been released. Hawaii’s action makes that Big Media narrative a lie. Maybe it’s time for a new Big Media narrative from those allegedly pissed off Big Media types? And hey, don’t forget that box of State Senate documents we need to see. Maybe Blagojevich will get some of these documents.

Arizona

Gay Leaders must be chagrined with Obama’s position on the new Arizona immigration law. When it came to gay issues in the U.S. courts, Barack Obama filed ugly briefs stained with his hatred of Gay Americans. The Obama justification for filing those ugly briefs is that as President he has to uphold current law. But when it comes to Arizona’s immigration law, Barack Obama is arms akimbo with “it’s misguided” and ‘let’s do what we have to do to prevent Arizona from enforcement of federal law’. Of course this is all just words and Latinos will get what Gay Americans got – NOTHING, but words.

Now, understand, we know that all this Arizona business is all politics all the time. John McCain in trouble and Harry Reid in trouble so both seek political advantage from the situation from opposite directions. McCain needs to prove his conservative credentials and Reid needs to do something to get voters to not hate him. Obama and his Dimocrats see ginned up liberals and ginned up Latinos and ginned up donors as a way to prevent the November flood. Republicans see the polls with majority support as a way to gin up their base too. It’s all politics and it is ugly.

No one doubts immigration needs to be reformed, but the NObama Coalition distrusts Barack Obama and there are simply not the votes to pass honest immigration reform at this time. It’s all politics and it is ugly.

Those “illegals” in the United States are in a difficult position because of this ugliness. Yes, they are here illegally and meanwhile legal immigrants get the short end of the stick by following the law. But, we do feel sympathy for those in this country for jobs and a better life who fear the knock on the door. This is emotional and we do not like siding with law enforcement over these sympathetic “illegal” immigrants. However, they are in the United States illegally and that is always a precarious situation to be in no matter what country you are in. Again, we feel the fear in our bones for these “illegals” and that is an emotional response on our part.

But we do recognize that the fear and the laws and the problems are mostly political. Arizona citizens who fear murder or drug dealers have a legitimate concern that for political reasons the Dimocrats and the Republicans will not respond. Instead of solving the problem (secure all the borders, keep drug dealers and munitions out of the country) and then arrive at a sane immigration policy we are all stuck in the mud.

The final step, not the first, in immigration policy has to be what to do with the “illegals”, and clearly tens of millions of people cannot be thrown out summarily. But neither can Big Business be allowed to import workers with impunity and keep wages low, nor can a “I broke the law and came here so I must be allowed to stay” mentality be rewarded. To complicate matters, any attempt to have “illegals” come from the shadows and accept conditions (“the path to citizenship”) in order to stay here will mostly be ignored, because that is what they have been doing anyway.

This is a tough nut to crack because “illegals” are not stupid and are not going to accept “back of the line” conditions when they can simply do what they have been doing all along. Bottom line, as much as everyone protests about illegal immigration, officials will not ever do anything meaningful to address the issue. The most officials will do is exploit the issue for political advantage. In that sense, we truly are all in the same boat.

As to the Arizona situation:

“ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.[snip]

“Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.[snip]

While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[snip]

Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.”

Nothing will be done, except exploitation of the voters.


Immigration And Cap and Trade

Oh, it’s more ugly. Hey, it’s politics and when you have someone in charge who does not know what he is doing or how to get jobs for ordinary “others” – bamboozlement is the order of the day:

Elementary prudence would seem to dictate that the leadership would quickly pivot to the economy and would sustain that focus through the spring and summer. [snip] But now, the leadership is moving toward, or backing into, months dominated by some combination of immigration and climate change—and of course there will also be a Supreme Court confirmation battle to fight. It is hard to believe that the people will respond favorably.

No doubt strategists on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will point out that intensity is the key to midterm elections and that right now the intensity gap strongly favors the Republicans. The only way to counter-mobilize a somewhat demoralized Democratic base is to target the issues its components care about the most—immigration for Hispanics, climate change for young people—or so the argument runs.

That sounds too clever by half.”

It is too clever and won’t work. We suspect the Republicans will benefit. While liberals are the target vote in the immigration debate (illegals are not supposed to vote) we doubt they will be as energized by this debate as much as the more conservative Republicans in the illegal immigration battlefield, which is the Southwest. There is also the probability of failure:

“In the first place, it’s very unlikely that either immigration or climate change legislation will succeed in this congress. If passing health care did not increase public support for Democrats, why will failing to pass immigration reform or climate change legislation work any better?

Second, Democrats seem to assume that they have nothing left to lose—that all the people who will vote against them this November have already made up their minds—so that focusing on non-economic issues dear to the base will be all gain and no pain. Again, I wonder. Might it not reinforce the message that Democrats are out of touch and unwilling to heed the people’s concerns? Over the past nine months, many independents who supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have moved away from the party. More could follow.”

“Cap and Trade” is a sure loser for Dimocrats this November. Coal producing states will run from Dimocrats if there is even a debate on this issue. Even groups like Greenpeace are against the current proposal. Immigration is a sure loser for Dimocrats too this November.

“Granted, in the long term, the politics of immigration will certainly work in favor of the Democrats. Look at California: Republicans have never recovered from the legislation and rhetoric of Pete Wilson’s governorship. In the short term, however, the issue could push in the opposite direction. While the immigration debate of 2006-2007 divided Republicans, it also divided Democrats, and this year the issue will most hurt endangered Democrats in tough districts.[snip]

Here’s why: 90 percent of the electorate is not Hispanic, and 85 percent is not young. Relatively modest shifts in voter sentiment outside these two groups could easily swamp increased turnout within them and turn all-but-certain Democratic losses into a rout of historic proportions. While the temptation to adopt a strategy of targeted micro-politics is understandable, Democrats should instead espouse a strategy of macro-politics focused on broad-based public concerns. If that means that Senate Democrats will have to choose a new majority leader next January, so be it. At least they’ll still have a majority.”

Yes, the whole, “policy” agenda for Dimocrats is a way to avoid discussing the economy and jobs. The Hill has a list of those hurt and helped by the debate on the immigration issue, but overall, it is a loser for Dimocrats this November. Harry Reid might be helped, but not enough, and many other Dimocrats will be hurt.

“An aggressive and polarizing push for comprehensive immigration reform could bolster the chances of vulnerable House Democrats who need a high Latino turnout to keep their seats this fall.

The move to thrust immigration ahead of climate change legislation on the Senate agenda has been seen as a strategy to boost the imperiled reelection bid of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). [snip]

The immigration effort comes as President Barack Obama is trying to reunite the coalition that helped elect him in 2008. [snip]

Yet it is unclear whether incumbents in tough 2010 races will embrace the new push on immigration, even in districts with significant Hispanic populations.

The key question for Democrats is whether the potential benefit in turning out Latino voters in many races will offset the difficulty that vulnerable incumbents will face in districts that favor a hard-line approach to illegal immigration.

For many Democrats — particularly Blue Dogs in the Rust Belt and the South — there is clearly little appetite for legislation that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

More than 30 House Democrats signed on last year to the SAVE Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) that enhances border security and enforcement mechanisms but does not provide a path to citizenship.[snip]

For party leaders, the rationale in tackling a politically explosive issue in an election year might be that there’s limited risk because the conservative GOP base is already riled up.”

Ugly.

Charlie Crist

Charlie should call Arlen Specter. Yesterday Specter had this to say:

“Well, I probably shouldn’t say this. But I have thought from time to time that I might have helped the country more if I’d stayed a Republican.”

Specter became an Obama Dimocrat in order to keep his job. Most Americans would love to keep their job by switching political parties (something which might be a rationale for many this November). Today Charlie Crist joins the Lieberman and Specter desperation brigade. Crist will learn that Obama will not help him nor will becoming a Dimocrat get him elected. Political desperation alone explains Charlie Crist’s move today:

“While Crist, lagging badly in his Senate primary bid, is sure to pin the blame on a party-that-left-him, his move can’t simply be chalked up as a response to an ongoing purge of moderates.

The more complicated truth, say top GOP officials from both wings of the party, is that an ornery conservative base is expressing its disgust for Republicans who have both flagrantly defied the party and who represent a distrusted political establishment.

It’s not just that Crist has veered from party orthodoxy, though that’s part of it. Rather, he and his fellow endangered GOP centrists have been tagged as insiders at a time when voters are disgusted by Washington specifically and incumbents generally.”

Yes, Americans are disgusted. Americans are disgusted with all political parties but it is Dimocrats who are the target of the ire. A leader, like a certain plucky blond lady, would understand the disgust and listen to it. A flim-flam artist only exploits the anger even as it consume his erstwhile political allies. The self-interested opportunist will divide not unite. The self-interested opportunist will wear whatever political clothing cheapest:

“This is what gives elected officials a bad name – when they abandon long-standing principles for their own selfish political gain,” Upton said. “He’s gone from public servant to a political hack.”

Cole said Crist’s jump would suggest only that, “’My political survival is more important than the party I’ve been aligned with.’”

He added: “It reduces politics to egotism and that’s not going to play well.”

Charlie Crist is an ugly picture of desperation.



In Merry Old England, the politics presage American politics. Does this sound familiar?:

“We haven’t had a campaign, of course – just a few telly programmes – but we didn’t need one to form the key conclusion about the state of our politics: that the Government to which we are preparing to say farewell is the most abominable in living memory, exceeding even John Major’s and Ted Heath’s in its destructiveness, stupidity, dishonesty and incompetence.

I need hardly say why, but I shall. Its destruction of our prosperity and its barely concealed and irrational hatred of wealth-creators; its infantilisation of people through the welfare state and its cultivation of a taxpayer-funded clientele; its sundering of the United Kingdom by devolution; its contempt for Parliament; its reduction of state schools to third-rate child-minding operations, and of our universities to underfunded vocational training colleges; its deliberate subversion of our culture and way of life by uncontrolled immigration; its surrender to the forces of anti-democracy in Europe; its imperilling of our Armed Forces, aggravated by the hypocrisy with which it praises them; its disdain for our countryside and its people; above all its naked tribalism and gerrymandering, and its leech-like attitude towards the productive sectors that must pay for it. It has been a disgrace, and the man who leads it is to blame.

Many Americans will agree with the above statement from Britain and will apply it to America. In November, Barack Obama and his Dimocrats are going to learn just how ugly, ugly can get.

191 thoughts on “The Politics Of Ugly: Arizona, Immigration, Obama’s Birth Certificate, Rezko, Cap And Trade, Jobs, – And The Beautiful Hillary Clinton

  1. I get sick of hearing about “comprehensive reform”, even though I agree that there are multiple interlocking problems here that need to be addressed, because it’s always code for “let’s create a 2500 page monstrosity that no one understands, stick in sneaky speacial-interest provisions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and bicker over every extraneous point til the cows come home.”

    Here’s an idea: Secure the borders FIRST. Build the damn wall (which will provide employment as well) and beef up the border guard. Pass just THAT law first. Then move on to the other stuff. Why does everything have to be in a big monstrous package? Can’t we do this one sensible step at a time? Many people are opposed to amnesty not because they have a real problem with those already here getting a path to citizenship, but because if you offer amnesty without FIRST closing that border, you have put out a “come on over” sign to millions more.

    If you secured the border FIRST, you would find a lot more public support for doing something sensible for the ones already here. But the public ain’t biting on amnesty so long as our border remains porous. They are not stupid. We already tried it the other way around – we went for amnesty under Reagan and others, and were assured that after we granted that amnesty, we’d deal with the border as step two. It never happened. So people aren’t buying it – fool me once shame on me, etc.

    I liken it to a leaking boat that’s about to be swamped. You don’t stand around arguing about how to bail or deal with the water in the boat when there is still a BIG FUCKING HUGE HOLE that water is pouring through. It’s pointless. Plug the hole FIRST. Then and only then you can discuss how you are going to bail out what’s already in there.

  2. Repost…Admin, an excellent analysis, but I must say, I do believe we can not let 20 million illegal aliens stay in America. Everyone says it can not be done. I say it must.I know it will be ugly, but they must know we will protect our laws, or despite “border protection”, we will never secure this country if we don’t make the difficult decisions. Ugly truth in my mind. My family by the way, is Hispanic.

    It’s time Mexico and all the countries of the southern hemisphere step up to the plate for their own citizens and not expect the middle class of America to be their main financial supporter. My middle class back is breaking. My husbands business works with numerous businesses that cater to the illegal populations. He has first hand knowledge that over 80% of the clientèle of these businesses are here illegal and have access to all the social welfare programs we pay for. ENOUGH!!!!
    ***************

    Wednesday, April 28, 2010

    Deconstructing the Outrage [Victor Davis Hanson]

    I have been trying to collate all the furor over the Arizona law, much of it written by those who do not live in locales that have been transformed by illegal immigration. These writers are more likely to show solidarity from a distance than to visit or live in the areas that have been so radically changed by the phenomenon.

    On the unfortunate matter of “presenting papers”: I have done that numerous times this year — boarding airplanes, purchasing things on a credit card, checking into a hotel, showing a doorman an I.D. when locked out, going to the DMV, and, in one case, pulling off a rural road to use my cell phone in a way that alarmed a chance highway patrolman. An I.D. check to allay “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” is very American.

    On the matter of racial profiling: No one wishes to harass citizens by race or gender, but, again unfortunately, we already profile constantly. When I had top classics students, I quite bluntly explained to graduating seniors that those who were Mexican American and African American had very good chances of entering Ivy League or other top graduate schools from Fresno, those who were women and Asians so-so chances, and those who were white males with CSUF BAs very little chance, despite straight A’s and top GRE scores. The students themselves knew all that better than I — and, except the latter category, had packaged and self-profiled themselves for years in applying for grants, admissions, fellowships, and awards. I can remember being told by a dean in 1989 exactly the gender and racial profile of the person I was to hire before the search had even started, and not even to “waste my time” by interviewing a white male candidate. Again, the modern university works on the principle that faculty, staff, and students are constantly identified by racial and gender status. These were not minor matters, but questions that affected hundreds of lives for many decades to come. (As a postscript I can also remember calling frantically to an Ivy League chair to explain that our top student that he had accepted had just confessed to me that in fact he was an illegal alien, and remember him “being delighted” at the news, as if it were an added bonus.)

    On the matter of equality, fairness, and compassion, it is even more problematic. Literally thousands of highly skilled would-be legal immigrants from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe wait patiently while others cut in front and illegally obtain what others legally wait for — residence in the U.S. Meanwhile, millions of Mexican-American, African-American, and poor white citizens have seen their wages fall because of competition from illegal aliens who will work for far less compensation. It is a bit strange that those of the upper classes are outraged over Arizona without empathy for entry-level U.S. workers or lower-middle-class taxpayers who end up paying the most for illegal immigration. But then, those who express the most moral outrage often are the least sensitive to the moral questions involved (see next).

    On matters of Mexico’s outrage: The Mexican government has a deliberate policy of exporting human capital on a win/win/win/win logic: Dissidents leave central Mexico in a safety-valve fashion; Mexico saves on social services; remittances come back as the second largest source of foreign exchange; and a growing expatriate, lobbying community becomes nostalgic and fonder of Mexico the longer it is absent from it. To hide all this, the Mexican government usually plays the racial prejudice card, although most arrivals from Oaxaca will tell you that racism is more perncious in Mexican society than north of the border. This is a government, after all, that cannot provide the security, legal framework, or social services for indigenous peoples in its central interior but has no such problems when it is a question of attracting affluent North Americans to live in second homes along its picturesque coasts.

    There is plenty of cynicism involved — not on the part of the exasperated voters of Arizona, but rather from domestic political, religious, ideological, and ethnic interests that in patronizing fashion seek new dependent constituents; from Mexico that in amoral fashion censures others for the sins it commits; and from a strange nexus between corporate employers and ethnic lobbyists who see their own particular profit and influence enhanced through the ordeal of millions of poor aliens, and the subsidies of the strapped and now to be demonized taxpayer.

  3. ACE
    **************

    Mexico Is A Dangerous Place…Second In An Occasional Series
    —DrewM.

    Those racists at the University of Texas have recalled all students, faculty and staff from northern Mexico because they fear brown people. Or out of control violence. One or the other.

    UT officials estimate around 40 people will be affected by the recall, which covers seven Mexican states — Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Baja California and Durango. UT Austin officials took a similar action earlier this month, directing all study-abroad students in Monterrey to return home.
    In March, the Texas Department of Public Safety took the unprecedented action of warning college spring-breakers not to cross into Mexican border cities, saying their safety could not be guaranteed.

    “The UT System and its institutions value their close association with Mexico. That said, the safety of UT students, faculty and staff is of the utmost importance and we feel these actions … are prudent given the escalation in violence in these regions,” said Francisco Cigarroa, chancellor of the UT System.

    On Wednesday, three dozen gunmen stormed the Holiday Inn Centro and the Hotel Mision in Monterrey, kidnapping three businessmen, a female guest, two receptionists and, possibly, a security guard. Last month, two students from the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education were killed by crossfire during a shootout between soldiers and drug traffickers.

    The violence is attributed to turf wars between Mexico’s powerful drug cartels.

    Meanwhile, illegal immigrants to the United States face the indignity of having to follow the law.

    Don’t forget…plenty of groups want you to boycott Arizona. I say, Flagstaff is an interesting place to drop in on.

  4. Gonzo,

    That’s just crazy. I worked with mother on welfare for years. You have to provide a host of identification documents or you can’t get services. For food stamps, you have to provide birth certificates.

    Just make a few phone calls yourself and find out what’s necessary.

  5. BASEMENT

    They come here and have NUMEROUS babies and collect the monetary benefits and Austin is a “Sanctuary” city.

  6. basementangel:

    In Los Angeles County alone, 23% of ALL welfare and foodstamps goes to families of illegal immigrants. That’s not some right wing source, that is the figures from the county’s own Dept of Social Services. The parents apply in the childrens names, not for them, so they do not have to provide any SS or status info on themselves. This is the problem with “anchor babies”. Have a kid here, and the entire family gets to leech off the govt.

    One can holler about hating brown people all day long, but that’s bunk. There is a SERIOUS problem when the taxpayers of LA are paying out over ONE BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR to support illegal immigrants. No other civilized country in the world does this. NONE. All the Dim idiots screaming that enforcing immigration laws is “Nazi-ism and akin to apartheid” must think that Denmark and Sweden, those bastions of Leftist worship and admiration, are the freaking Third Reich, because they certainly don’t allow this crap.

  7. jbstonesfan
    April 29th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    SEVENTY percent of Americans SUPPORT the AZ law.
    **********************

    U.S. NewsView archive | RSS Feed
    Receive Free UPI Newsletter Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law
    Published: April 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM
    ArticlePhotosListenComments
    Share76NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) — Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can’t prove they’re in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona’s new immigration law indicated.

    The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll of 1,002 American adults asked respondents if they’d want four guidelines in Arizona’s immigration law enacted in their own state.

    The law, the nation’s toughest, seeks to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants and gives police broad powers to stop people on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.

    Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they’d support requiring their own police to determine people’s U.S. status if there was “reasonable suspicion” the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

    An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn’t prove they were legally in the United States.

    Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found.

    When asked about solving the status of illegal immigrants, 45 percent said undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and be deported, the poll found.

    Sixteen percent said those people should be allowed to continue working on a temporary basis and 28 percent supported letting them to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship.

    Respondents in the U.S. Midwest were more likely than those in other areas to express a desire to deport illegal immigrants, the poll found

    The online poll, taken April 22-23, has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

  8. Respondents in the U.S. Midwest were more likely than those in other areas to express a desire to deport illegal immigrants, the poll found

    U.S. Midwest

    U.S. Midwest….

  9. I’m only half way though reading your wonderful post Admin… and have to comment as I go……

    Those “illegals” in the United States are in a difficult position because of this ugliness. Yes, they are here illegally and meanwhile legal immigrants get the short end of the stick by following the law. But, we do feel sympathy for those in this country for jobs and a better life who fear the knock on the door.

    ———
    For me, I don’t feel badly for illegals of any country, even if having the man on ones back isn’t fun…….

    You sneak into my country, I don’t want to support you nor your kids, go back home and apply to come in legally or you will deal with breaking our laws, the way we would have to deal with another country’s laws if we creaped over their border. Only in America would the ‘liberals’ think that these people have the same protected rights as a citizen, only this group of people that think taking our money away from us, no matter how poor we may be, is okay, to support these illegals.

    I am sick of it and I am having a hard time just supporting my little family.

  10. Idiot warning!!!

    ———-
    Obama, Bill Clinton influential, Hillary not: TIME

    By Walden Siew

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – When it comes to influence, President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and pop star Lady Gaga have it, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does not, according to a Time magazine list published Thursday.

    Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, South Korean skating champion Kim Yu-na, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva also made Time’s 100 most-influential people list.

    Time ran a separate online poll that picked Iranian opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who received more than 800,000 votes, as the winner. He is on the “heroes” section of the 100 list as well.

    Talk show host and media mogul Oprah Winfrey made the annual list for a record seventh year in a row, followed by Obama and Jobs who have both been named five times.

    The list, which does not rank the most influential, is based on staff suggestions and editorial decisions by senior Time magazine editors.

    Conservative figures feature prominently. Along with Palin, Senator Jon Kyl, commentator Glenn Beck and tea party leader Jenny Beth Martin also make the cut, while on the other side of politics U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined fellow Democrats Obama and Bill Clinton.

    But former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was not among the record 31 women on this year’s list. The chosen, grouped into leaders, thinkers, artists and heroes, also include a record 47 international figures from 23 countries.

    Time also separately ranked the 100 most influential people based on the number of followers and connections they have on the social networking websites Twitter and Facebook. Obama came out on top, followed by Lady Gaga and Ashton Kutcher.

    “When I see somebody like Gaga, I sit back in admiration. I’m inspired to pick up the torch again myself,” pop star Cyndi Lauper wrote of Gaga. “Being around her, I felt like the dust was shaken off of me. I find it very comforting to sit next to somebody and not have to worry that I look like the freak.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63S42Y20100429

  11. Guess who’s coming to dinner?

    Iran leader plans to join UN nuclear talks
    By Lachlan Carmichael (AFP)

    WASHINGTON — Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to join a major UN nuclear disarmament summit next week in New York, even as the US and other powers seek tougher sanctions at the world body to halt Tehran’s suspect atomic work.

    Iran’s UN mission said president Ahmadinejad applied Wednesday for a US visa to lead Iran’s delegation to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference opening Monday at the United Nations headquarters.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be among more than 30 foreign ministers who will attend the opening of the conference, which is held every five years to check compliance with the arms control treaty.

    Officials said they expected Ahmadinejad to be granted the visa but doubted Clinton would hold one-on-one talks with the leader of a country that Washington suspects of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program.

    Iran denies the charge, saying it seeks peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

    Clinton said Tuesday that “nothing new” came from Iran’s weekend talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, which has seen Tehran balk at a confidence-building proposal to swap nuclear fuel.

    Clinton’s spokesman Philip Crowley urged Iran to play a “constructive role” in the conference, but added it “wouldn’t surprise us” if Tehran acts much the way it has in defying international demands to halt its sensitive nuclear work.

    In that case, he warned, Iran’s leadership will face “further isolation”.

    The United States is spearheading a drive for a fourth set of UN Security Council sanctions — sanctions Clinton hopes will be “crippling” — against Iran over its refusal to curb uranium enrichment.

    However, Washington has seen negotiations for a new sanctions resolution drag out as it struggles to persuade reluctant Security Council member countries like China, Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon to adopt biting sanctions.

    Susan Rice, US President Barack Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, first broke the news that Ahmadinejad had applied for a US visa.

    “Iran is obviously in any case in the backdrop when consideration of the non-proliferation treaty is occurring because it remains in violation of its obligations,” she told reporters in New York.

    “But we think this is much bigger than any one country, and our aims are universal and we approach it in that vein,” she added.

    Rice said that the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany were pursuing “intensive” negotiations over new UN sanctions against Iran.

    But analysts said that if Ahmadinejad attends the meeting he was likely to reaffirm that Iran, which signed the NPT, does not seek a nuclear weapons capability.

    Instead he was likely to turn the spotlight on arch-enemy Israel, which is widely believed to have an arsenal of several hundred nuclear bombs.

    Israel has never publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons, maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity since it inaugurated its Dimona nuclear reactor in 1965.

    Like nuclear-armed countries India, Pakistan and North Korea, the Jewish state is not party to the treaty in order to avoid international inspections.

    Crowley said Ahmadinejad’s visa application was received earlier on Wednesday via Switzerland, which represents US interests in Iran in the absence of diplomatic ties between the two countries for more than 30 years.

    With its obligations as the United Nations host, the United States will not “stand in the way” if the Iranian leader wants to travel to New York to lead his delegation to the conference, Crowley said.

    Iranian official Mohammed Baksahraee told AFP from Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations in New York that Ahmadinejad “is expected to attend the (NPT) meeting,” and would head Iran’s delegation.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8RVOqhmIF87orSyMq9xTusnd7kQ

  12. Clinton, Bono top A-list prize winners for global efforts

    Former US President Bill Clinton speaks after being awarded the Distinguished International Leadership Award during the 2010 Atlantic Council awards dinner on April 28 in Washington, DC. Clinton was honored late Wednesday for his life’s efforts to enhance international understanding.
    Bill Clinton, Irish singer and global activist Bono and top NATO commander Stephane Abrial were among public figures from both sides of the Atlantic honored late Wednesday for their life’s efforts to enhance international understanding.

    The US-based Atlantic Council gave out its annual awards honoring Americans and Europeans who over the years have “made exceptional and distinctive contributions to the strengthening each of the four pillars of the transatlantic relationship: political, military, business, and humanitarian.”

    Over the years, the group has honored former British prime minister Tony Blair, media magnate Rupert Murdoch, former US president George H. W. Bush, and former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, and numerous other top leaders.

    Former president Clinton walked away this year with the group’s top honor at a swank A-list dinner late Wednesday that included hundreds of foreign dignitaries, military leaders and captains of industry.

    Since leaving the White House in 2000, Clinton has been a tireless champion of humanitarian and Third World development causes, many funded by his own Clinton Foundation.

    The council honored the former president with its Distinguished Humanitarian Leadership Award for his work to expand NATO and end genocide in the Balkans.

    Upon receiving his award, Clinton reminded the guests that accomplishments for which he was being praised were deeply unpopular during his presidency.

    He recalled for example that 78 percent of the US public opposed going in to the Balkans and that his staff counseled against his decision to bail out Mexico from their financial collapse in the mid-1990s.

    His decision to reach out to Boris Yeltsin’s Russia was relatively easy, the former president quipped, “with only 76 percent” opposing.

    With respect to international cooperation, “divorce is not an option. It’s interdependence,” Clinton said.

    His predecessor in the White House, former president George H.W. Bush appeared via pre-taped video to congratulate Clinton.

    Abrial, a French air force general and Supreme Allied Commander who was given this year’s distinguished military leader Award, joked that being honored along with Bono significantly raised his “coolness factor” with his kids.

    He also compared receiving the honor just one year into his job as NATO’s supreme commander to Barack Obama’s recent receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    “I am tempted to paraphrase an American president’s recent Nobel Prize speech and say that I suspect I am probably being honored for what people hope I will do rather than for what I’ve already accomplished,” he said.

    Also honored Wednesday were Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Management Board of Deutsche Bank, who won an award for distinguished business leadership and General James Mattis, commander of US Joint Forces Command in NATO.

    Rocker Bono, whose efforts in raising awareness and resources to help fight poverty and disease in Africa, earned him the council’s first Distinguished Humanitarian Leadership Award, noted all the political dignitaries assembled in the room, and joked, “This really isn’t the Grammys, is it?”

    And referring to his unlikely presence among all the military brass, he quipped “Who let the peacenik in?”

    But on a more serious note, the U2 frontman and rights activist who has dedicated himself a long list of noble causes, including eradication of world hunger, AIDS and Third World debt advised the assembled crowd what with respect to international understanding “it’s smarter and cheaper to make friends now than to defend ourselves against enemies later.”

    http://www.citizen.co.za/index/Article.aspx?pDesc=1,1,22&Type=people&File=newsmlmmd.14428e6d28994268b8274a952ded08c7.311.xml

  13. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36550.html

    Two of the most prominent Hispanic Democrats in Congress are continuing their all-out offensive to kill a bill that would mandate a vote on Puerto Rico’s political status.

    And they’re taking direct aim at their leadership.

    Democratic Reps. Nydia Velazquez (N.Y.) and Luis Gutierrez (Ill.) sent out an e-mail to members of Congress Thursday morning urging them to vote no on the Puerto Rican Democracy Act, which would allow the island’s residents to vote yes or no on whether they want to continue their political status. If that vote garnered a majority who didn’t like the island’s status, Puerto Ricans would then decide whether they wanted statehood, independence or free association.

    “This bill is not the product of consensus. It does not provide for true self-determination. The two-step process in the bill is designed to craft an artificial majority for statehood,” Velazquez and Gutierrez said in their e-mail. “The people of Puerto Rico deserve a truly fair, democratic and inclusive self-determination process that is the product of consensus. H.R. 2499 does not provide for such a process. It is divisive, unfair and undemocratic.”

    Gutierrez is taking a particularly hard line, saying that when a similar bill was brought up and passed in 1998, he got 210 minutes for seven amendments. Now he has two amendments and 10 minutes apiece for each.

    “I am telling you, this is going to blow up just like the Goldman Sachs derivatives blew up,” he said on the House floor Thursday morning.

    It’s a split for Democrats, although one that likely won’t matter — almost 60 Republicans are co-sponsors of the bill.

  14. HillaryforTexas

    I get sick of hearing about “comprehensive reform”, even though I agree that there are multiple interlocking problems here that need to be addressed, because it’s always code for “let’s create a 2500 page monstrosity that no one understands, stick in sneaky speacial-interest provisions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and bicker over every extraneous point til the cows come home.”
    ——-
    I agree with your entire post.

  15. This will bring out the vote for Republicans whatever year it gets on the ballot, if ever.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/28/20100428arizona-immigration-law-referendum-could-delay.html

    A group calling itself One Arizona filed petitions with the state Wednesday to refer Arizona’s new immigration law to the November ballot.

    It’s the second referendum drive announced this week.

    One Arizona chairman Andrew Chavez, who runs a petition-circulation company, said the groups want voters to overturn Senate Bill 1070.

    He declined to identify One Arizona, other than to say it consists of concerned Arizona groups and individuals. The emergence of One Arizona has prompted an earlier referendum effort to narrow its scope.

    Gary Peter Klahr, a disbarred attorney who is working with activist Jon Garrido on a separate repeal of the immigration law, said his group will seek a vote on what he called the “objectionable” parts of SB 1070, instead of trying to overturn the entire legislation.

    They are still working on the precise ballot language, Klahr said, so the “objectionable” passages are still being debated.

    Both efforts require the signatures of 76,682 registered voters within 90 days of the end of the legislative session. With the Legislature working toward an adjournment today, 4/29 that would mean petitions would be due at the end of July.

    But the later the petitions come in, the slimmer the chance of qualifying for the November ballot.

    That’s because the Secretary of State and the county recorders need time to verify the voter signatures, said Matthew Benson, a spokesman for Secretary of State Ken Bennett. Benson said he can’t name a hard and fast deadline to qualify for this fall’s ballot, but said the earlier the petitions come in, the better the chances.

    If organizers fail to make the November ballot, the measure would go before voters in the November 2012 general election. However, the mere filing of the petitions would put the law on hold until it could get before voters in November 2012.

  16. A point that needs to be made about that Politico article that discusses the supposed dislike of White House correspondents against Obama. The introductory paragraphs are a complete fabrication. The authors write that the Obama joke fell flat. That is simply not true. The crowd roared with approval and huge laughter.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36454.html

    One of the enduring story lines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

    “Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

    But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat.

    There were even whoops and hollers. Here’s the proof:

  17. I swear to God, if Hillary R Clinton does not run for President in the future, I will be so darn angry that I don’t think I will get over it.

    I am tired of waiting, I am tired of the corruption to stop her, I hope she has enough fight left in her to fight one more time.

    And………..I want HER to be the one to bust that glass ceiling.

    If I ever go to another convention where there is a vote on the floor for her, I will take a freaking pitchfork with me to chase away the people that will obstruct Hillary delegates.

    I am really in a silent rage right now, over all this bs posted in the ‘ugly’ politics.

  18. Shadowfax, did you see this?:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36384.html

    President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court shortlist is jampacked with women, but on Capitol Hill many women are still struggling to obtain elite staff positions in congressional offices.

    In general, women have no problem getting hired on the Hill: data show that in House offices women are filling entry-level positions, such as staff assistant and scheduler, in droves. But in influential management and legislative positions, their numbers plummet.

    A POLITICO review of several House of Representatives compensation studies shows that the number of female chiefs of staff in the House has increased only about 6 percentage points during the past five years. As of last year, only 41 percent of House chiefs of staff were female.

    The number of female legislative directors, a second-tier position key to forming policy in many House offices, increased by only 1 percentage point, to 36.5 percent, during the same five-year period.

    Recent employment studies of the U.S. Senate have not included gender breakdowns.

    And while the ranks of women in top positions of congressional offices might be thin, women dominate the middle to lower ranks. According to last year’s study, women filled 84 percent of executive assistant and 82 percent of scheduler jobs. These positions, which typically pay an average of $48,000 to $59,000, include maintaining payrolls, monitoring office policies and keeping the member’s official schedule. By contrast, many chiefs of staff in the House make an average of $134,000 a year.

    “The Hill hasn’t changed much,” said Ann Jacobs, legislative director in the office of Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). Jacobs, a 25-year veteran of the political world, left her first job, as chief of staff for another House Democrat, after she had two children and struggled to find child care to cover her long work hours.

    “When I had to leave, I was devastated,” Jacobs said. “The bottom line is that most women have to leave when they have kids because their bosses are not accommodating. Members of Congress are selfish inherently because they want their staff around them all the time.”

  19. The third and final debate in Britain will be today at 3:30 ET. BBC will stream it:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

    Update:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/europe/30britain.html?hp

    The main topic for the debate will be the state of Britain’s economy. A chastened Mr. Brown appears to see that as an opportunity to recoup after the “disaster” — his own word — of Wednesday. Unaware that a microphone pinned to his lapel was still live, Mr. Brown labeled as “bigoted” a woman who approached him on the street in the rundown Lancashire mill town of Rochdale and raised Britain’s record-high levels of immigration.

    “Yesterday was yesterday, today I want to talk about the future of the economy,” Mr. Brown told factory workers in Halesowen, a town on the outskirts of Birmingham on Thursday.

    When a worker raised the immigration issue, Mr. Brown trod warily. “I understand the worries people have about immigration,” he said. “I understand the concerns about what is happening to people, neighborhoods, and I understand the fears that people have.”

    As commentators speculated on the potential cost to Labour of Mr. Brown’s gaffe, particularly among the white, working-class voters who are a bedrock of Labour politics, his rivals in next Thursday’s vote held well back from the incident.

    Officials from the opposition Conservatives, in particular, noted the potential for stirring sympathy for Mr. Brown if voters sensed a “piling on” by political opponents in the wake of the incident. Some analysts believe that is what happened earlier this year when a raft of newspaper stories quoting Downing Street insiders said that Mr. Brown’s public image of steady practicality masked a private pattern of angry outbursts and bullying.

  20. This story from Britain almost duplicates the debate here:

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2952263/Gordon-Brown-brands-gran-a-bigot.html

    SHAMED Gordon Brown’s election hopes seemed to be toast last night after he was heard calling a caring gran a “bigot”.

    The PM smeared LABOUR supporter Gillian Duffy, 66, without realising his slur was being picked up on a TV microphone on his lapel.

    She tackled him about immigration after popping out for a loaf of brown bread in Rochdale, Lancs.

    Last night Gillian’s friends and family said Mr Brown could not have been more wrong.

    Retired dinner lady Irene White, a neighbour who has known lifelong Labour supporter Gillian for years, said: “He made a mistake criticising her.

    “She’s a nice person and has worked hard all her life. She’s not a bigot.” Irene, 66, added: “If you can’t speak your mind to the Prime Minister, what can you do?”

    His attack on the pensioner moments later was heard around the world because he didn’t realise he was still “wired up” with a TV microphone.

    Gillian was approached soon after to be told the PM had said something about her. At first she smiled – but was then near tears when told he had branded her a bigot.

    Clearly shaken she gasped: “You’re joking. Where was I bigoted?” Family friend Nick Woodruff, 37, called Gillian a “lovely woman”. And her nephew Andrew Duffy said: “She tells the truth.”

    He said Mr Brown had “made a massive fool of himself”. And he added: “It’s a massive gaffe, isn’t it?”

    The PM knew it – and was forced to make a special trip to Gillian’s house later to offer her a humiliating personal apology.

    But the damage had been done. And a YouGov poll for The Sun last night indicated he may be toast at the election – with 46 per cent of voters quizzed reckoning he had been exposed as a hypocrite.

    Only one in four believed his apology was genuine.

    Before the PM arrived at her home widow Gillian, who spent her life working with vulnerable kids for her local council, told The Sun: “It’s awful the Prime Minister is going around talking to the electorate and then saying I’m a bigot when I’m not. It’s shocking what happened.

    “I’m not voting for him after what he called me. I’m very disappointed, it’s very upsetting.”

    Gillian had popped out for a loaf of brown bread when she bumped into the PM. In public, Mr Brown laughed with her and said it was good to meet her. But a couple of her comments got under his skin.

    FIRST, after telling the PM her family had always voted Labour – and her dad went to the local Free Trade Hall to sing The Red Flag – she added: “Now I’m ashamed of saying ‘I’m Labour’.”

    THEN she asked about immigration, a thorny issue in a town hit by six per cent unemployment and genuine concern about the number of foreign workers in the area.

    Feisty Gillian, whose husband died of cancer four years ago, told Mr Brown: “You can’t say anything about the immigrants. All these Eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?”

    The pair appeared to part on good terms, with Gillian calling the PM “very nice”. But as soon as he climbed into his waiting Jag, Mr Brown revealed his true feelings.

    He told close aide Justin Forsyth the encounter had been a “disaster”.

    When Forsyth asked him what Gillian said, he snapped: “Ach, everything. She’s just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to vote Labour.”

    The TV microphone, attached to the PM’s lapel to record his walkabout exchanges, picked up the lot.

    And he soon realised he was deep in the brown stuff. During a following interview on Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine show in Manchester, the PM, unaware he was also being filmed, slumped forward and thrust his head in his hands as his swipe at Gillian was played back.

    He said: “I do apologise if I have said anything hurtful and I will apologise to her personally.”

    But he also called her question about immigration “annoying” and hit out at the broadcasting of the “private conversation” with his aide.

    Mr Brown’s anger at the question and the resulting “bigot” slur was strange given he insists it is NOT racist to talk about immigration. In November last year, he said: “I have never agreed with the lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration, as a racist.”

    The PM spent 39 minutes with Gillian after hasty arrangements were made to take him to her home. He said as he emerged: “I am mortified by what has happened. I have given her my sincere apologies.”

    Mr Brown claimed he “misunderstood” Gillian and she had accepted his apology.

    He added: “If you like, I am a penitent sinner.”

    But Gillian’s niece, who shares the pensioner’s first name, said: “He has shown his true colours. He’s always trying to pretend to be so nice and in touch with people. But he’s not.”

    Business Secretary Lord Mandelson admitted there was “no justification” for the PM’s comment.

  21. Amazing the generic apology to that woman……..

    the key word is ‘if’…….

    He said: “I do apologise if I have said anything hurtful

    —–
    Ah the little people, the working class, the surfs, the bitter knitters, the women that think they should be equal but should stay in the kitchen where they belong.

  22. Hillary just finished as 3rd most popular world leader only behind Waffles and Dali Lama, so it’s hard to take that poll too seriously.

  23. jbstonesfan

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/

    The UN has and always will be a joke.

    ………….

    {snip} Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

    ——–

    I’m speechless…….

  24. jbstonesfan
    April 29th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    ———————

    Given the totally biased makeup of the U.N. now, nothing surprises me anymore.

  25. I have had enough of obama’s BIGOTED leadership.

    US gives Abbas private assurances over Israeli settlements

    Exclusive: Americans consider withholding veto protecting Israel at UN if building goes ahead at Ramat Shlomo

    Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 April 2010

    The US has given private assurances to encourage the Palestinians to join indirect Middle East peace talks, including an offer to consider allowing UN security council condemnation of any significant new Israeli settlement activity, the Guardian has learned.

    The assurances were given verbally in a meeting a week ago between a senior US diplomat and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Since then – and after months of US diplomacy – it appears Israeli and Palestinian leaders are close to starting indirect “proximity” talks, which would be the first resumption of the Middle East peace process since Israel’s war in Gaza began in late 2008.

    There was no official confirmation of the details of the meeting and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, denied assurances were given. “It’s not true,” he said. “We are still talking to the Americans.”

    But a Palestinian source, who was given a detailed account of the meeting, said David Hale, the deputy of the US special envoy, George Mitchell, told Abbas that Barack Obama wanted to see the peace process move forward with the starting of indirect talks. The diplomat said Washington understood there were obstacles and described Israeli settlement construction as “provocative”.

    He told Abbas the Americans had received assurances from the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, that one particular settlement project in East Jerusalem, at Ramat Shlomo, would not go ahead, at least for now. The site is important because last month an agreement on indirect talks collapsed within a day of being announced, after Israeli officials gave planning approval for 1,600 new homes in the settlement. The US vice‑president, Joe Biden, who was in Jerusalem at the time, condemned the Israeli announcement in unusually strong language.

    Hale then told Abbas that if there was significantly provocative settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, Washington may consider allowing the UN security council to censure Israel. It was understood that meant the US would abstain from voting on a resolution rather than use its veto.

    Any US decision not to veto a resolution critical of Israel would be very unusual and a rare sign of American anger towards its long-time ally. However, it was not clear what may constitute significantly provocative activity. Palestinian officials asked in the meeting, but were not given an explicit definition, the source said.

    In a New York Times opinion piece this week it was suggested that a letter was given to Abbas offering an unprecedented US commitment to the Palestinians and saying Washington would not stand in the way of a UN resolution condemning Israeli actions. But the Palestinian source told the Guardian that the assurances were only verbal and were not in letter form because the US wanted the details kept secret.

    Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, suggested they were close to agreeing to indirect talks. “We want to give President Obama a chance, to give Senator Mitchell a chance and of course success to us means independence and freedom,” he said.

    Last year, the Palestinians were refusing to enter talks without a full freeze on settlement building. Israel has put a partial, 10-month curb on construction in the West Bank, but Netanyahu has refused in public to freeze building in East Jerusalem. Last week he said Palestinian calls for a halt to settlement building in the city were an “unacceptable demand”.

    Yet reports suggest a tacit, temporary delay has been put on planning approvals for settlement projects in the city. Israeli ministers have said they believe the indirect talks could start within weeks and, privately, Israeli officials say there has been transparency with both sides about understandings reached to allow the process to begin.

    Asked about Israeli settlement building, Erekat said: “I don’t care about words. I care about deeds. I really want to see that nothing takes place on the ground. That is what matters to me.”

    Hani al-Masri, a political adviser to Abbas, said: “The Americans said they will blame the party that puts obstacles in the way of the peace process.”

    But he added that it was very unlikely that the Americans would allow the UN to censure Israel.

    “We are very far from that step. They will never leave Israel to the mercy of the security council,” said Masri.

    US and Israel at the UN

    For decades the US has vetoed UN security council resolutions that are critical of its ally Israel. However, occasionally the US either abstains from voting or votes in favour of sometimes strongly worded resolutions. This last happened in October 2000 when the US abstained in a vote over a resolution about the outbreak of the second intifada, the Palestinian uprising, which strongly criticised Israeli “provocation”. The last time this happened regularly was between 1990 and 1992, when George Bush Sr was US president and when relations with Israel were particularly bad. His administration voted in favour of six resolutions critical of Israel

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/29/israel-settlement-building-peace-talks/print

  26. JanH-the Obama administration met with Jewish leaders last weeek to reassure them of the unbreakable bond while at the same time writing this letter to the PA. Obama can never be trusted.

  27. IRS lacks clout to enforce mandatory health insurance

    The IRS processed more than 230 million tax returns last year, paid 127 million refunds and received about 68 million phone calls. The agency is responsible for enforcing a tax code that, at 71,000 pages, makes Anna Karenina look like a comic book.

    Starting in 2014, the agency will have another task: making sure all Americans have health insurance. Under the law, Americans who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it will face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5% of their income, whichever is higher. More than 4 million Americans could be subject to penalties of up to $1,000 by 2016 if they fail to obtain health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office said last week.

    The IRS will be the enforcer — sort of.

    HEALTH CARE LAW: Some trapped in pricey state plans

    While the IRS can impose liens or levies, seize property or seek jail time against people who don’t pay taxes, it’s barred from taking such actions against taxpayers who ignore the insurance mandate. In the arsenal instead: the ability to withhold refunds from taxpayers who decline to pay the penalty, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said this month.

    [snip]

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

    —————

    Does this mean all those that don’t owe income tax at the end of the year (50% ?? of the country) can get around the new Hell Care fines for not having insurance…is that a pay off unicorn for the Obots?

  28. Hey, all! Just stopping by for a second to relate a thought I had this morning about why I am still angry at Dems and left the party and why there are so many PUMA’s out there still:

    I am angry because the line they used from the beginning is “we like Hillary, but no one else will vote for her” so I am going to vote for the cool guy.

    Nevermind that she had more votes in the primary.

    Nevermind that she had done more for the party.

    Nevermind that she had done more for the country.

    Nevermind that she had more experience.

    Nevermind that more GOP would (and did) cross the aisles to vote for her.

    Nevermind she has more domestic and internationals respect.

    It had nothing to do with choosing what they perceived to be a winning candidate.

    It had to do with they were and are a bunch of pussy motherfuckers who know not of loyalty, honor or courage.

    They couldn’t be honest and say, we signed up to be in your party because it gave us more freedom, but rather than doing the work we want to look cool and have fun.

    Fuckers.

    Anyhow, just a fleeting, angry thought.

  29. FYI: the response to date of my emails sent follows,

    Hinz, Jean Not read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Walker, John Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Tateishi, Peter Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Gartzke, Dana Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Dell, Eric Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Karvelas, Dave Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Shearer, Steven Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Neugebauer, DaleRead: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Walker, Mark Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Brandell, Jim Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Kutz, Randy Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Lyden, Patrick Read: Concerned citizen Patriot
    Hulen, Anthony Read: Concerned citizen Patriot

  30. Shorttermer- just means they opened it. They can easily delete afterwards.

    Gonzo- did you see that an OK state legislator is now introducing a bill to revoke citizenship of “anchor babies?” I wonder if that stupid asshole understands the Terra Firma rule? If you are born here, you are a citizen. Period.

  31. This one is for the Gore supporter…you know who you are…

    “I’m so passionate about flying I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.”

    Ah, the elitists of it all….
    ***********

    CNSNews.com
    Harrison Ford to Green Critics: ‘I’ll Walk Everywhere When They Walk Everywhere,’ ‘I Only Fly One’ of My 7 Planes ‘At A Time’
    Wednesday, April 28, 2010
    By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

    (CNSNews.com) — Actor, environmental activist and pilot Harrison Ford, who owns seven airplanes, told his environmental critics that he will “start walking everywhere when they start walking everywhere.”

    Ford spoke on Capitol Hill on Tuesday about general aviation at an event sponsored by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. In light of criticism Ford has received from envrionmentalists about his use of airplanes, CNSNews.com asked him if his environmental activism coupled with his flying was a “contradiction.”

    Ford said, “They’re quite right. I’ll start walking everywhere when they start walking everywhere.”

    Ford is one of the chairmen of Conservation International and has done an advertisement for the environmentalist group Team Earth.

    In commenting on his seven planes, Ford told CNSNews.com: “I only fly one of them at a time–and general aviation, although it does, use of carbon fuels does contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Ford continued, “The contribution of general aviation to greenhouse gas emissions is less than 2 percent — and all of aviation, less than 2 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. And private, or general aviation, is even less than that. So, it is significant.”

    “I do contribute, rather than buying carbon credits, I contribute directly to conservation programs that help keep standing forests,” said Ford.

    CNSNews.com also asked Ford about ways individuals could conserve energy and reduce their carbon footprint.

    Ford said, “I think there are a variety of different efforts, each according to their particular circumstances. But I think, first of all, it derives from the consciousness of the necessity to lower our carbon footprint and to give full credit to what it is that the use of fossil fuels is doing to the planet, and to understand that and to make efforts in mitigating (it).”

    According to its Web site, Team Earth encourages individuals to “do less,” meaning “using less paper, driving less, and using less energy by doing simple things like turning down your thermostat.”

    Conservation International, which sponsors Team Earth, has a similar mission, saying it is “committed to helping societies adopt a more sustainable approach to development–one that considers and values nature at every turn.”

    Ford has appeared in an advertisement for Team Earth that is posted on the Conservation International Web site. “When rain forests get slashed and burned it releases tons of carbon into the air we breath,” Ford says in the ad. “It changes our climate. It hurts. Every bit of rain forest that gets ripped out over there, really hurts us over here.” To see the ad click here.

    In February, WENN Entertainment News Wire reported that Ford had told Britain’s Live magazine, “I’m so passionate about flying I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.” WENN reported that Dr. Wendy Buckley, director of Carbonfootprint.com, reacted to that as follows: “Flying is a huge source of carbon emissions and making unnecessary journeys by plane can no longer be seen as responsible to our environment. Stars like Harrison Ford need to embrace the huge opportunity to lead by example in the battle against climate change–reduce their overall lifestyle carbon footprint and carbon offset those unavoidable emissions.”

    Ford has piloted a helicopter on rescue missions near his Wyoming home, on one occasion rescuing a Boy Scout and on another a stranded hiker.

  32. Amen, OkieAtty!

    BTW, one of things I love about Hillary is that she wouldn’t care she’s not on that Time list. She’s a public servant of the highest order, not a headline grabber.

  33. Okie Atty, yeah, but one of them did not open it. And I expected them to delete after opening….I just had to try.

    So, Okie Atty, tell us about the laws that OK passed starting with the commandments and going to making English the only language for giving the drivers’ license test.
    And why is there no one having a hissy fit over them? They sound like the way to go for all the other states to me.

    Hillary, hurry up and save our country before it is too late. Run, Hillary, Run!

  34. Shadow Fax, He did not even cry this much at his own grandmother “toot” funeral or at the time he found out she was dead! Perhaps this lady is one of his real family, after all we really don’t know who he is???

    BTW, Admin, that was one good article!

  35. Shadowfax @ 4:30: Obama’s breakdown
    ——————
    I’ve looked at two pictures of Michele beside hubby and I believe she’s thinking ‘here I am stuck beside this blubbering idiot.’

  36. confloyd

    I don’t know about the counting of tears, but maybe race is the motivating factor, not the person?

    I don’t want to do to him what he and his bros did to Hillary when she cried, but it’s difficult not to want to take advantage of him after all he has done.

  37. I also understand they are getting those wind turbines off Cape Cod…you’d think Obama would keep the old man’s request of his own special bay that it not be turned into a wind turbine farm. LOL!

    I feel sorry for the gulf coast with that oil spill, I have many friends that live there…it will devastating to their economy so close to the summer vacations…

  38. holdthemaccountable, ROTFLMAO!!! Meanchelle always looks pist off, perhaps she is not getting what she needs regularly to keep a smile on her face…oh drats…another Barry Obama failure…can’t keep his woman …. HAPPY!!

  39. THe key to Hillary running again is WHEN to break from Obama…if she leaves too early she will set herself of to be beat savagely by the press while she tries to get a campaign together. IF she stays too long she may get some of the Obama stench on her….its a tight rope, but I do think she and Bill have a plan.

    Bill came out a couple of days ago and said that immigration will be good for the economy…Obama followed him with the same statement…LOL!! Not sure how that works, but I bet Bill does!

  40. I personally would love, love, love to hear the personal conversations of Hillary and Bill…………

    What a team.

  41. From Politico today:

    “Nearly two years after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended her losing presidential campaign and endorsed rival Barack Obama, Clinton’s allies maintain a triad of groups that have continued to make her presence felt in the political world — and could serve as a platform for the next phase of her public life. [snip]

    *******************************************

    You Betcha!!!

  42. S
    April 29th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    From Politico today:

    Please, S, do you have a link to this piece?

    Thanks.

  43. Correction to Politico today:
    after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended her losing presidential campaign
    ________________________________________________________________________________
    She DID NOT LOSE, you sweet little man you! The nomination was GIFTED to Obummer by Roosevelt,Pelosi, Reid, and the Rules & Bylaws Committee on the date of May 31 2008.
    A plague on their house!!!!!!

  44. OkieAtty
    April 29th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    At somepoint something has to b done. It is a real problem for the border states and thusly for America

  45. I agree that something needs to be done about anchor babies, but it is going to have to be a change to the constitution. It is utterly unconstitutional to do it otherwise. Rule of Law is a bitch sometimes, but I believe in it even when it’s inconvenient.

    Other civilized countries stopped the practice of granting citizenship to all born there ages ago. They changed their laws. Our founding fathers had the right idea at the time, but did not foresee airplanes and an incredibly mobile world population.

    If we want to follow England, Ireland, Italy, France etc in stopping this practice, then we’ll need an amendment to do it.

  46. I never thought there would ever come a time again when the Jewish people of this world would have to worry about their future as a race. I am not suggesting holocaust part II, but as the U.N. continues to go downhill and obama’s regime continues to talk out of both sides of their mouths, I have to admit that I am worried…very worried.

    There is a headline out there that Obama has promised Abbas their own state within 2 years. There is also the following…

    ——————
    J’lem fears UN may recognize PA state

    By DAVID HOROVITZ AND KHALED ABU TOAMEH
    30/04/2010

    As proximity talks near, Israeli officials wary of Abbas’s intentions

    While Israel and the Palestinian Authority are finally expected to begin US-mediated indirect “proximity” talks in the very near future, concern is growing among some in the Israeli government that the PA is planning to marginalize the diplomatic process and instead unilaterally seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines.

    There is a rising conviction among some in the Netanyahu government, The Jerusalem Post has learned, that the PA is aiming to secure a new UN Security Council Resolution, updating 1967’s Resolution 242, providing for the establishment of Palestine and fudging the refugee issue.

    The idea of such a move, runs the bleak assessment, would be to establish a state not at peace with Israel, but rather to continue the conflict with Israel.

    Not all senior figures share this assessment, it is stressed, although it is very widely doubted within the coalition’s senior decision-making echelon that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to negotiate viable terms for peace with Israel.

    By contrast, the US administration, in its contacts with Israel, is said to have conveyed the assessment that Abbas is ready for a negotiated peace, and President Shimon Peres is said to have made clear his belief that Abbas does not intend to seek to flood Israel with refugees under the demand for a “right of return.”

    In an interview with Channel 2 this week, Abbas denied plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood or any other unilateral acts, and noted that the Arab League peace initiative provided for a “just and agreed” solution on the refugee issue – a solution, that is, that would have to be acceptable to Israel.

    In February, the Post reported that a paper prepared by chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat on the status of the peace talks recommended that the Palestinians try to secure a UN Security Council resolution that recognized the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital, as well as a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with UN Resolution 194.

    The Erekat paper, entitled “The Political Situation in Light of Developments with the US Administration and Israeli Government and Hamas’s Continued Coup D’etat,” recommended that the Palestinians consider the possibility of abandoning the two-state solution in favor of a one-state solution if the peace process did not move forward.

    Within the Netanyahu government, the Post understands, there is a growing awareness of the rising level of international support for Palestinian statehood, and of the reduced international empathy for Israeli concerns and reservations.

    Central to those trends, it is recognized, is the credibility of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who has impressed international figures, including many of the most firmly pro-Israel American political leaders, with his commitment to building credible institutions of statehood in the West Bank.

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has essentially partnered the PA and Fayyad via his “economic peace” moves over the past year, dismantling roadblocks, reducing checkpoints and easing freedom of movement to help the PA toward an estimated 10-percent-plus growth in gross domestic product over the past 12 months. But some in the prime minister’s inner circle nonetheless have profound reservations about Fayyad’s strategy.

    It is noted, for instance, that the “Program of the Thirteenth Government” issued by Fayyad last August, and entitled “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,” contains no direct, unambiguous reference to making peace with Israel.

    At the same time, it describes the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years as “not only possible,” but “essential.”

    The fact that the PA refused to resume direct talks with Israel after Netanyahu took office last year, and sought to impose preconditions that contributed to the repeated postponement of even the indirect “proximity” talks, has reinforced the sense of many senior figures in the Netanyahu government that the PA is not urgently seeking progress via the negotiating process, and instead intends to take the UN route.

    According to international law expert Ruth Lapidot, recognition of statehood is usually done by fellow states, but the Security Council could recommend that member states recognize a new state of Palestine. Lapidot said Thursday it was unclear if a veto power would apply in such a case; this would depend on the whether the issue were deemed to be of a procedural nature or a substantive nature.

    In the case of Kosovo, Lapidot noted, the Security Council recommended establishing the state, but it did not impose that solution.

    The council’s mandate says that it can solve disputes, but does not define the exact powers. To date, said Lapidot, the Security Council has not established the borders of any state. Still, she elaborated, in the case of Kuwait after the first Gulf War, it established an arbitration commission, which then set the borders of the state.

    Regarding the issue of admittance to the UN, Lapidot said, the Palestinians would need the approval of both the Security Council and the General Assembly. For this kind of resolution, veto power would apply, she said.

    On a related matter, meanwhile, it is understood that the prime minister and some of those closest to him firmly oppose the notion, reported in parts of the Hebrew media earlier this month, of negotiating with the Palestinians for a state with temporary borders – an idea that Abbas has also rejected.

    Support for such an idea is said to come from more dovish elements in the coalition, who believe that once the Palestinians have a state of some kind, even if its borders are not finalized, the international tide of delegitimization of Israel will turn.

    Figures closer to Netanyahu, however, note that even an agreement on a state with temporary borders would require Abbas to address such critical issues as demilitarization and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

    If Abbas were capable of taking viable positions on those issues, runs the argument, it would be far better to have him do so in the cause of a permanent rather than a temporary accord.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174366

  47. WTF???? Okay, something is weird here. Obama announced he is sending SWAT teams to the gulf oil rigs.

    Ummmm…….why? What the heck would a SWAT team be doing on an oil rig? Is there some reason to believe that the explosion was a bomb or something? I can’t for the life of me figure out what function they would serve, unless they are bomb-sniffing or suspect sabotage or something. Anyone have any idea?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/29/obama_announces_he_will_be_sending_swat_teams_to_oil_rigs.html

  48. anchor babies

    If I were an illegal, the first thing I would do is get pregnant. Free ticket to America for only 5 minutes in the sack.

    No papers
    No waiting to become a citizen or be accepted for a visa
    No studying for the exam
    No need to learn the language
    Free education for my kid

    Whatta deal.

  49. Good grief. If you believe this, what else do you believe?

    In February, WENN Entertainment News Wire reported that [Harrison] Ford had told Britain’s Live magazine, “I’m so passionate about flying I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.”

  50. Swat teams?

    Found this:

    “Earlier today, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced that this incident is of national significance and the Department of Interior has announced that they will be sending SWAT teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs. And I have ordered the Secretaries of Interior and Homeland Security as well as Administrator Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency to visit the site on Friday to ensure that BP and the entire U.S. government is doing everything possible, not just to respond to this incident, but also to determine its cause. And I’ve been in contact with all the governors of the states that may be affected by this accident.”

    ————
    Makes me wonder….

    The fraud wants drilling in the Gulf, then pop goes the weasel and the biggest oil spill Evah!

    Dems hope for amnesty votes to win in the future, and Arizona blows up in their faces while violence escalates on border states.

    Hell Care plan passed by reconciliation, that is pay to play for insurance companies, while everyone’s insurance rates rise and no one actually get the goodies for four years.

    Obama and his hairbrain ideas are the kiss of death… just what one would expect from a community organizer that has never held a real job.

  51. ani
    April 29th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
    S
    April 29th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    From Politico today:

    *****************************************************8

    Please, S, do you have a link to this piece?

    ***************************************

    Ani, Admin also refers to this article in today’s post…

    Thanks.

    politico.com/news/stories/0410/36530.html

  52. Jews Turn Against Obama
    Wednesday, 28 Apr 2010 11:52 AM Article Font Size
    By: Ronald Kessler

    In a stunning turnaround, President Obama has lost roughly half of his support among Jewish voters.

    A poll by McLaughlin and Associates found that, while 78 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Obama, only 42 percent of Jewish voters would vote to re-elect him. A plurality — 46 percent — would consider voting for anyone else. That compares with 21 percent who voted for John McCain.

    Ever since he learned of Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, has been warning fellow Jews that Obama would be antithetical to Jewish interests, not only as they relate to Israel but also to issues that affect all Americans.

    Before Obama was elected, Klein, whose organization of 30,000 members is the oldest pro-Israel group in the country, felt like a pariah. Now, as he speaks to Jewish audiences on a weekly basis, he has found that the climate has changed dramatically.

    “As I speak at synagogues now around the country, I haven’t had a single person during Q and A or after my talk ask how I could be so critical of Obama,” Klein tells Newsmax.

    Klein tells his audiences they should not be surprised that Obama’s left-leaning policies appear to tilt more toward the Palestinians than to Israelis. He cites the fact that Obama and his wife, Michelle, spent 20 years listening to Wright, who routinely denounced Israel as a racist state and America for allegedly having created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks.

    Wright, whom Obama described as a mentor and sounding board, even gave an award for lifetime achievement to Louis Farrakhan.

    “God damn America,” Wright shouted in one of his sermons.

    Obama’s speeches have been “inimical to Israel and supportive of the stream of false Palestinian Arab claims concerning Israel,” Klein says. “He is relentlessly pressuring Israel while applying virtually almost no pressure on the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its written obligations. He is worse than Jimmy Carter was when he was president. It was so obvious if you just looked at Obama’s associations before he was elected. Jews simply ignored that.”

    David Remnick’s book “The Ridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama” quotes an unidentified campaign aide to Hillary Clinton as saying that, if the stories about Wright’s ties to Obama had appeared in January 2008, “it would have been over,” meaning Hillary would have won the Democratic nomination for president.

    In fact, as outlined in the Newsmax story “The Media’s Blackout on Rev. Wright,” those stories on Wright were appearing as early as January 2008 — at Newsmax.com — but the mainstream media ignored them and would not pick them up until mid-March.

    Before the election, Klein remembers, “If I talked about Reverend Wright in talks at synagogues, they would say I was using guilt by association. I would always explain you can’t say that. He chose this church. He chose to have a friendship with Wright because this is a person he is comfortable with and because Wright espouses views he believes in.”

    Klein notes, “If a Jew was a member of a synagogue where the rabbi preached hatred of blacks, it would be clear that that Jew would be comfortable with anti-black racism. I couldn’t remain for a week at a synagogue where a rabbi made a hateful speech toward blacks. I’d quit immediately.”

    But now the tide is turning, Klein says. As recently as last weekend, “At the synagogue where I spoke, two of my most left-wing lunatic friends were saying, ‘My God, Mort, you were right. I never should have voted for Obama.’”

    Several Jewish leaders have turned against Obama as well, Klein says, some openly and some behind the scenes because they do not want to cut off ties with a president. Klein quotes one of the most prominent Jewish leaders as having told him recently, “It’s better if I’m on the inside than the outside. So there’s no point in my publicly criticizing him because then I won’t have influence.”

    “What influence?” Klein asks rhetorically. “It felt so good to so many of liberals to be voting for the first black man to run for president that nothing else mattered,” Klein says. “They felt good proving that they are not racist.”

    Only 17 percent of Orthodox Jews now would vote to re-elect Obama, according to the McLaughlin poll. Among conservative Jews, 38 percent would vote for him again. Fifty-two percent of reform Jews would re-elect him. Among Jews who have been to Israel, 36 percent now would cast their ballots for him. When polled, 12 percent responded they did not know or refused to answer.

    “The majority of Jews now realize that this guy is bad for Israel, let alone bad for America,” Klein says.

  53. turndownobama
    April 29th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    His own words. Good grief, you still support these elitist fools?

  54. admin,

    That clip is very damning. Obama is intent on destroying Israel just as much as Iran’s leader is.

  55. gonzotx,

    Thanks very much for the article on Klein.

    “But now the tide is turning, Klein says. As recently as last weekend, “At the synagogue where I spoke, two of my most left-wing lunatic friends were saying, ‘My God, Mort, you were right. I never should have voted for Obama.’”

    ——————
    hmmm…ya think???

  56. Thank you Hillary.

    ——————

    Clinton warns Assad about war risks
    (AFP) – 3 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the risk of sparking a regional war if he supplies long-range Scud missiles to Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

    “Transferring weapons to these terrorists — especially longer-range missiles — would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel,” Clinton said in prepared remarks to a pro-Israel group.

    “President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region,” she warned.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j-yPnX1YMxqExllXtJQQS0kZB7kQ

  57. How about striving to better your own country? How about driving back to Mexico and not Utah? How about applying for citizenship and getting in line? Let’s see, cleaning 3 houses @ $250.00, $83 dollars a house, average house 4 hours,$20/hr, not bad. And yes, I use to clean houses.
    At this point, I do believe Mexicans would be willing to vote their country to be annexed by the US. Let’s stop the BS and just get done with it. it is out of control there and the drug cartels are clearly in charge and for our own safety, it may be the only option.
    ******************

    Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law

    Apr 28, 8:44 PM (ET)

    By AMANDA LEE MYERS

    (AP) Day Laborers stand along Arizona Ave Wednesday, April 28, 2010 in Chandler, Ariz. Arizona’s…
    Full Image

    Google sponsored links
    University of Phoenix® – Official Site. Online Programs. Flexible Scheduling. Learn More.
    Phoenix.edu

    Keesing ID DocumentScan – Scan, check and file passports with Keesing ID DocumentScan
    http://www.id-documentscan.nl

    PHOENIX (AP) – Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.

    Arizona’s sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won’t take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state’s underground economy.

    “Nobody wants to pick us up,” Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.

    Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

    (AP) Jose Armenta, center, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Los Mochis, Sinaloa, Mexico, finds shade…
    Full Image

    Supporters of the law hope it creates jobs for thousands of Americans.

    “We want to drive day labor away,” says Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law’s sponsors.

    An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was especially hard hit by the Great Recession. A Department of Homeland Security report on illegal immigrants estimates Arizona’s illegal immigrant population peaked in 2008 at 560,000, and a year later dipped to 460,000.

    The law’s supporters hope the departure of illegal immigrants will help dismantle part of the underground economy here and create jobs for thousands of legal residents in a state with a 9.6 percent unemployment rate.

    Kavanagh says day labor is generally off the books, and that deprives the state of much-needed tax dollars. “We’ll never eliminate it, just like laws against street prostitution,” he says. “But we can greatly reduce the prevalence.”

    Day laborers do jobs including construction, landscaping and household work for cash paid under the table. Those jobs have been harder to find since the housing industry collapsed here several years ago.

    Standing near potted trees and bushes for sale at a Home Depot in east Phoenix, Diaz, 35, says he may follow three families in his neighborhood who moved to New Mexico because of the law. He says a friend is finding plenty of work in Dallas.

    Diaz says he has too much to lose by staying – he’s supporting a wife and infant son back home in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, across the border from El Paso, Texas.

    “They depend on me to survive,” he says. “I’m not going to wait for police to come and arrest me.”

    Jose Armenta, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico’s western coast, is already planning to move to Utah within the next 20 days because of a combination of the economy and the new law.

    “A lot of people drive by,” he says as he watched nearby cars speeding past, “and they yell, ‘Hey, go back to Mexico!'”

    Analysts say it’s too soon to tell what lasting effects the law will have on the state’s underground work force, which also includes baby sitters, maids and cooks.

    A study of immigrants in Arizona published in 2008 found that non-citizens, mostly in the country illegally, held an estimated 280,000 full-time jobs. The study by researcher Judith Gans at the University of Arizona examined 2004 data, finding that they contributed about 8 percent of the state’s economic output, or $29 billion.

    Losing hundreds of thousands of unskilled laborers wouldn’t hurt the state’s economy in the short term, but it could limit the economy’s ability to grow once it recovers, says Marshall Vest, director of the Economic and Business Research Center at the University of Arizona’s Eller College of Management.

    Legal workers who are willing to take any available job now will become more choosy if the unemployment rate falls back to low levels seen before the recession hit.

    “That’s really the question, as to whether the existing population is willing to work those (low-level) jobs,” Vest says. “I think economics provides the answer. If job openings have no applicants, then businesses need to address that by raising the offered wage.”

    Some illegal immigrants, however, intended to stick around.

    Natalia Garcia, 35, from Mexico City, says she and her husband – a day laborer – will stay so their daughters – both born in the U.S. – can get a good education and learn English. The couple have been living in Arizona illegally for the last 10 years.

    “Mexico doesn’t have a lot of opportunities,” she says. “Here, we work honestly, and we have a better life.”

    Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.

    “This law is very bad for us,” says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. “I’m afraid of what’s going to happen.”

    She says the family is going to wait and see if the law takes effect and what the fallout will be before deciding whether to leave. The law is certain to be challenged in court; Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff already are considering lawsuits.

    “All I ask from God is a miracle for us to stay here and work,” she says.

  58. So much for all the noise:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics

    Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama’s major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.

    The president noted that lawmakers may lack the “appetite” to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue — climate change — is already on their plate.

    “I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem,” Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.

    Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. But several hard realities — a tanked economy, a crowded agenda, election-year politics and lack of political will — led to so much foot-dragging in Congress that, ultimately, Obama decided to set the issue aside.

    With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he seeks re-election, than it would today, even though some immigration reformers warned that a delay could so discourage Democratic-leaning Latino voters that they would stay home from the polls in November.

    Some Democrats thought pushing a bill through now might help their party, or at least their own re-election prospects.[snip]

    If immigration goes nowhere this year, Democrats can blame Republican resistance, though in reality many Democrats didn’t want to deal with an immigration bill this year either.[snip]

    By Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered little hope that the issue was still alive on Capitol Hill.[snip]

    Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats’ leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.

  59. Firedoglake has a petition they are asking people to sign. It is protesting Obama’s offshore drilling decision. I know it probably won’t do any good but I think we should at least let our voice ‘sort of’ be heard. I grew up on the Gulf Coast between Panama city and Destin and I love that beach-this disaster sickens me. Guess everybody has gone to bed-but think about this tomorrow.

  60. admin—I really think the dems are pushing this immigration thing to whip up people before the fall elections. They had better be careful what they unleash.

  61. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats’ leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.
    ************
    Rep. Luis Gutierrez sold the American people out for the illegals. Hows those fumes under the bus Gutierrez? Guess we know the price of his vote…

  62. The problem of illegal immigration begins and ends with the people who employ them. Those people destroy decent wages within a market. Why? Because once one employer employs them at jippo rates, his competitor is compelled by the laws of business economics to do likewise or be forced out of business. My answer this dilemma is short and sweet: hang every one of those employers and let God sort them out

  63. kc, I am not in bed, but I agree, I grew in Corpus Christi and it makes me sick. I wanted to take my grand children to Port Aransas this year in July, but I think it will be full of tar balls….I was a young woman when the Bay of Campeche blew in the 70’s and it seemed like years before we could go to the beach without ruining our bathingsuits.

    I think there is something terribly wrong about these mining accidents and oil accidents just weeks apart from each other…its been 40 years since the Bay of Campeche…people in coastal areas depend on these offshore jobs, they are high paying, good jobs. I think it was eco terrorism which I am sure I will get a lot flack for, but have we really found out what happened out there. I have family that work on those rigs and the safety protocols are stringent! This rig did not have the safety valve that would have prevented this leaking. WHY?

  64. For party leaders, the rationale in tackling a politically explosive issue in an election year might be that there’s limited risk because the conservative GOP base is already riled up.”
    ———————————————————–
    Charles Bronson starred in the movie Death Wish. The movie was a box office success. Therefore, msde three sequels. Then alas his wife died, then he died, and everyone assumed there would be no sequels. They never reckoned on the genius of dimocratic party leaders who assumed there was limited risk in tacking a politically explostive issue like immigration in an election year because the conservative GOP base is already stirred up. They forgot to consider the impact of this decision on independents who are the swing vote in any election. And that production will be called Death Wish 5.

  65. the whole, “policy” agenda for Dimocrats is a way to avoid discussing the economy and jobs.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    The policy agenda of the Dimocrats in a recession ravaged economy plagued by deep unemployment is to avoid discussing these issues? This one is the sequel to Springtime for Hitler, sans Mel Brooks.

  66. Something dramatic needs to happen so nobody sleepwalks through this nightmare, and gets bamboozled into believing that the sorry ass Dimocrats serve the people as opposed to the elites. The new joke should be what does it take to make a Republican look good? The answer of course is a Dimocrat and any port in this trecherous storm.

  67. Rep. Luis Gutierrez sold the American people out for the illegals. Hows those fumes under the bus Gutierrez? Guess we know the price of his vote
    ———————–
    Yes, he sold out the American People. But he is from Chicago. How could it be otherwise?

  68. Years ago I set up a business and did nothing with it. No signs, no customers, no revenue, nada. After a couple years, I started receiving emails from civic organization praising all that my business had done to benefit the local community. I thought it was a farce, but I received six follow-up emails begging me to acknowledge, come forth and be honored by their organization for all the nothing I had done. I asked myself is that all there is to running a business? Is that all there is? If that’s all there is then lets breakout the booze and have a ball . . . with the late Peggy Lee.

    Then I remembered how Obama received a Nobel Prize for a similar lack of accomplishments, or rather what he would do in the future as opposed to what he had accomplished in the past. And big media is the one who broke out the booze and had a ball.

  69. Wbboei, It looked like Hillary is very sternly talking to Nancy Pelosi and Nancy looks like one of my kids when I have caught them doing something wrong…I don’t know, you have to look at the expressions on their faces….Nancy appears to me to be on some kind of drug most of the time! She also appears not be enjoying whatever Hillary is telling her. Just my idea though. Guess not every one looks at facial expressions like I do, but I’ve been trained to do that in healthcare…

  70. wbboei, Just another guess, but I think the bottom is about to fall out…to many things going on at once and Bambi can’t keep all his lies straight anymore!

  71. wbboei, Just another guess, but I think the bottom is about to fall out…to many things going on at once and Bambi can’t keep all his lies straight anymore!
    ——————————–

  72. Pelosi reminds me of Norman Bates mother in the Alfred Hitchcock movie Psycho. She has taken so much botox and booze that her face is starting to shrivel, her brain is atrophying and she is taking on the hue and palor of a living corpse.

  73. Pelosi drinks like a fish. Grey Goose Vodka. Doesn’t everybody? She shook like a leaf when she spoke at the convention. Nerves? Or delirium tremens? She smelled like she had been hitting the bottle. All I can say is she has her own jet airplane which she uses to fly home every week. Noblesse oblige? The operating cost to taxpayers is astronomical. Most of the time she flies alone or with a small entourage. The bar is always stocked. The annual cost of that booze is a cool $ 113,000 according to a recent report. Now that is a rather large bar tab, but to Nannie Poopie it is small potatoes.

  74. confloyd,

    Given that they were both at a funeral, it’s hard for me to evaluate their facial expressions.

  75. I think it was eco terrorism which I am sure I will get a lot flack for

    =========================

    Naw, we eco-terrorists kill people, not fish.

  76. admin
    April 29th, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    “I don’t want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem,” Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.
    &&&&&&

    Hooo, boy, that’s a knee slapper. Good to see that the Cool Sports Guy in Chief has a sense of humor.

  77. Clinton cool to Iran’s Ahmadinejad attending UN nuclear meeting

    Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will likely receive a visa to attend next week’s Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York. But Hillary Clinton says he won’t have a ‘receptive audience.’

    By Taylor Barnes, Correspondent
    posted April 30, 2010

    Even as the US will likely grant Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a visa to visit New York City for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, which opens Monday, members of the Obama administration said the gesture in itself means little and it has not relented on its calls for sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday she did not see Iran’s purpose in attending the NPT conference, which runs through May 28, because their violations since signing the NPT are “absolutely indisputable.” The purpose of the NPT review, which happens every five years, is to reaffirm signatories’ commitments to the 1970 treaty’s three purposes: disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful use of nuclear energy, Mrs. Clinton said at the news conference, according to Reuters.

    Iran says it wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

    Clinton said the international community would welcome an announcement from President Ahmadinejad – the highest-ranking official from any country expected to attend the conference – that Iran will begin abiding by NPT rules. But if he thinks “he can somehow divert attention from this very important global effort or cause confusion that might possibly throw into doubt what Iran has been up to… I don’t believe he will have a particularly receptive audience,” she told reporters, according to Agence France Presse.

    Clinton, speaking again Thursday at the American Jewish Committee gala dinner in Washington, also used some of the administration’s strongest language yet against Iran. She called the threat it posed to Israel “real” and “growing”.

    “Iran, with its anti-Semitic president and hostile nuclear ambitions, also continues to threaten Israel, but it also threatens the region and it sponsors terrorism against many. … At every turn, Iran has met our outstretched hand with a clenched fist. But our engagement has helped build a growing global consensus on the need to pressure Iran’s leaders to change course. We are now working with our partners at the United Nations to craft tough new sanctions.”

    She also said the US was working with its Israeli partners to address the threat.

    Speaking after Clinton at the gala, Israeli Defense Minster Ehud Barak referred to the recent escalation of tensions between the US and Israel, saying, “I feel very strongly that these differences, these slight disputes, are behind us,” according to CNN.

    In addition, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher told a group at the Center for American Progress that the NPT is under stress from countries that dodge its norms, naming Iran and North Korea. Using the “guise” of a peaceful program for energy, Iran has pursued nuclear weapons and violated the International Atomic Energy Association and UN Security Council obligations, she said, according to the Press Trust of India:

    “This cynical path to a nuclear weapon cannot be allowed to serve as a model for others, otherwise it strikes at the very core bargain of the Treaty – in exchange for forswearing the pursuit of nuclear weapons, NPT state parties enjoy the right to the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The pursuit of that right cannot be used as a convenient cover for acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

    Clinton’s spokesperson said that a face-to-face meeting between Iranian and American diplomats at the NPT review was highly unlikely.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0430/Clinton-cool-to-Iran-s-Ahmadinejad-attending-UN-nuclear-meeting

  78. A REASONABLE RESPONSE

    I am a supporter of the ACLU in many instances, and god bless them that they would challenge what they deem an over-reaching law like the Arizona SB1070.

    But I also see that Arizona is ground zero for illegal immigrants pouring in over the border and using resources (hospitals, schools, etc.). I believe an IMMIGRATION POLICY should be based on LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

    So from the NYTimes:

    nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

    Why Arizona Drew a Line
    ====================

    By KRIS W. KOBACH
    Published: April 28, 2010

    ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

    Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

    Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

    It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

    “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

    For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

    The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

    It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

    State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

    And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

    President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

    Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

    &&&
    Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

  79. DOUBLE-TALKER-IN-CHIEF

    hotair.com/archives/2010/04/29/obama-trying-to-weaken-sanctions-against-iran/

    Obama trying to weaken sanctions against Iran?

    posted at 11:36 am on April 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
    printer-friendly Barack Obama talks tougher these days about Iran, but actions speak louder than words. That’s why the White House request to provide waivers in a sanctions bill making its way through Congress has eyebrows raised on Capitol Hill. Eli Lake reports at the Washington Times that the exemptions would allow Chinese and Russian companies doing business with Iran off the hook:

    “The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in “cooperating countries,” a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.
    The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act is in a House-Senate conference committee and is expected to reach President Obama’s desk by Memorial Day.
    “It’s incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of “cooperating countries” in the legislation. …
    The “cooperating countries” language that the White House is pressing would allow the executive branch to designate countries as cooperating with the overall strategy to pressure Iran economically.
    According to three congressional staffers familiar with the White House proposal, once a country is on that list, the administration wouldn’t even have to identify companies from that country as selling gasoline or aiding Iran’s refinement industry.
    Even if, as current law allows, the administration can waive the penalties on named companies for various reasons, the “cooperating countries” language would deprive the sanctions of their “name-and-shame” power, the staffers said.”
    &&&&&&&& end quote of Wash Times &&&&&&&&

    The timing is interesting, to say the least. Jane’s Defense Weekly just reported that China broke ground on a manufacturing facility in Iran that will build anti-ship missiles. With American naval assets in the Persian Gulf, this would usually be a development that would concern American presidents. After all, whose ships would be the natural targets of the Nasr-1 missiles, if not the US? Why would we want to reward that with exemptions and waivers from sanctions?
    Obama needs to get China and Russia on board for any new sanctions regime to be effective. However, that only works if China and Russia actually obey the sanctions and stop doing business with Iran. This request makes the Obama effort look very much like a shell game, a way for the White House to claim victory on getting new sanctions while effectively giving China and Russia a pass from compliance.
    Has the White House forgotten that the entire point of the exercise is to force Iran to stop building nuclear weapons? Or has the Obama administration decided to just concern themselves with political game-playing, fiddling furiously while Tehran glows?

  80. Referring to the above: what is the point of a blockade if you let certain ships through? You can say “Look at our impressive blockade reaching for hundreds of miles”, while saying nudge-nudge, wink-wink to the shippers who profit by bringing in their good under the cover of darkness.

    Yet another example of Obama valuing impressions over substance.

  81. dailycaller.com/2010/04/30/dems-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card/

    A plan by Senate Democratic leaders to reform the nation’s immigrations laws ran into strong opposition from civil liberties defenders before lawmakers even unveiled it Thursday.

    Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

    Full story: Dems spark alarm with call for national ID card – TheHill.com

    ***************************************************************

    Am I missing something here? the dems are all over the tv, internet, print screaming about Arizona asking possible illegal immigrants to produce an ID if in a suspicious situation…they are all going on about civil rights, bla, bla, bla…

    …BUT instead the Dems want to require everyone – every working person in this country – to carry a national ID card that will require us to be fingerprinted and God knows what else immediately embedded about us instantly…

    …and that is OK??? sounds like overkill and Big Brother beyond the nth degree to me…

    Could the dems be more controlling? first they sic the IRS on all of us with forced enslavement to private insurance and drug companies with no cost controls…and now they want all of us fingerprinted because we want to work…

    I honestly feel sorry for generations coming down the road…brave new world nightmare…

  82. Three (3) reasons why rational people should vote against Obama, his party and the big media gluttons who support him in the face of overwhelming evidence that he is destroying this country.

    1. sick of being bamboozled and lied to on behalf of the elites

    2. sick of being called a racist for simply opposing his policies

    3. sick of being fleeced of your wealth and constitutional rights

    This Chicago Machine operative who takes from the politically unprotected and gives to the politically connected who kick part of it back to him in the form of campaign contributions.

  83. In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
    ——————————–
    A nation that cannot summon the will power to protect its borders and looks for reasons not to do it is a nation which will soon cease to exist. Which is of course the long term plan of Soros and his Open Society Institute. Soros is the largest currency trader in the world, the man who crashed the British pound and the godfather of Obama.

  84. It is time for Bambi to sit down with Mamood and get bitch slapped.

    By the way, where is China right now on the issue of sanctions? That is the lynch pin of Bambi’s strategy which makes no provision for dealing with a nuclear Iran.

  85. S @ 11:18 and possibly others.
    I’ve heard several places, and most notably this morning on CSPAN (a man named Kavanaugh, possibly an AZ State Senator or Rep, and very well-qualified to speak) that a suspected primary offense must be committed before AZ police can begin questioning on papers. One scenario is: the person has run a stop light. Officer pulls that driver over. Asks for license and insurance papers AS HE WOULD DO for anyone. Driver states that he has license at home. Officer checks computer, verifying and there is no such record. It goes from there. Kavanaugh states over and over that the AZ legislation merely makes certain that AZ police will be able to implement federal laws.

    This CSPAN segment may have been from yesterday’s Washington Journal (with the moderator named Susan) because I watched it well before 7 AM.

    Broadcast news stations have been spewing the hype for 3 or 4 days with no attempt to explain what I’ve tried to describe. Well beyond irresponsible ‘journalism’, it is truly sensationalistic reporting.

  86. I cite the following article at No Quarter and the first comment as one of many examples of the perils to Hillary of remaining in this Administration. The foreign policy of Obama is doctrinally unsound, but the easier to grasp problem is that on its face, this response to this provocation seems passive and to a degree cowardly. Not at all the Hillary we saw in the debates. The deeper logic may well be that in recent years and particularly during the Bush presidency, South Korea was reluctant to endorse a tough approach toward its evil neighbor to the north, hence it may appropriate for this Administration to back off on this incident and let South Korea ponder the logical and probably consequences of its temerity. The more likely explanation is that we lack the military capacity to engage in a third war, and are too in debt to China to have any discretion on the matter. She needs to get out of this Administration before it is too late.
    ————————————————
    From the blog for the syndicated nightly John Batchelor Show, published 04.25.10 (podcasts).

    Containment.
    Speaking Sunday 25 Evan Ramstad, WSJ, and Gordon Chang, JBS, re the South Korean warship that was destroyed in the Yellow Sea on March 26. The story does not improve.

    Mrs. Clinton remarked hours ago that North Korea must not continue its aggression. “We have said time and time again that the North Koreans should not engage in provocative actions, and that they should return to six-party talks.” Mrs. Clinton does not speak of the warship. Separately, South Korea indicates it will not retaliate for the attack.

    The dance of the non-aggressors is a measure of the music of appeasement. Important to recall that North Korea works closely with Iran and the PLA at Shanghai.

    All of the actions since March 26 have been orchestrated by the IRGC and the PLA working with separate agendas and a common friend in the Kim regime. The summary of the US and South Korean position is that the way to contain the predators is to refuse combat and to maintain a fiction of negotiation (“Six-Party Talks” is the glib title of the phoniness). Who is the audience for this arrogance?

    Irrational.

    Spoke to Seb Gorka and Michael Vlahos on Friday 23 re containment as policy. Both emphasized that containment worked with the Soviets because the Russians proved rational actors after the Berlin crisis of 1948. Seb Gorka doubts that containment can work as well with Tehran, because it is not recognizably rational.

    Both Gorka and Vlahos emphasized that Tehran’s stated intention to destroy Israel is in no way comparable to the Soviet polices of 1953-1989. The irrational is not idle. It is a recurring theme in modern history.

    Is the PLA as rational as 1945-53 Stalin? Yes. Is the Kim regime? Maybe. Is Tehran? Negative.

    Echo 5 Items
    Admin

    creeper
    Hillary sounds more like Barry every day. They must be filling the water fountains at State with kool aid.
    Today, 05:47:38 – Flag – Like – Reply

  87. I know Kissingers thinking on the subject, and I know he would not support a rational containment policy against an irrational player like North Korea. He would see China as the lynch-pin, but would realize that they have a counterincentive to let the leader of North Korea misbehave with the end result that the problem festers until Kim slips the mortal coil. North Korean socitey is opaque and we have little access to what is going on inside and zero ability for Soros and his CIA buddies to launce another Soros style colors revolution, which seems to be their favored tool of confrontation.

  88. “She needs to get out of this Administration before it is too late.”

    ————————

    I’m starting to agree with you.

  89. Peggy Noonan mentions Hillary supporters in her latest article over at the Wall Street Journal:

    “The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn’t. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn’t seem part of the Obama brigades. “Some of them are at the tea party,” she said.”

    h t t p:// online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion#articleTabs%3Darticle

    Poor Peggy. First she attacks this website….and now she tries to use Hillary supporters to make her point?? GMAB!!

    What I want to know is…..Will Peggy ever admit that we were always right? Will Peggy ever correct the horrific mistakes SHE made when it mattered?? (Peggy as we know was an early backer of Barack Obama).

    And btw, Peggy…not all of Hillary’s supporters were “pant suited.” Not sure what she is trying to imply here with her harkening back to “pantsuits”, but she should know, unequivocally, that many men supported Hillary (and still do).

  90. Fifth Dimension
    April 30th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    And Hillary’s voters, whether male or female, were living.

    Not so much can be said about the votes that were cast for Obama, registered by ACORN and the unions.

    “Here lies John Wilson.
    Born 1949.
    Died 2006.
    Voted for Obama in 2008. Twice.”

  91. Admin. Another chapter in the politics of ugly. Whatever one thinks of W or his arrogant mother it is hard to make a case of hate against Laura Bush, unless you are criminally insane. In the land of MSNBC, where criminal insanity passes for journalism we find two screeds willing to bag the trophy. In criminal law there is often a hypothetical which causes rational people to stop short of pushing principle to the limits of its logic. Questions like, we agree the death penalty is a deterrent, it serves the interests of retributive justice and it separates the offender from society in perpetuity. But what if we hang the wrong man? After all it has been known to happen. In the political realm there are people who are unalterably opposed to abortion under any circumstances, even in case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. But surely those people would pause to think about the merits of their position if they saw Olberman and Wolf together in the same room. This is a fine dissertation by Somerby on the disease that afflicts pseudo liberals–tribalism and hatred.
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Olbermann’s school for hate: Laura Bush has published a book. In a review in yesterday’s New York Times, Michiko Kakutani makes it sound like the book is quite interesting, especially the early sections about Bush’s early years in West Texas:

    KAKUTANI (4/29/10): Writing with impressive recall, Mrs. Bush conjures her hometown, Midland, Tex., with enormous detail, lyricism and feeling. It’s a small town in the 1950s and early 60s, when children looked forward to ice cream sundaes and pony rides, and teenagers hung out at drive-in movies and drive-in restaurants.

    The world is part “The Last Picture Show” and part “American Graffiti,” but less sophisticated—a place where people gather the tumbleweeds that blow through town in the winter, tie them into threes and spray “them with white flocking to make desert snowmen for their lawns.” A place where people want houses with familiar floor plans (“a living room at the front, a den behind it, and a hallway with three bedrooms”) and think nothing of driving six hours to Dallas or El Paso for something to do.

    “It was easy perhaps to be sad in Midland,” Mrs. Bush writes, “sad from loss, sad from loneliness. ‘Terrible winds and a wonderful emptiness’ were the painter Georgia O’Keefe’s double-edged words about the Texas desert plains, which I read years later, after I was grown.”

    Pause now for pseudo-liberals to screech, But she didn’t write it herself! You see, we pseudo-liberals just gotta hate, as tribalists always have, all the way back through prehistory. Tribal hate is destructive—but thrilling. It makes blood rush through veins.

    Luckily, the modern pseudo-liberal has a top-rate school of hatred. At the start of Wednesday’s Countdown, offering a pleasing tease, Sheik Olbermann helped young liberals see where review of this book should take them:

    OLBERMANN (4/28/10): And “Bushed!”—her version: Laura Bush chastises her husband`s critics for, quote, “calling him names.” Names that seem like love letters compared to jargon of the tea party. She wonders if the whole family was poisoned at the G8 in Germany. And the car crash when she was 17, and she ran a stop sign and she collided with the car of her friend and he was killed, what was to blame? The small size of the stop sign!

    All the news and commentary, now on Countdown!

    Laura Bush caused a fatal car crash when she was seventeen. Late in the show, the sheik dragged out the little corporate Brit he totes around in his hip pocket, and this pair of corporate hustlers taught us “liberals” that we should sneer at Bush’s treatment of this fatal accident.

    For the record, neither Olbermann nor his ratty friend had actually seen Bush’s book. They were operating off an early news report about the book in Wednesday’s New York Times. But here’s how KO framed the discussion when he finally reached the topic. Perhaps you can see how pathetic this construction is:

    OLBERMANN: In our number-one [final] story on the countdown, the Laura Bush biography leaked ahead of its publication date because—see if this sounds familiar—somebody from a newspaper walked into a bookstore and got a copy. The New York Times was the somebody. While she addressed the time that she at age 17 ran a stop sign and killed a friend in a second car, first she tries to settle scores on her husband`s behalf.

    First she tries to settle scores? Olbermann had no way to know if that description was accurate—and it was certainly designed to teach us how to hate. Soon, he questioned Our Own Richard Wolffe about this troubling matter:

    OLBERMANN: And, briefly, the story of the fatal car crash when she was 17, ran through a stop sign, caused the death of a boy in the other car. It’s obviously very painful stuff. But she`s seeming to blame herself only equally to the darkness, the dangerous of the intersection, and the small size of the stop sign. Was that event, in your opinion, pertinent to either presidential election? If so, why wasn’t it addressed? And what about her explanation?

    WOLFFE: It came up in the first campaign in 2000. We asked all sorts of questions about it. They stone-walled. Very hard to establish the facts. It does sound like it was very painful. And these accidents, if anyone has been in one, you know it happens very quickly. I think it`s hard to ascribe blame, at the time or afterwards, frankly.

    Olbermann’s account is truly remarkable, given the account of this matter from which he and his hack staffers were working. We’ll offer you the full section Olbermann was working from, letting you see the skill with which a man of hate can hunt down a preferred text. This is the lengthy account in the New York Times, by Anahad O’Connor, from which Olbermann captured his focus:

    O’CONNOR (4/28/10): But it is her description of the deadly accident, and its subsequent impact on her life and her faith, that is the subject Ms. Bush had most shied away from speaking about in her public life. On a November night in 1963, Ms. Bush and a girlfriend were hurrying to a drive-in theater when Ms. Bush, at the wheel of her father’s Chevy Impala, ran a stop sign on a small road and smashed into a car being driven by Mike Douglas, a star athlete and popular student at her school.

    ”In those awful seconds, the car door must have been flung open by the impact and my body rose in the air until gravity took over and I was pulled, hard and fast, back to earth,” she says. ”The whole time,” she adds later, ”I was praying that the person in the other car was alive. In my mind, I was calling ‘Please, God. Please, God. Please, God,’ over and over and over again.”

    Ms. Bush concedes that she and her friend were chatting when she ran the stop sign. But she also suggests a host of factors beyond her control played a role—the pitch-black road, an unusually dangerous intersection, the small size of the stop sign, and the car the victim was driving.

    ”It was sporty and sleek, and it was also the car that Ralph Nader made famous in his book Unsafe at Any Speed,” she states. ”He claimed the car was unstable and prone to rollover accidents. A few years later, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration went so far as to investigate the Corvair’s handling, but it didn’t reach the same grim conclusions. I was driving my dad’s much larger and heavier Chevy Impala. But none of that would ever ease the night of November 6. Not for me, and never for the Douglases.”

    Ms. Bush reveals that she was wracked by guilt for years after the crash, especially after not attending the funeral and for not reaching out to the parents of the dead teenager. Her parents did not want her to show up at the funeral, she states, and she ended up sleeping through it.

    ”I lost my faith that November, lost it for many, many years,” she says. ”It was the first time that I had prayed to God for something, begged him for something, not the simple childhood wishing on a star but humbly begging for another human life. And it was as if no one heard. My begging, to my seventeen-year-old mind, had made no difference. The only answer was the sound of Mrs. Douglas’s sobs on the other side of that thin emergency room curtain.”

    Mrs. Bush goes on to say that in her public life, she has encouraged young drivers who have been in serious accidents to speak to loved ones, counselors or spiritual or pastoral advisers.’

    ‘But while I give this advice in my letters, I didn’t do any of that,” she reveals. ”Most of how I ultimately coped with the crash was by trying not to talk about it, not to think about it, to put it aside. Because there wasn’t anything I could do. Even if I tried.”

    KO’s hacks sifted that text—and they spotted a way to let young liberals hate. You see, tribal hatred keeps viewers coming back for more. It puts millions in KO’s pants pockets.

    By the way—it’s very much like the 2000 press corps to be “asking all sorts of questions” about a car accident involving a candidate’s spouse when she was 17. Those ratty fixers rarely asked about the things which actually mattered. But good lord! How they did pursue matters like that! (Or so they tell us now.)

    Olbermann is a wealthy man, a man who instructs young liberals in hate. There was no particular reason to discuss this book at all. But when he spotted those seven highlighted words, he knew where he could take you.

  92. What caused the offshore oil platform to explode?

    At the risk of sounding paranoid, I have to ask, “What caused the explosion on the BP-operated oil drilling platform known as Deepwater Horizon fifty miles off the coast of Louisiana on April 20th?”

    There are a number of other unanswered question since the event transpired a week ago: What happened to the eleven missing crew members? Can the wellhead be capped? If not, will containment efforts succeed? And so on.

    But despite the media’s tremendous outpouring of concern regarding this potentially disastrous environmental event, this writer has not heard or read a single newsperson address the issue of causation. Not one.

    This is odd.

    When is the last time the MSM did not rush to assign blame/responsibility/causation for sensational issues? Especially those issues at the forefront of political debate….

    Must healthcare costs be contained by proposed legislation? Well, gee whiz, Anthem Blue Cross just proposed a 39% hike in premiums in California!

    Must financial reform legislation be passed, post haste? Golly, even the SEC says that Goldman-Sachs is criminally culpable for the collapse of our economy!

    Must we tolerate Obama’s recently announced policy to allow (extremely limited) offshore oil drilling operations, a policy that is immensely unpopular among environmental activists? Heck, Deepwater Horizon just showed us where The O Policy will take us….

    The comments of the Executive Director of the Sierra Club in response to the spill point out just how convenient this event is for environmentalists:

    We need to move away from dirty, dangerous, and deadly energy sources. We join our colleagues in saying that every day the Senate fails to pass clean energy and climate policy, we put our economy, our national security and our environment at risk. Now is the time to put America back in control of our energy future with comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. It’s time to finish what we started.

    Why is no one asking, “how did this happen?” Why is the MSM silent on this point instead of indulging in its typical lust for assigning responsibility?

    Why do I have to be so paranoid about things these days?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/what_caused_the_offshore_oil_p.html
    ——

    Good to see I am not the only one wondering about this…

  93. Fifth Dimension: let me post the article you referred to because I think it is important. Years ago, Mort Zuckerman wrote a brilliant article on the patriotism and faith in government that characterized the World War II generation. That faith was predicated on the proven ability of government to solve problems and to improve people’s lives. JFK was the last exponent of that theory. The succeeding generation was heavily influenced by the failure of the war on poverty, the loss of South Viet Nam and the Reagan revolution which taught them that government was not the solution but the problem. Ironically, the Dimocratic Party has reinforced that message in spades. They use government to take from the politically unprotected and give to the politically connected and the country dies a slow death. The Noonan article picks up on that theme and makes the essential point that the dual message of dimocrats to the American People is we are in charge and you are on your own. The rejoinder is if you do not like it you are a racist. This is not an endorsement of Noonan but an acknowledgment that even a blind pig finds an acorn (poor choice of words) now and then.
    ————————————————————————————–
    The Big Alienation
    Uncontrolled borders and Washington’s lack of self-control.
    By PEGGY NOONAN

    Article
    Comments (317)
    MORE IN OPINION »
    EmailPrint
    Save This
    ↓ More

    + More
    Text
    We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street’s money with it, and the government can’t really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what’s in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed “dot-gov.”

    It is not that no one’s in control. Washington is full of people who insist they’re in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It’s that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: “We control everything” and “You’re on your own.”

    View Full Image

    Reuters
    People protesting Arizona’s immigration bill.

    All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

    This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned “I don’t trust gummint” attitude of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. It’s something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn’t. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn’t seem part of the Obama brigades. “Some of them are at the tea party,” she said.

    None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

    Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

    Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won’t, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

    Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I’m not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

    But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he’d been forced into conversation with that “bigoted woman.”

    He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

    The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, “How odd that’s where their minds so quickly go, how strange they’re so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?” But let’s not do Freud, he’s too interesting. Maybe they’re just smug and sanctimonious.

    The American president has the power to control America’s borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

    But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

    No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it’s at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

    In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

    Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone’s attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

    More Peggy Noonan

    Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns

    click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace

    Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don’t trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

    If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people’s will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

    The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

  94. The point I forgot to say was this: Dimocrats are in the business of headlines, not problem solving. For them to herald the 3.2 percent growth in GDP with the cavear of no relief on unemployment in the foreseeable future so lets distract the electorat with other issues, and prepare to tax them to death is unconscionable.

  95. Well, it looks like this Gulf Oil Spill is going to be Obama’s legacy. A major mistake holding Obama responsible for allowing offshore drilling after regulators warned not enough safeguards are in place.

    The spill is pumping 42,000 gals a day into the Gulf, 5,000 ft down under the ocean floor and theres no way to plug up the leak.

    The BP VP Richard Morrison, convinced Obama and his Energy czar, it was too much trouble to require or be mandated taking the necessary safety precautions advised by concerned environmentalists to the oil rig. Morrison suggested they follow Voluntary programs as the most efficient for all concerned because the suggested precautions were too disruptive to their operations. George Frazier, the accountant for Trans Ocean Ltd. agreed with Morrison, adding there would be a prohibitive amount of paperwork, Frazier stating “just too much paperwork” for the company. I wonder how Obama, Morrison and BP’s CEO feel now seeing the spill is over 1800 sq miles with no end in sight.

    Now that the Gulf Oil Spill is part of Obama’s legacy. Demonstrating a president too weak to stand-up to potential corporate donors. When he was elected to represent America’s best interests once again proving, he’s not the man for the job.

  96. I did not say that quite right: what characterizes pseudo liberals is the lust for power and the hatred of their fellow man disguised as love. And the love they profess is for a group they regard as disadvantaged in a way that government can theoretically address in a formulaic way that lines their own pockets. If they love any individual it is because they see them as a trophy through which they believe they can demonstrate the moral superiority they profess to have over the rest of society when the cameras are rolling. Case in point: dunk’n donut head Schumer, the greasiest handshake in the country. With him, you wear your bullet proof vest on your back because that is where smilin’n Chuck always takes aim.

  97. Special report: Brooks & Dumb!

    PART 4—THE REFUSAL TO SPEAK (permalink): Let’s return to a very important part of Thomas Friedman’s latest column. In the following passage, Friedman comes close to defining an age:

    FRIEDMAN (4/28/10): Much of our politics today is designed to make people stupid, confused and afraid of change.

    In fact, much of our politics has been so designed over the past several decades. So has much of our “journalism.” We refer to the type of “journalism” whose noxious effects Brooks pooh-poohed last week.

    Let’s review some highlights:

    In the 1990s, a string of shrieking “journalists” tried to convince the public that Bill and Hillary Clinton were perhaps serial murderers. (One such “journalist” was Rush Limbaugh. Another such “journalist” was Jerry Falwell, a frequent guest on cable.) You might regard these lunatic claims as a form of politics, though they often appeared in the form of journalism. But whatever you call them, these claims were designed to make people stupid, confused.

    They did great harm to this country.

    In the late 1990s, a gang of shrieking journalists concocted a two-year war against Candidate Gore. They invented streams of pseudo-facts about what a Big Crackpot Liar he was. These claims were designed to make people stupid, confused.

    They did great harm to this country.

    In the last few years, Glenn Beck has emerged as a major figure, screeching and shrieking, day after day, about the Communists surrounding Obama. Vast confusion and vast stupidity are involved in this project too.

    What can we say about these efforts to make the public stupid, confused? We can surely make this statement: David Brooks has refused to confront them! Cowering in his ivory chamber, stuffing his salary down into his pants, the well-bred noble looks away from the problem Friedman defined. Indeed, how vast is Brooks’ myopia? In last Tuesday’s column, he even suggested that a happy ending to this story has been found. Try to believe that he wrote this nonsense about a certain new study:

    BROOKS (4/20/10): [T]he core finding is that most Internet users do not stay within their communities. Most people spend a lot of time on a few giant sites with politically integrated audiences, like Yahoo News.

    But even when they leave these integrated sites, they often go into areas where most visitors are not like themselves. People who spend a lot of time on Glenn Beck’s Web site are more likely to visit The New York Times’s Web site than average Internet users. People who spend time on the most liberal sites are more likely to go to foxnews.com than average Internet users. Even white supremacists and neo-Nazis travel far and wide across the Web.

    It is so easy to click over to another site that people travel widely.

    In Brooks’ panglossian world, these facts are supposed to show that the Internet really isn’t “lead[ing] to a more ghettoized, polarized and insular electorate.” But this is an utterly ludicrous claim about our political world.

    What is the truth about our world—a truth which involves cable TV and talk radio as well as the Net? Here’s the truth: We now live in a dangerously “ghettoized” political world! It’s a world in which “liberals” hear perfect smack from KO and the Brit he totes in his pocket, while “conservatives” have a very wide range of lunacies to select from. We live in a world where a cosmic nullity like S. E. Cupp is publishing gong-show books about religion—and getting them reviewed in the Washington Post!

    Every manner of pure stupidity is on display in what was once described as the marketplace of ideas. The fact that people click around on the web in no ways changes this fact, or the damage that is resulting.

    Forty years ago, things were different. In the age of Murrow and Cronkie, only a narrow range of people were allowed at the top of the discourse. As a matter of theory, this isn’t a great way to run a democracy. But in those days, screaming lunatics and cosmic fools simply weren’t allowed on the air. They weren’t given the presumed authority of positions high up in the national media. If average people wanted to hear things that were blatantly stupid, they had to go to a corner bar—or they had to seek out dusty corners of the published discourse.

    Today, the loonies and fools are on TV. They get reviewed in the Post.

    This started with Imus; then came Howard Stern. After that, they even let Limbaugh on the air. Soon, the Limbaugh imitators were all around. Now, the Limbaugh imitators are found on MSNBC too. They’re not as bad as Limbaugh yet—but their skill sets are growing.

    And in the midst of all this stupidity, there sits Brooks, suggesting that this really isn’t happening.

    Simple story: Princes like Brooks have ducked this story every step of the way. They refused to stand and tell the truth about the things Rush was doing. They refused to stand and tell the truth about the war against Gore. They glanced away from the Clinton murder claims; they didn’t much discuss death panels. Just a guess: Life is simpler when they keep their heads down—when they type columns which start with Cass Sunstein’s wonderful wisdom, then tell us, only a few grafs later, that the Beck Effect isn’t that bad.

    People! Beck has been calling Sunstein a Communist for the past year. Millions of people see him do it and lack the first clue.

    Just a guess: Brooks didn’t know that.

    Quite plainly, your nation is dying from Dumb. David Brooks will not address it. But then, the prince is in good company. E. J. Dionne won’t go there either.

    Go ahead—search the archives for columns where these comfortable fellows have told you the truth about these matters. You’ll have a very long search on your hands. During that time, Glenn Beck will tell his viewers ten times about Sunstein’s vast love for Mao.

    A nation can’t survive this way. Isn’t this already clear?

  98. The other problem is when these shill do address a topic they seldom tell the truth. Day in and day out, the most reliable source of truth is this site–Hillaryis44. Let us hope that the minority of big media reporters who have not lost their minds and souls entirely read Admin’s comments on a regular baisis. Then they will know what lies beyond the horizon.

  99. Lag B’Omer: Rightists to burn Obama photos

    Activist Noam Federman says burning of posters bearing American president’s image a legitimate act ‘because he hates Jews’

    Shmulik Grossman Published: 04.30.10, Israel News

    Right-wing activists residing in Jerusalem’s Shmuel HaNavi neighborhood threw posters bearing the image of US President Barack Obama into dozens of piles of wood and other flammable materials they intend to burn as part of the Lag B’Omer celebrations.

    The activists prepared the heaps on Thursday so as not to desecrate the Sabbath.

    Rightist Noam Federman, one of the activists behind the initiative to burn pictures of Obama in the traditional bonfires, told Ynet, “These photos (of Obama) will be placed in hundreds of bonfires in protest against the anti-Semitic acts of Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Federman said the act of burning pictures of Obama was legitimate “because he hates Jews.”

    Repeating a familiar line from the Passover Haggadah, Federman said, “In every generation someone rises up to destroy us.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3882896,00.html

  100. Bummer…..

    Judge says no to Obama subpoena in Blago case

    CHICAGO (AP) – A federal judge in Chicago has refused to issue a subpoena for President Barack Obama to testify at former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s political corruption trial.

    U.S. District Judge James Zagel ruled Friday that lawyers for Blagojevich had not produced sufficient evidence that Obama would have anything material to say on the witness stand.

    Defense attorneys had claimed that the president could shed light on charges that Blagojevich schemed to sell or trade Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat.

  101. Turndown, When I say eco terrorists, I am not talking about those who want to save every turtle/fish in the ocean…I am talking about those who don’t want America to use fossil fuels anymore and will stop at nothing to get what they want including blowing up an offshore oil well. Of coarse the chose the Gulf Coast, afterall we are all republicans here in the South.

    The globalists will stop at nothing to get their way with the crap and tax and the green jobs…oil is not a green job, neither is coal…two places that have had horrific accidents back to back…now we find out that these oil rigs were allowed to operate without a some sort of a safety gadget that would have stopped this…the boy President did not want to stand up to BIG OIL and make them drill safely….funny how this will play just perfect for Odumbo’s administration.

  102. I just have this feeling that Hillary is going to run…mostly by listening to GlennBeck everyday. He has gone off the deep end lately with his morality/in government. It sounds so much like it was during the Clinton administration. THe republicans are trying the wake the moral majority, just like they did against Clinton….

  103. wboeii, thank you for that article, I forwarded to everyone I know, even the embarassed disgusted ex-Obots.

    ” I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn’t seem part of the Obama brigades. “Some of them are at the tea party,” she said.”

    Count me as one of them!

  104. I bought that tabloid today and they are quoting a limo driver who was a witness plus they are saying there may be emails between Obama and the woman. The story about Vera Baker was around during the campaign including the fact that she abruptly left the country. Who knows if it is true or not but who believed the John Edwards story at first?

  105. Interesting…the National Enquirer is running the Obama/Baker story as breaking news on it’s website but their new issue on the stands doesn’t have the story, it’s in the new issue of a different tabloid, the Globe. Hmmmm, has someone contacted the tabloids with a potentially juicy story?? Republicans making mischief? Or the real deal?

  106. Perhaps this is why Potus and Mrs. Potus went away for the weekend last weekend so he could get his explaination down before the story broke. Perhaps this was the real reason Meanchelle had a scowl on all week even while Obama was in tears at this funeral??? LOL!!! Its time to bring the boy Potus down! I can’t wait! I hope its true because we can make a rebuttal to the youtube video of Michelle saying Hillary can’t keep her own house in order how could she keep the WH in order…juicy stuff!!

  107. Just catching up reading everybody’s posts. I remember reading about Vera Baker during the primaries-wasn’t she supposed to be stashed on some Caribbean island?

    What sounds strange to me–if this supposedly happened while he was president, it doesn’t seem likely that the secret service would let a limo driver take him around?? Does that seem strange??

  108. I think this happened before he had secret service coverage…I remember this too, the media hide it real quick…but things can only be kept secret for a while…people usually want hush money…when they don’t get it they let it out…perhaps the enquirer or Globe has been working the story for while, just like they did with John Edwards. Wonder why she was whisked away…maybe they have a love child too. LOL!! I am sure this is going to come out!

  109. It will eventually. You know, I sent my sister that picture of him crying and the first thing out of her mouth was that he must have had an onion in his hand. We feel the same about all of the primary cheating. I don’t see how they can keep all his school records secret all of this time. When it all comes out, I think there will be even more than we read about during the primaries.

  110. Thanks for those pictures of Hillary at the funeral. She looks so tired–I think she is the only one actually working.

  111. turndownobama
    April 30th, 2010 at 10:11 am
    I think it was eco terrorism which I am sure I will get a lot flack for

    =========================

    Naw, we eco-terrorists kill people, not fish.
    *******************

    11 people are missing from that oil rig and presumed dead. Not funny

  112. It sure isn’t funny…there are all kinds of rumors of what happened on that rig…but I won’t bore you with all that…I just remember the one in the 80’s in the bay of campeche…my husband helped build the sombrero that they used to finally put it out…the beaches were ruined for several years…couldn’t wear a good bathing suit on the beach without it getting ruined.

    I find it so unusual that we’ve had back to back accidents in the areas of fuel that Obama says he doesn’t like and was actually going to crush the mining industry. I used to live on the bay in Corpus, there aren’t that many accidents and none of this magnitude EVER!

  113. What’s up with Iran being elected at the United Nations to be a watchdog for “women’s rights”, is this some kind of a joke or what???

  114. A law professor (as opposed to a guest lecturer who calls himself one) who helped draft the Arizona bill decimates the political attacks against it posed by Obama supporters, the ACLU, and other left wing special interests groups. Then there is a link to a video which documents the shooting of a deputy sheriff by drug gangs. It is a perfect example of why this legislation is favor by 70% of residents. This is a war zone, and those who live in the safety and comfort of Georgetown are in no position to understand the realities facing Arizona citizens.

    The politics of this are anti American. For example, the Obama group has no interest in solving the problem. Their goal is to politicize it to turn out their base and bamboozle the ignorant. Also, they realize that if this law is enforced the problem may be mitigated, in which case they will lose the leverage they have to demand amnesty which is the political payoff they are looking for. The ACLU has changed very little over the years, since the time it was founded by Roger Baldwin a friend of Vladmir Lenin. La Raza is a radical Hispanic organization that advocates the break up of the United States and the return of border states to Mexico.
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Arizona’s Line In The Sand
    By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on April 30, 2010 at 8:30 PM in Civil Liberties, Crime, Current Affairs, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, President Barack Obama

    This week has seen a lot of support for, and anger against, the new law signed by Gov. Brewer of AZ. But here’s the question: Do we really know what is in the law that has caused such heightened emotional responses? That’s what I thought.

    Here, then, is an Op-Ed for the NY Times written by Kris W. Kobach, a professor of law at University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Dr. Kobach is the author of the AZ law:
    Why Arizona Drew a Line
    ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

    Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

    Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

    It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

    “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

    For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

    That seems like a reasonable scenario under which people could be asked for identification. But I thought, and I could be wrong, that ANY ONE in this country could be asked to produce identification. And can they not ask for ID from everyone in the car under a routine traffic stop? Answers welcome.

    Of course, this then raises the claim that this is racial profiling:
    The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
    It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

    State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    So the short answer is, yes, states can take matters into their own hands when the Federal Government refuses to act as long as the law doesn’t conflict with Federal law, right? That’s my take on it.

    Dr. Kobach concludes:
    In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
    And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

    President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

    Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. It is any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

    Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

    From my reading, it seems that many in the country, including Mayor Newsome boycotting Arizona, as well as the mobs (yes, mobs – these are not peaceful protests in AZ – they are violent, aggressive, and even threatening death to Americans by illegal aliens) are overreacting, to put it mildly.

    And if they are so upset by what Arizona has had to do, perhaps they can ask why this is the case. I’ll give you a hint. He’s the president.

    That states are being forced to undertake such measures can be laid squarely at Obama’s feet:
    Obama’s (budget) cuts would include:
    • A reduction of 180 Border Patrol agents through attrition, not layoffs.

    • $225 million would be cut from the $800 million “virtual fence” project, consisting of poles, cameras and sensors along the border.

    • No additions would be made to the existing 643 miles of concrete-and-steel border fence.

    • Five of the Coast Guard’s 13 Maritime Security and Safety Teams, created to protect waterfront cities, would be eliminated. Obama is proposing cuts in New York City, San Francisco, Anchorage and King’s Bay, Ga.

    And really, what is SO wrong with the Arizona law? It is, in effect, mirroring Federal law, so why the hue and cry? Moreover, why are we allowing a number of illegal immigrants to attempt to dictate our policy on Immigration? Especially when they are THREATENING us? They are here ILLEGALLY – the law breaking is spelled out in the very term. To threaten violence against American citizens because we want people to immigrate legally, want our laws obeyed, and want to end rampant, escalating, violence on our borders, seems to be a tad short sighted, to put it mildly. But that’s just me.

    So this is what the law says. It is not the Nazi policy of ghettoizing people, or rounding citizens up to put in concentration camps, or anything of the kind. That kind of incendiary language is just that, and is intended to ratchet up emotions without looking at the facts. This new law is a means to identify illegal immigrants and to protect our borders, something the Federal Government is supposed to be doing. Or would be if Obama hadn’t cut their funding…
    —————————————
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizona.deputy.shot/?hpt=T1

  115. What’s up with Iran being elected at the United Nations to be a watchdog for “women’s rights”, is this some kind of a joke or what???
    ———————–
    If that is true, then I can think of no better example of the dysfunctionality of that organization.

  116. confloyd said:
    Turndown, When I say eco terrorists, I am not talking about those who want to save every turtle/fish in the ocean…I am talking about those who don’t want America to use fossil fuels anymore

    YAY!

    and will stop at nothing to get what they want including blowing up an offshore oil well.

    ===========

    Naw, the onshore wells are first on our list. How many have you caught us blowing up? What else have you caught us blowing up?

  117. I do not know the Judge Zagel but in looking at the information set forth below it appears that he is an old man and that he has roots in the Chicago. It also appears that he took the easy way out in ruling that Obama need not appear. I know from past experience that it is hard to get equitable relief in that venue against labor union abuses. Furthermore, judges are deferential to entrenched interests. The one exception I did see was the conviction of Robert Sorich who was Daley’s political fixer. But that was a different federal judge with no connection to Cook County. I could find out more about this judge but I do doubt it would change the analysis,– or mitigate my own suspicions.

    United States District Court
    Northern District of Illinois

    Judge James B. Zagel

    Chambers: (312) 435 – 5713

    PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

    DATE OF APPOINTMENT
    April 22, 1987

    ENTERED ON DUTY
    June 17, 1987

    1979 – 1980 Director, Illinois Department of Revenue

    1980 – 1987 Director, Illinois Department of State Police

    COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS / PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

    Judicial conference Committee of Codes of Conduct, (renamed “Committee on Financial Disclosure), 1987 -1994
    American Bar Association
    Chicago Bar Association

    EDUCATION

    University of Chicago, B.A.; M.A. 1962

    Harvard Law School, J/D/, 1963

    PERSONAL:

    Born:
    March 4, 1941
    Chicago, IL

  118. #
    wbboei
    May 1st, 2010 at 1:15 am

    What’s up with Iran being elected at the United Nations to be a watchdog for “women’s rights”, is this some kind of a joke or what???
    ———————–
    If that is true, then I can think of no better example of the dysfunctionality of that organization.
    ————-
    According to Fox it is true, covered by Hannity and Greta. They had an Iranian woman on that is now in America, (sorry, I don’t remember her name) talking about the mistreatment of women there, and she hopes that women around the globe will write the UN and demand Iran is taken off this panel, and wonders why NOW isn’t speaking out against it.

    She said in Iran, a little girl of 9 years old can be forced to marry…by her father. She might get married to a 50 year or older man. Besides the stoning and whipping.

  119. confloyd said:
    the areas of fuel that Obama says he doesn’t like

    ====================

    Obama seems to like offshore drilling, because he recently announced that he was opening much of the East Coast to it. I think I posted this.

  120. If Maximum John Sirica was sitting in as the judge on the case, I can gurandamntee you that Bambi’s pompus ass would be planted in the witness chair and he would be singing like a canary.

  121. Tim: you are welcome.

    Shadowfax: it is theater of the absurd that Iran would be so designated by the United Nations. It is further evidence that the Obama approach to foreign policy which heavily relies on UN support as a predicate for military action is doctrinally unsound. There are conflicting provisions in the UN Charter about when and under what conditions aggressive actions by a member state can be taken, but Bambi takes weaker interpretation. As a result we have gridlock on issues like Iran.

  122. The aggressive action some have called for would be an economic blockade, student demonstrations, a nation wide strike, the curtailment of gasoline and the regime would fall in a matter of weeks. I have a friend of Iranian descent who advocates just such an approach and has written at least one letter to Obama on the subject. No answer. I have another friend who just had a coast guard ceremony honoring the Coast Guard men who saved her father’s vessel 29 years ago under conditions of extremis–100 mph winds, as an example of the Coast Guard maxim which has fallen into disuse–you have to go out into the storm to save the vessel but you are not required to come back. Bambi was invited as well. No answer.

  123. I dumped that story of the Fraud’s affair on Drudge, and now they have it posted. ;-0

  124. Thinking about this decision to let Obama off the hook on testifying in the Blago case, while I have never been a judge, if I were, and if I was sitting on this case, my instinct would be to issue the subpoena and order Obama to appear as a witness. After all, this is a criminal trial against a former governor of the state, he is facing serious criminal charges so and Obama has material information bearing on his guilt or innocence. Thus, I would be inclined to err on the side of allowing Blago the greatest possible latitude in terms of a defense and who he offered as a witness–even if it meant cutting into Obama’s basketball schedule, or his secret liaison with VB. Granted, there are perks that come with being president, but there are a few responsibilities as well, as Bambi is finding out much to his chagrin. Poor Bambi. But don’t worry. Jamie Dimon, Goldman Sacks and the rest of your cronies will help you forget your bad hair day.

  125. I dumped that story of the Fraud’s affair on Drudge, and now they have it posted. ;-0
    ———————————
    And, one day the scandal mongers of big media–Ishikoff, Klein, Halperin, et al. will tell us when and where it happened namely in the map room where Obama took the mulligan oath without the bible between the time MO was planting her garden (1005-1020–while the cameras remained) and the time she tucked the two toddlers in beddy-bye (1010-1031) which explains the scowl, caption to read hey mo if you can’t run your own house in the White House how can you presume to plant a garden–and the old standby hey mo people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

  126. excuse me 1030-1031–we must be precise in our scandal reporting. On anything that matters to the country WE of the journalistic profession can be sloppy as hell, censor relevant information and just have a gay old time coaxing our inflamed egos and lying through our teeth. But oh those white house parties with Schuster walking around drunk with a lampshade on his head, and Candy Crowley in a bathing suit, how could we ever give up those magic moments for a little thing called the truth?

  127. And I almost forgot at the apex of the gala event, as the champagne corks have popped and liquer flows freely, in walks Olberman with his latest date, a pet doberman (pincher). Whereupon Linda Douglas turns to her power hungry hubby and says my god he (Olberman) is too old for her (the Doberman) and hubby whispers back who are we to meddle in affairs of the heart. Meanwhile, Matthews emerges from under the table where he has been staring at womens skirts hoping to get a glimpse of mo, and he screams to Olberman and the doberman When is the wedding and will you come on my show? Olberman turns up his nose and reminds Chris that he makes $2 million more than he does per year, so shut the fuck up. People gasp at Matthews audacity and he says hey no big deal Howie Carr in Boston did an interview with a man who married his dog. So what am I chopped liver. At that moment, the ghost of Walter Cronkite emerges from a bottle, and asks Matthews point blank do you really want to know?

  128. Clinton: Future drilling can’t risk billions in clean-up

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in on the Gulf oil spill Friday, saying that any future offshore drilling “can’t be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills.”

    In an interview with David Gregory set to air on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, she said, “the president has ordered the departments that deal with this — Homeland Security, Interior, Environmental Protection, Defense — to all immediately not only do everything possible to mitigate the effects of this spill, but to try to come up with recommendations going forward.”

    But, she continued: “The first order of business … is to try to get this spill under control — which has been, as you, know very difficult — and to prevent further damage to the coastline along Louisiana, to the fishing waters, to the wildlife.”

    “I think it does raise questions which the president has said have to be answered,” she said, describing offshore oil drilling as a matter of “national security” for its potential to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

    “It has to be done safely. It can’t be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills,” she said.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/clinton-future-drilling-cant-r.html?wprss=44

  129. It istime for Arlen Specter to sit down shut up and only run as cheif road kill picker upper for PA.Veterans are hitting the news media that are interested and defending Joe Sestak as a great patriot and candidate for the Senate.Specter lives off the Gravy Train and is a turncoat with no morals.

  130. Be patient folks.Hillary will soon make her move.The time the place and the details have lon been planned.Is there anyone out ther in the political scene that could ever come close to her values and importance in repairing the tusami that Otrauma has created in his drive to replace Farakan as the great black hope and keep racism alive and reeking havoc around the world.World leaders want a dialogue with Hillary not a snot nosed kid indebted to Tony Rezko and the Chicago Mob.

  131. Robert Kennedy Files Lawsuit Against BP Oil

    Source: Politicol News

    April 30, 2010 Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr along with other lawyers filed a 17 page lawsuit against BP Oil for leaking oil into the Gulf of Mexico damaging shoreline along the four states and for damaging the fishing industry.

    The leak had been misreported in the media days ago when it was thought that only 5,000 gallons were spilled per day which was again incorrectly report as it turns out the oil is more than 200,000 gallons per day and it is being blown t the south coast shore of the USA.

    The suit represents the fishing industry and the first suit was filed by 2 commercial shrimpers from Louisiana which research and experts have said the wetlands will never be rid of the oil -ever. This means the wetlands will be poisoned with oil that cannot be removed at any cost but the clean up alone after the oil is stopped will be into the billions and billions of dollars.

    The best practices of a corporation also would have BP Oil claim that the US government did not require oil rigs to have a safety shut off valve although other European countries do make that required by their laws. The US under the Bush administration did a favor for his oil friends and dropped the requirements. However, this does not mean that BP oil could not be intelligent enough to not lose its own oil -and put a shut off valve on the rig or the oil rig owner Deepwater Horizon Company.

    http://www.politicolnews.com/robert-kennedy-files-lawsuit-against-bp-oil/

  132. “Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I’m not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.”

    This is not rue on the east end of Long Island where I live. Illegals are breaking all kinds of laws. They have doubled our school taxes, almost put our local hospital under, connstantly are caught driving drunk or with forged licenses or no licenses and insurance at all. Our taxes have been raised to cover more code enforcemsnt officers to deal with the illegal houses….which are alos causing smany people’s homes to be devalued. We now have men hanging out at train stations and lining sides of roads looking for work. People who are here illegaly and come to the attention of authorities should be deported. I find that the legal immigrants generally embrace our laws and culture. The illegal migration benefits business, but the middle class is picking up the tab and is starting to revolt.

  133. ABM @ 8:53
    ———-
    Ah yes, Arlen. Defender of Ira Einhorn prior to beginning his now 30 years of ‘service’ to PA. Arlen celebrated his 80th birthday in February, and judging by his TV pitches, has become a nasty old man. Here’s hoping he goes down in the primary. Alas though, I was not able to visibly energize any of the locals I know to assist with that endeavor. And I wonder how many of them think he is still a Republican. Glad to hear the vets are helping Joe.

  134. sorry for all the typos.

    As for the Obama cheating scandal, I have been hoping that as his waning popularity becomes an obvious threat to the dimocrats, the press will stop protecting him and bad news will start leaching out.

  135. Personally, I could care less who Obama screwed. Michelle’s business, not mine. Same stance I took with Hill and Bill. I’m concerned with how he’s destroying my country.

    That said, I’m not going to rally to his defense if this thing breaks. Mr. “let’s expose Ryan’s divorce records” and Mrs. “if you can’t take care of your own house..” don’t deserve any sympathy here.

  136. confloyd,

    Apparently we eco-terrorists have allies in England. An LJ header says:

    New Age Terrorists Develop Homeopathic Bomb

    ‘A homeopathic attack could bring entire cities to a standstill,’ said BBC Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, ‘Large numbers of people could easily become convinced that they have been killed and hospitals would be unable to cope with the massive influx of the ‘walking suggestible’.’

    [ No offense to real homeopaths. I think they should certainly be allowed to marry each other. ]

  137. HillaryforTexas
    May 1st, 2010 at 10:47 am

    ——————–
    Amen! And let us not forget the sly and insulting remarks by Mrs. Edwards.

    Last fall, she told a forum sponsored by Ladies Home Journal that she had some things in common with Mrs. Clinton — they both went to law school and both married lawyers — but that they then made different choices.

    “I think my choices have made me happier,” Mrs. Edwards was quoted as saying. “I think I’m more joyful than she is.”

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/elizabeth-edwards/

    ——————

    Yeah right.

  138. One speculation about the Obama “affair” as seen on Hillbuzz is that the story is nonsense. It is possible that the story is being visited again after two years because a more realistic story of an Obama gay affair may be about to come to light. Think the Kal Penn story. Is it possible he left his White House job because of it? Think Reggie Love, the guy with the apropos last name. Is he “love”-ing on the president? Any story concerning an Obama affair with a female will be used to discredit a more believable story of an Obama affair with a man. Personally, I believe Obama is a closeted gay man.

  139. JanH–yes!! For all those who insulted Hillary, I say ‘Karma’s a Bitch.’ What goes around, comes around.

  140. nomobama,

    Thanks for the link. I’m glad this turned out the way it did. Hopefully it will deter others from attempting the same type of garbage.

    Then again, with the bots, I have my doubts.

  141. “Any story concerning an Obama affair with a female will be used to discredit a more believable story of an Obama affair with a man.”

    ———————
    Anything to save their idol even if it means lying, cheating, obstructing, and on and on and on…

  142. There are many people questioning how the BP oil well exploded. I believe tha eco-terrorism cannot be ruled out.

    Currently, there are no suitable replacement for fossil fuels, at least not economically feasible. Also, nuclear energy makes most environmentalists nuclear. May I ask how our world is to survive without either? Environmentalists are misguided when they fail to take into account the economic implications of many of their stands. They need to save themselves from themselves.

  143. JanH, the David Kernell story is not over yet. One count was a mistrial due to one juror not wanting to convict him on that particular count. This may cause a retrial on that count.

  144. nomobama—I know several people who agree with you about his gender preference. One friend points to a picture I saw some time ago with him sitting on a couch (maybe in college)too close to another friend/or room mate. I don’t even remember where I saw it online and I only saw in once.

  145. Politico says he is going to the Gulf Coast tomorrow morning-guess we can miss the big party tonight. Perfect time for him to lower the sea level-I see a big charleston Heston performance/Moses.

  146. nomobama,

    I know there might be a new trial but I am glad that he has at least been found guilty on the counts he has on the very first try. Im also glad that at least some of the media are reporting on it.

  147. BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, but U.S. Missed Chances to Act

    NEW ORLEANS — Officials in the Obama administration began for the first time Friday to publicly chastise BP America for its handling of the spreading oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, calling the oil company’s current resources inadequate to stop what is unfolding into an environmental catastrophe.

    As oil edged toward the Louisiana coast, fears continued to grow that the leak from the seabed oil well could spiral out of control. One official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a widely distributed warning on Friday, said the oil flow could grow from the current estimate of 5,000 barrels a day to “an order of magnitude higher than that.”

    The increased level of concern was reflected in the sharp new criticism by federal officials of BP for not stopping the leak and cleaning up the spill before it reached land, something the company’s officials had said was possible earlier in the week.

    “It is clear that after several unsuccessful attempts to secure the source of the leak, it is time for BP to supplement their current mobilization as the slick of oil moves toward shore,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said pointedly, as the government announced steps to supplement its response with people and equipment from the Defense Department.

    Geoffrey S. Morrell, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in a statement that the government would hold BP accountable for the cost of the department’s deployment, which as of Friday night included the Louisiana National Guard to help clean up coastal areas once the oil comes ashore.

    BP officials said they did everything possible, and a review of the response suggests it may be too simplistic to place all the blame on the oil company. The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP, which was leasing the drilling rig that exploded in flames on April 20 and sank two days later. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead.

    The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was “a spill of national significance,” and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.

    The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful.

    By Friday afternoon, she said, the Defense Department had agreed to send two large military transport planes to spray chemicals that can disperse the oil while it is still in the Gulf.

    Officials initially seemed to underestimate the threat of a leak, just as BP did last year when it told the government such an event was highly unlikely. Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry, the chief Coast Guard official in charge of the response, said on April 22, after the rig sank, that the oil that was on the surface appeared to be merely residual oil from the fire, though she said it was unclear what was going on underwater. The day after, officials said that it appeared the well’s blowout preventer had kicked in and that there did not seem to be any oil leaking from the well, though they cautioned it was not a guarantee.

    BP officials, even after the oil leak was confirmed by using remote-controlled robots, expressed confidence that the leak was slow enough, and steps taken out in the Gulf of Mexico aggressive enough, that the oil would never reach the coast.

    (The NOAA document on a potentially far larger leak, first obtained by The Press-Register in Mobile, Ala., was described by an agency spokesman as simply a possibility raised by a staff member, not an official prediction.)

    Some oil industry critics questioned whether the federal government is too reliant on oil companies to manage the response to major spills, leaving the government unable to evaluate if the response is robust enough.

    “Here you have the company that is responsible for the accident leading the response to the crisis,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “There is a problem here, and the consequence is clear.”

    But it is still the government, in this case the Coast Guard, that has the final say. A law passed a year after the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster makes the owner of a rig or vessel responsible for cleaning up a spill. But oversight of the cleanup is designated to the Coast Guard, with advice from other federal agencies.

    Rear Adm. Robert C. North, retired, who was commander of the Coast Guard’s Eighth District from 1994 to 1996, said that decisions in these situations are made collectively, but that the buck essentially stops with the federal coordinator — in this case, Admiral Landry. “The federal on-scene coordinator is kind of the one individual to say, ‘I think we need to do more’ or ‘That’s adequate,’ ” he said.

    cont. at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/01gulf.html?hp

    ——————-

    They are calling this “Obama’s Katrina.”

  148. Turndown, He only opened up offshore drilling to get the republicans off his back…he wants GREEN energy…that’s the one that will fill his pocket book!

  149. I love it, squeaky clean Obama, just like everybody else….a player…well what do you know,LOL!! Michelle is going to have a kaniption fit…

  150. confloyd,

    Words vs actions. Obama acts to please whoever offers him money or power, and the oil interests and the GOP have plenty to offer. It’s not an either/or. He’s an equal opportunity pandar, taking from ALL sources at the same time.

  151. I saw that pic on Drudge of the oil in the Gulf…it turns read…sure reminds me of a verse in revelation….a third of the seas turned red and killed all the fish…WOW!

  152. There is a cartoon which depicts a split screen of Mexican President Felipe Calderone. On the left screen, he says condemns America for having racist laws which protect its borders. On the right screen it shows him holding up a copy of Mexico’s own immigration law which contain virtually identical restriction to which he says for Mexico however it is no problema.

    This legislation mirrors federal law in most respects. It contains provisions which protect civil liberties under a reasonable cause standard. Yet this administration condemns it as racist. And, like the Bush Administration they fail to enforce federal law. Unlike the Bush Administration they fail to take proactive steps when the public rises up in opposition. And as violence overwhelms a border community, and the state legislature takes reasonable steps to protect its citizens this Administration condemns those people as racist, and suggests their efforts at self defense may produce another Timothy McVeigh.

    Does this make sense. From the standpoint of protecting the country, of course not. It is inimical to that objective. But lets face it that is not Obamas objective. What then is his objective? To keep an entirely open border to promote trade and commerce of all kinds for the sake of his big buisness cronies. By the way his also explains Mexico’s hypocracy on the subject. His second objective is to prevent states from mitigating the problem because he knows if that happens there will be no appetite for the amnesty he wants to garner support for his 2012 campaign among unpatriotic members of the Hispanic community who put ethnicity before country. That is why he wants to tie the hands of Arizona until more people are shot and killed, and the pot boils over. At that point, Obama calculates that the public at large will accept his draconian measures including a national id card and of course amnesty. And he will get a jolt in a certain segment of the electorate . . .

    while Rome burns.

  153. This Kal Pen guy was working for Obama in the WH and now its says as of this month, Kal Pen is leaving to pursue his acting career again…what a coincidence! I bet old Obama has a smorgasborg of young men at the WH…Obama has more men working for him than women??

  154. The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was “a spill of national significance,” and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.
    ————————————–
    Whenever the country is confronted with a real threat to its security, you find Janet right there in the middle of it. Only she is always a day late and a dollar short. More interested in promoting the public relations angle which is that what you think is a disaster really isn’t, the system is working, and you are really fortunate because you have me and Obama to protect you. At any moment I expect to wake up from this farce and realize it is all just a bad dream.

  155. In other words, history has consistently shown that when disaster strikes Neopolitano demonstrates little or no grasp of the seriousness of the situation.

  156. Is it possible to send big, empty ships that normally carry oil to the slicks, and suck the oil floating in the water into those boats? It would be mixed with water,and possibly later the oil could be extracted? Saving the wildlife and shores……….????????????????????

  157. Napolitano is hurting them–she is tone deaf. I don’t get why Homeland Security is involved. I would think Fema and/or EPA.

Comments are closed.