Hold(er)ing Action

So Eric Holder, Obama’s chief Ideological butt-buddy and Chief Lawless Enforcer of Extreme Left Wing Social Justice is resigning, eventually. They have to nominate someone who is even crazier first, say before the election. 🙂 After all, making Republicans look mean and nasty and “partisan” is what Obama loves to do when he’s being even worse.

And the Leftist Media I’m sure is in mourning. Their national Hero, champion of Social Justice, “informal workers” (aka illegal aliens),the gay mafia, defender of the(ir) one true faith.

Who cares about The Black Panthers suppressing votes, it’s the voting rights of illegal aliens, “minorities” and “the poor” that matters (especially if you’re all 3 and NOT white). So what if you need more ID to rent a Video than vote in his eyes, he was their Ideological hardline champion of the cause.

“Fast & Furious”, fah, who cares about that silly old thing.

National Security on the Border, who gives a crap. And if YOU try to enforce it we’ll sue your ass and crush you like the insignificant bug you are compared to the might of the All-Powerful Federal Government!

If we want to ignore the problem you can’t do anything about it!  <sticking tongue out>

He was a warrior of the Leftist faith. The Defender of The Federal Supremacy Clause!

He was their strong man. The “Justice is Blind” and impartial was completely destroyed, but since it was to enforce with an iron first the Leftist Ideology, he was a Demi-God to the Left.

Justice was Blind Partisanship and “Fair” only to those of Faith. The infidels needed to be crushed.

I wonder if he’ll be Sainted or just get 72 virgins?

And if you didn’t like it, you were a RACIST! 🙂

As a longtime, current employee of the Justice Department told us, Mr. Holder and his subordinates have “racialized and radicalized” the department “to the point of corruption.” They have “embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. (why does this sound like that new “hit” show ‘How to get away with Murder? 🙂 ) Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics, and even moderate Democrats have left the department, because they were treated as enemies by administration officials and their lackeys. Another black employee who has worked for the Justice Department for decades said to me, ‘There is no justice left in Justice under this administration.’”

Mr. Holder is an ideologue who considers himself part of Mr. Obama’s political team first and the attorney general a very distant second. His first loyalty has been to helping the president break, bend, ignore or fail to enforce the law, doing untold damage to our constitutional system and the rule of law.

As former Justice Department prosecutor Andy McCarthy has said, the Justice Department under Mr. Holder has become “a sort of full-employment program for progressive activists, race-obsessed bean counters and lawyers who volunteered their services during the Bush years to help al Qaeda operatives file lawsuits against the United States.”

Well said.

Meanwhile, the Left is mourning. But at least they have all those Hydra Agents in The “Justice” Department to carry on Their God’s work and Obama will find another ideologue to replace him.

After all, THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!

Hail Hydra!

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

 

 

 

 

How to Cook your own Goose

First off, it does seem a bit silly for me to write me blog today after what happened in Japan.

That is a true human tragedy. And it is still unfolding.

(But no this is not about Charlie Sheen either!!)

But I can’t wait for the whacko environmentalist to start exploiting it for their own agenda.

Much like the NFL.

I was talking to a friend last weekend about why sports means basically nothing to me. I used to be a big sports fan, in my youth.

I happily attended every Michigan home football game for 12 years until I went off to college (just not there).

I went to the Tiger games. Even a few Lions games.

My last hurrah seems to have been the 1980 Olympics, the “Miracle on Ice”.

Shortly after that it was all Unions, strikes and a total greed fest.

And that’s the way I regard sports today.

A bunch of Millionaires arguing about how you split up the Millions and who get how many.

It’s the sort of thing Liberals think goes on in general society on the right.

According to a USAToday article for the 2009-2010 Season the lowest team median income was $500,000 for the Kansas City Chiefs. (They were 4-12 that year).

Jeff Pash, the league’s lead negotiator, said owners had offered to keep player pay at 2009 levels and raise it by $20 million per club over the next four years. The NFL season would remain at 16 games for the next two years, but then could expand to 18 games. Off season and pre-season workouts would be cut. Retirement and health care benefits would improve and contracts could be guaranteed beyond one year.

Jim Quinn, a lead negotiator for the union, said the owners’ proposal would have rolled back player pay to 2007 levels and amounted to a giveback of up to $8 billion over the course of the proposed 10-year deal. In addition, he said a flat salary cap would be imposed at $130 million, as the league would move away from basing player compensation on the percentage of revenues. (WSJ).

Now interestingly the Player’s Union is likely to de-unionize themselves, voluntarily giving up their holy right to collective bargaining.

Why?

So they can sue the owners pants off and run away with even more Millions! They Hope.

And the Owners would rather run off with the millions themselves.

GREED. Pure unadultered GREED.

But you won’t see the Left going all Wisconsin on The Green Bay Packers.

But I hope the fans do.

Maybe they’ll learn the lesson I apparently learned long before I was ever even political, Unions suck!

Because, you know if the players win in court and run off with the cash, they will reform their Union so they can screw the Owners the next time too.

This is what Unions do.

And that’s why I loathe them.

It’s all about the power and the money.

It’s exactly what the Left thinks the Right does on a daily basis.

The question is, will the players hang together in “solidarity” and will Jesse Jackson show up at Lambeau Field to support the “oppressed” Millionaire players. 🙂

Maybe the SEIU can rush NFL headquarters and set up squatters and chant “Hell no! We won’t go!!”

I bleed green in “solidarity” for them. 😦

But the Left and their insatiable need for cash and class warfare to pay for it never learn.

Ignoring the truism that when you tax something you get less of it, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn on Thursday signed legislation making the Land of Lincoln the latest state to enact what’s dubbed the Amazon Tax. It’s designed to collect state sales taxes from online companies if in-state businesses do business through websites such as Seattle-based Amazon.com.

Called the “Main Street Fairness Act”. Liberals so have an special talent for Orwellian language.

Illinois now joins Hawaii, North Carolina and Rhode Island in getting around this impediment by considering affiliates as the required nexus. Amazon’s in court with New York over a similar law.

According to the Tax Foundation, such taxes do not produce huge revenue streams. “Rhode Island,” it says, “has seen no additional sales tax revenue from its Amazon tax, and because Amazon reacted by discontinuing its affiliate program, Rhode Islanders are earning less income and paying less income tax.”

Illinois has about 9,000 such affiliates, and Rebecca Madigan, director of the Performance Marketing Association, an affiliate trade group, estimates the state will lose 25% to 30% of tax revenues collected from the affiliates themselves as they lose business, cut jobs or move out of Illinois.

“It’s not going to accomplish anything,” said Tom Storm, CEO of FatWallet.com, an Amazon affiliate based in Rockton, Ill. He said he plans to move his company and 54 employees out of the state at once.

CouponCabin.com, an Illinois company that offers printable and local coupons, announced it’s planning a move to neighboring Indiana.

“Many thriving businesses like CouponCabin and other affiliate marketing will be forced to move to other states,” it said. “And most important, this law will not generate the tax revenues Illinois thinks it will collect.”

Most new taxes don’t increase revenues or jobs. When you increase the cost of doing business, you get less business and fewer jobs.

But Liberals get that warm and fuzzy endorphin buzz from their Class Warfare.

And that after all, is what it’s all about, the endorphin high “sticking it to the man!” in “defense” of the “little guy”.

<<barf bag on standby>>

Last year, Texas sent Amazon a bill for $269 million in back sales taxes based simply on Amazon’s having a warehouse there. Last month, Amazon announced it was closing the warehouse, costing 110 tax-paying employees their jobs.

The way to increase tax revenues is to increase the tax base, not tax rates. Of course, one can also spend less, and Illinois is one of those states trapped with a huge budget shortfall and bloated and unfunded state pension liabilities.

As we’ve said, the way out of our federal and state fiscal mess is to spend less time worrying about the distribution of the golden eggs and more time worrying about the health of the goose — or our goose is cooked. (IBD)

Over cooked more like.

This is hilariously on point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwMPzbzVJM

But it sure makes Liberals and Union thugs “feel good” and they get that endorphin buzz from striking against “the rich” in the name of “the middle class”.

Problem is, the rest of us get par boiled in the process.

P.s. NPR

That bastion of “fairness” and “objectivity”. That fired a Liberal, Juan Williams for daring to say Muslims on planes make him nervous.

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian,” said NPR’s Ron Schiller to two undercover reporters. “I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of [movement].”

Not knowing he was being videoed, Schiller continued: “The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamo-phobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-American, gun toting—I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

Schiller is being heavily criticized for these comments, as is NPR and elite liberal thinking in general. Schiller, NPR Foundation president and vice president for development (until these comments), is the Left’s latest exhibit in smearing the Tea Party movement as bigots, racists, fascists, Hitler-ites, followers of Attila the Hun, Torquemada, Genghis Khan, or whatever other handy demon.

Yet, what’s telling about Schiller’s comments is their lack of factual basis, an even greater sin from a man whose business, and erstwhile employer, is the reporting of facts. His comments are a PR problem for NPR, furthering the perception that NPR is not about unbiased reporting but primarily about opinion—a leftist opinion camouflaged as objective news.

Who was behind the set-up, why the ACORN stinger himself, James O’Keefe.

The NPR head was there to discuss a $5 million dollar donation from a Muslim group and instead got caught on Candid Camera.

And now the Left is whining about it. AGAIN.

ACORN, Planned Parenthood, now NPR.

The Public Sector Unions.

Whine, Whine, Whine.

But mind you, when Liberals manufacture “evidence” and trot it out and it’s exposed as fake they say sure it is, “but what was in it was true” as they said about the Dan Rather memo.

It’s all about the power and the money folks.

That’s all it ever is about.

But if Michael Moore is right, it’s all “our money” anyways. 🙂

Except HIS millions, that is….

‘Nuff Said.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Big Brother Wants You!

imtenet-censorship.jpg

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

So yet again, the liberals idea of the only way for you to be free is for the government to control whatever it is.

Orwell would be proud you my sons.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And my 4th Precept: FEAR IS HOPE. (https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/)

It’s very typical of the modern Liberal to want to control everything for your own good, because you’re far too stupid to it yourself.

Health Care, Finances, Education,News,Entertainment, Food, and now the Internet.

Freedom is slavery to the government. Government is here to protect your stupid ass self from the evil capitalist exploiters.

Gee, aren’t you happy? 😦

What has the Liberals’ panties so much in a bunch?

People like me. Little ole me. And all the other anti-liberal progressives out there.

Matt Drudge, Daily Caller, bloggers, etc.

We can’t attack in frontal assault so we’ll do what all Liberals always do, attack from the rear, in seemingly innocuous ways by “fairness” and “concern” that creep like a cancer that just grows and grows until it kills the patient.

Leaving Dr. Liberal is control of everything.

What liberal wouldn’t like to control everything?

None, that are in power right now.

The government, The Liberal Progressive one is  your only hope.

You can’t possibly do it without us.

So what if you have ever since the Internet exploded onto the seem 20 years ago. You can’t now.

Why?

Because they say you can’t.

And if you learn only one thing about Liberals, and that is that they believe they are incapable of error and are vastly superior to the mere mortal  both morally and intellectually.

So questioning them is impertinent.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom. (WSJ)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

And Lame Duck Cancer is a disease we are already suffering. We just don’t need another dose of it.

But the Liberals are thinking, we have to do it now because if we don’t the evil Republicans won’t let us next year. So it’s now or never!

And they are hardly the only ones.

The very liberal and toothless namby-pamby UN wants to get into the act.

The U.N. has been wanting to run the Web for years and is not letting a crisis — the WikiLeaks releases — go to waste. Following the Chicagoland model, it has plans to form an intergovernmental group that would “attempt to create global standards for policing the Internet.”

The meeting delegate from Brazil, which is pushing the proposal, told iTnews that the plan isn’t to take over the Web. Which is no reassurance at all. Whenever an elected official or bureaucrat says a program won’t cost much or the regulation being considered won’t be a burden, history teaches us to expect the exact opposite.

This big idea is coming only a few months after the Internet Governance Forum, a group that consults with the U.N., met in Vilnius, Lithuania. Its goal: to save the Internet with an international treaty that would include net neutrality.

So you could have the FCC, The US Government and the the UN all look after you.

Gee, don’t you feel better now. 🙂

The Internet is in no need of supervision from the U.N. or Washington. It is an energetic, broadly accessible marketplace of ideas.

Ideas, that the Liberal Left wants to control. For your own good, of course.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

As Rod Beckstrom, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said in September at the Vilnius meeting that the Internet works. It lets us communicate on an unprecedented scale, and its relative lack of regulation has made “it a fertile field for innovation and competition.”

The best thing for the U.N. and Washington to do is just stand back and let it flow. (IBD)

But Liberals, especially, and Washington in general has Control Freak issues.

But it’s for own good.

We are from the Government and we are here to protect you. 🙂

FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski:

As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for the Internet service providers, so that they can manage and invest in broadband networks.

That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order…

On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.

I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Barf Bag anyone?

The FCC’s new, ostensibly softer approach comes on the heels of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision earlier this month, which ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to directly regulate internet providers nor require them to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic. Comcast sued the FCC, arguing that the commission could not force the company to be “net neutral” in regards to the file-sharing program BitTorrent, which Comcast at one point was filtering on its system.

In response, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced the “third way” which consists of simply removing ISPs from their current classification in order to “have enough of a legal footing in place to make sure the agency can protect consumers and achieve goals presented in the National Broadband Plan.”

Currently, the FCC categorizes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as Title 1 “information service.” The classification meant that the FCC lacked the direct authority to regulate these providers. The FCC’s other option, however was to classify ISPs as Title II “telecommunications service,” which internet providers say would bring with it regulatory madness and  the same red tape that wireline phone agencies find themselves in.

Genachowski’s “third way” then will be an attempt to run between the two classifications:

The chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,” the official said.

The confirmation from the FCC comes only hours after two senior Democratic politicians sent a letter to Genachowski saying that imposing Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon is “essential.” And Free Press, the liberal lobby group that’s led the fight to hand the FCC more Internet regulatory authority, hastily convened a conference call to warn that Genachowski would be leaving President Obama’s Net neutrality promises unfulfilled.

Net neutrality proponents have bemoaned the recent Appeals Court decision and wish to see a “free and open internet.”  But those opposed to interference from the FCC have argued that regulation will only suffocate business and innovation in an area that has thrived without government interference.

Yesterday, one FCC official said Genacoswki was trying to have it both ways, hoping:

to balance “a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach.” Title I refers to lightly regulated information services; Title II refers to heavily regulated telecommunications services, such as legacy telephone networks.

The balancing act between what the FCC has been told it cannot do and what it wants to do, has caused the committee to run over itself more than once. As BetaNews reports:

“The Third Way,” as the FCC now calls it, is a clear effort to defer to US Supreme Court decisions that suggested the FCC has the authority to declare what it does not regulate. As a model for deciding what’s in and what’s out, Schlick refers to the classic dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2005 Brand X decision. There, Justice Scalia argued that since it doesn’t make much difference to the customer whether he receives service through one route or another, it shouldn’t make much difference to the law, either.

Dancing lightly over the fact that Scalia’s argument was a dissent from the decision, and not actual law, Schlick suggested this morning that the FCC should now embrace an approach that it had vehemently rejected just weeks earlier.

Currently, the “third way” contains only six provisions from Title II regulations, although “the FCC could decide it needs more or less as this process wears on,” according to Engadget.com.

Republicans in Washington rejected the “third way” characterization and accused the Obama Administration of once again seeking to expand the power of government over the private sector.  House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said, “Under this job- killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Rob McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker issued a joint statement, saying: “This dramatic step to regulate the Internet is unnecessary.”

“It is a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework,” they said. (Daily Caller)

Bi-Partisan, wonder where I’ve heard that before?

Oh, yeah, it’s when you roll over and let the Liberal do what they want to do without objection.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Veni Vidi Vici…Almost

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Republicans are going to pick up more seats  in the House in the election than anyone’s done since WWII.

Can you say Queen of Her own Narcissism, Nancy Pelosi, is tossed out on her butt as Speaker. Maybe she’ll be MINORITY Leader. 🙂

But Prince Harry Reid and the Democrats managed to hold onto the Senate. But will Give ’em All Hell Harry still be Speaker in January??

The Republicans only picked up 6 Seats. But now you have 49 Democrats, 2 Liberal Independents and 46 Republicans.

Maybe in 2012!  Along with Obama we can sweep the cockroaches out of  the People’s Congress. 🙂

So this is far from over!

Jan Brewer easily beat Terry Goddard. Thank the Lord. And we have a majority of Republicans in the House again. The Legislature is solidly Republican.

Lots of  New Republican Governors so far also.

But The race to unseat Mr. “Boycott My State”  Raul Grijalva was lost by 570 votes! (that went to 3rd party candidates) DAMN! 😦

We passed by proposition  to ban Affirmative Action, so I wonder if Eric Holder is going to sue us YET AGAIN! 🙂

We also passed a Constitution Amendment against The Health Care Mandates of ObamaCare.

So I’m sure we’ll get sue YET AGAIN!.

Bring it on Eric!

Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay

Jan 2009: President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Nov 2, 2010: YOU LOST!  Now what? Elections do have Consequences! 🙂

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

Here is an ironclad certainty: It’s too little too late for the antagonist-in-chief to paper over two years of relentless Democratic incivility and hate toward his domestic “enemies.” Voters have spoken: They’ve had enough. Enough of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s rhetorical abuse. Enough of his feints at bipartisanship. Whatever the final tally, this week’s turnover in Congress is a GOP mandate for legislative pugilism, not peace. Voters have had enough of big government meddlers “getting things done.” They are sending fresh blood to the nation’s Capitol to get things undone.

Just two short years ago, Obama campaigned as the transcendent unifier. “Young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states,” he proclaimed. “We have been and always will be the United States of America.” It’s been an Us vs. Them freefall ever since.

“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us,” Obama taunted a few weeks ago. “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

As voters who have been maligned by the ruling majority as stupid, unwashed, racist, selfish and violent headed to the polls Tuesday, Democrats released “talking points” attacking Republican leaders who “are not willing to compromise.” But “no compromise” is exactly the message that un-American Americans delivered to Washington this campaign season:

No more compromising deals behind closed doors. No more compromising bailouts in times of manufactured crisis. No more compromising conservative principles for D.C. party elites. No more compromising the American economy for left-wing special interests. No more compromising transparency and ethics for bureaucratic self-preservation.

Let us be clear, in case it hasn’t fully sunk into the minds of Obama and the trash-talking Democrats yet: You can take your faux olive branch and shove it. Thank you. (Michelle Malkin)

Will the Democrats be humbled by having their head chopped off?

NO.

Expect the Senate to be the Liberal Firewall against the House’s Reform agenda.

Obstuctionism, in the Liberal’s view, is now in vogue. It’s no longer an excuse it’s a moral imperative to stop the vast right wing conspiracy against their Socialist greatness.

So Enjoy the victory, but it’s far from over!

We may have destroyed the Death Star, but the Empire is still building another one in secret to menace the people again. So we have much more work to do.

This was “The New Hope” so we still more to go before 2012 and the “Return of the People”.

The Empire is not going to go quietly.

 

Incestuous Narcissism Part 3

The difference between a catfish and a lawyer. One is a bottom feeding, mudsucker and the other one is a fish.

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.  <rimshot>

There are a million of them, literally.

Like a swarm of Piranha, if they smell blood in the water boy will there be a feeding frenzy.

Is it any wonder that a large segment, possibly even a majority, of Congress is made up of lawyers.

Really.

No, Not really.

Ever tried to read the Health Care Bill?

I know I did, which is more than Congress, especially the Senate Chairman Max Baucus did.

At Over 2000 pages it would turn any mind to mush to try. Which is why Speaker Pelosi wanted you to pass it first and read it later.

You don’t need to know all the details. Trust us. We have your best interests at heart. 🙂

We are the Insufferably Morally and Intellectually Superior.

I just saw a segment on this website: http://facesoflawsuitabuse.org/

Fascinating stuff. You have all the makings of a good horror movie, except for the bikini clad teenage virgin. But give them time, I’m sure there’s a lawsuit involving that somehow.

I would also recommend my blog from Sept 3rd this year: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-lawsuit-lottery/

Trial Lawyers and their lawsuits that have driven up the cost of everything, including Health Care, was specifically and deliberately (with extreme prejudice) left out of the Health Care Bill because they are a important component of the Democratic Party base. They are also Congressman to begin with as well.

Jon “Baby Man” Edwards was Trial Lawyer.

Three-quarters of all small business owners in America are concerned they might be the target of a frivolous or unfair lawsuit. Of those who are most concerned, six in ten say the fear of lawsuits makes them feel more constrained in making business decisions generally, and 54 percent say lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits forced them to make decisions they otherwise would not have made.

Small businesses paid $105.4 billion in tort liability costs in 2008.

Tort, fancy word for lawsuit, BTW.

Small businesses are responsible for 64 percent of all new jobs created in the U.S economy. (facesoflawsuitabuse.org)

But faced with massive lawsuits, a massive tax increase on 1/1/11 that Democrats are too cowardly to address, Health care Mandates and fines, financial regulation that choke off productivity, is it any wonder that job creation is in the tank?

Yes, the President did pass what he called a “Small Business” jobs bill, aka yet another Stimulus, but it will be ineffective and is there largely as a PR tool as he is now in 100% campaign mode and nothing else matters.

And banks aren’t really lending the money to begin with. So if you can’t get the loan how can you expand??

America’s civil justice system is the world’s most expensive, with a direct cost in 2008 of $254.7 billion, or 1.79 percent of the U.S. GDP.

The cost of the U.S. tort liability system as a percentage of GDP is more than double the average cost of any other industrialized nation.

Tort costs were $838 per U.S. citizen in 2008, meaning a family of four paid a “litigation tax” of $3,352 for the U.S. civil justice system, a cost driven up due to increased costs from lawsuits and other liability expenses that force businesses to raise the price of products and services.

But Congress won’t do anything about it, especially not Democrats, as they as incestuously parasitic of each other and the Piranhas in Pinstripes in Congress wouldn’t want to reign in their brethren after all, they might be them again some day.

You wouldn’t wont want be nice to evil Corporate America that just rapes and pillages itself across the land unchecked now would you? 🙂

One of my favorites from the website Face of Lawsuit Abuse (run by The US Chamber of Commerce that was barred and banned from Health Care debate because they dared to disagree with the Almighty Ones) was the landlord who was sued because a tenant claimed that the legally required notices of entry for repair and the like were harassment and caused emotional distress.

Vytas Juskys and his small business manage apartment buildings and are committed to constantly upgrading and making repairs to the homes of the tenants. He thought that improving their apartments and the common areas would help his residents love where they lived; he never expected that one of them would thank him with a lawsuit.

Juskys was in the process of improving an apartment complex he had just acquired when he learned he was being sued. He had been making a variety of repairs to the building and the surrounding facilities, and he was posting regular repair notices on the tenants’ doors, as is required by law.

But one tenant claimed that these notices caused her emotional distress, and she sued Juskys for $500,000. The irony, Juskys says, is that the plaintiff had personally been requesting improvements and then sued him for notifying her that he was planning to make them.

“There’s no way to avoid it,” Juskys says. “At some point, if you’re into real estate, you’re going to get sued. We’re easy prey.” The lawsuit not only took away from Juskys’ ability to focus on his tenants and the properties he manages, it also prevented him from initiating new projects, hiring extra employees and creating jobs.

On the day of the trial, Juskys’ insurance company decided to settle the case, and he was required to pay thousands of dollars out of his own pocket.

Juskys now understands why businesses settle even the most frivolous of lawsuits. Small businesses like his can’t win, he says. Even if he had gone to trial and the jury had ruled in his favor, his only winnings would have been a legal bill, higher insurance rates, and lost time.

“You try to do everything right,” Juskys says, “and it’s just not good enough.”

So his costs go up, your costs go up, the lawyers profits go up.

Why would Congress, full of lawyers, ever want to put a stop to such a thing? 🙂

OR

KALISPELL – A Kalispell girl charged with two counts of deliberate homicide after police say she attempted suicide by driving her car into oncoming traffic has filed a lawsuit against the estate of the woman who died.

The lawsuit filed in Flathead County District Court names the estate of 35-year-old Erin Thompson of Columbia Falls as well as the construction company that built the U.S. 93 overpass at Church Drive where the collision took place near Kalispell on March 19, 2009. The girl is seeking unspecified damages.

The girl and her father filed the lawsuit on July 15 contending Thompson, four months pregnant, caused the crash. Her 13-year-old son, Caden Odell, also died.

Thompson’s husband, Jason Thompson, is listed in the lawsuit as the representative of the estate.

Also named in the lawsuit are Knife River Corp., Western Traffic Control Inc. and Mountain West Holding Co.

Police say the girl was traveling southbound when she crossed the centerline at a speed of 85 mph.

Investigators believe the girl was trying to commit suicide after arguing with her boyfriend earlier in the day. Shortly before the crash, authorities say, she sent him several text messages, including one that said, “Good bye … My last words …” and one that said, “If I won. I would have you. And I wouldn’t crash my car.”

IBD:  Medicare dictates the prices it pays clinicians, facilities, medical suppliers and private health plans through more than a dozen different price-control schemes. Efforts to reduce those prices typically fail because of what Tom Daschle calls the “patient-provider pincer movement”: Medicare enrollees and health care providers join forces to undo those cuts.

Each producer that depends on Medicare for its income faces an enormous incentive to lobby for higher prices. The prices for, say, hospital services could make or break a lot of hospitals. And if the hospitals don’t lobby to increase those prices, who will? Enrollees like the easy access to medical care that comes with higher Medicare spending.

So when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reduces the prices Medicare pays physicians (through the “sustainable growth rate” formula), or ObamaCare reduces the prices for hospital services, home health care and Medicare Advantage plans, we can predict — and experience has shown — that intense lobbying by enrollees and the affected producers will thwart these measures.

Now if that isn’t incestuous narcissism what is? Deliberately raising the prices to what you know will be unsustainable levels just because the alternative doesn’t doesn’t benefit you personally.

And if you object you’ll get the “grandma using a dead person’s teeth” story like you did during the Health Care debacle.

And as was mentioned numerous times in this blog the cuts that the Health Care law proposed were to Medicare Advantage, a program that was showing some promise.

And without those cuts, half of the projected “savings” for the Health Care monster evaporate.

So, given the track record of narcissism what do think will happen?

And if they do try and cut them don’t you expect there will be a veritable plague of locusts…I mean Lawyers…all over it and it will be litigated until you’re already dead. But the Lawyers will make millions of it.

In the end the Lawyers win.

And if that isn’t incest at it’s best, what is?

Lawyers are necessary to a point, but the over lawyering lawsuit lottery job killing psycho need for the quick buck frivolous drop of any hat lawsuit is not.

But don’t expect Congress, especially this one, or even a Republican one, to do much about it because that’s asking the wolf to stop playing with the chickens.

And the chickens are going to sue you for  emotional distress for not protecting them from the wolves. And hire a wolf to do it!

Isn’t that just peachy. 🙂

The Logic of No Confidence

Some 11 million to 15 million illegal aliens are now residing in America, most after crossing into America unlawfully. Once a federal law is arbitrarily not enforced, all sorts of bizarre paradoxes arise from that original contradiction. As proof, examine the following illogical policies and contradictions involving illegal immigration.

Take, for example, profiling — the controversial questioning of those who appear likely to be illegal aliens. Apparently, American border guards have developed criteria for profiling those deemed likely to be unlawful aliens. Otherwise, how would they have arrested and deported hundreds of thousands in 2009?

Yet apparently, at some arbitrary point distant from the border, those who cross illegally are not supposed to be asked about their immigration status. OK, but exactly why did procedures so radically change at, say, five, 10, 20, or is it 100 miles from the border? A border patrolman often profiles, but a nearby highway patrolman cannot?

The federal government is suing Arizona for the state’s efforts to enforce the federal immigration law. The lawsuit alleges that Arizona is too zealous both in enforcing immigration law and encroaching on federal jurisdiction.

But wait — for years, several American cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities. City officials have even bragged that they would not allow their municipalities to enforce federal immigration statutes. So why does Washington sue a state that seeks to enhance federal immigration laws and yet ignore cities that blatantly try to erode them?

Something is going very wrong in Mexico to prompt more than half a million of its citizens to cross the border illegally each year. Impoverished Mexican nationals variously cite poor economic conditions back home, government corruption, a lack of social services, and racism.

In other words, it is not just the desirability of America but also the perceived undesirability of Mexico that explains one of largest mass exoduses in modern history.

But why, then, would Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose country’s conditions are forcing out its own citizens, criticize the United States, which is receiving so many of them? And why, for that matter, would many of those illegal immigrants identify, if only symbolically, with the country that made them leave, whether by waving its flag or criticizing the attitudes of the Americans who took them in?

Americans Racist?

And how does Mexico treat the hundreds of thousands of aliens who seek to illegally cross its own southern border with Central America each year? Does Mexico believe in sovereign borders to its south but not to its north?
Is Mexico more or less humane to illegal aliens than the country it so often faults? Why, exactly, does Mexico believe that nearly a million of its own nationals annually have claims on American residency, when Chinese, Indian, European and African would-be immigrants are deemed not to? Is the reason proximity? Past history?

Proponents of open borders have organized May Day rallies, staged boycotts of Arizona, sued in federal and state courts, and sought to portray those who want to enforce existing federal immigration law as racially insensitive.

But about 70% of Americans support securing our borders, and support the Arizona law in particular. Are a clear majority of Americans racist, brainwashed or deluded in believing that their laws should be enforced? And if so, why would immigrants wish to join them?

Poor In Africa

It is considered liberal to support open borders and reactionary to want to close them. But illegal immigration drives down the hourly wages of the working American poor. Tens of thousands of impoverished people abroad, from Africa to Asia, wait patiently to enter America legally, while hundreds of thousands from Latin America do not. How liberal can all that be?

America extends housing, food and education subsidies to illegal aliens in need. But Mexico receives more than $20 billion in American remittances a year — its second-highest source of foreign exchange, and almost all of it from its own nationals living in the United States.

Are Americans then subsidizing the Mexican government by extending social services to aliens, freeing up cash for them to send back home?

These baffling questions are rarely posed, never addressed and often considered politically incorrect. But they will only be asked more frequently in the months ahead.

You see, once a law is not considered quite a law, all sorts of even stranger paradoxes follow.(IBD)

Examiner:  The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and its affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven, according to Fox News Channel’s Martha MacCallum.

The National Council members criticized the ICE leadership and claim they created “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and claim ICE managers “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”

ICE is misleading the American public with regard to the effectiveness of criminal enforcement programs like the ICE “Secure Communities Program” using it as a selling point to move forward with amnesty related legislation. As officers in the field, we know this program will not improve enforcement or provide for public safety because ICE refuses, for political reasons, to request the additional manpower and resources needed to adequately operate the program.

[…]

The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.(American Thinker)

Besides Morton’s and Coven’s low marks, the Obama Administration recently appointed a former police chief, who believes in illegal alien sanctuary city policies, to command the immigration enforcement program that entails federal agents working with local police departments on cases involving illegal aliens.

Morton’s defenders are equally fervent. “We often say we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. John brings a great deal of sensitivity to both aspects of our identity,” said Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which, like ICE, is part of the Department of Homeland Security. (WP)

This would be the same agency, the USCIS that has been linked extensively to the end-run Amnesty by “deferred action” in the memo released recently.

And doesn’t this person sound like a Pro-Illegal??

Retired Border Agent Harold Beasley said, “I see people in my hometown of Phoenix, Ariz., now demonstrating, carrying signs, saying that I owe them something. I owe them rights. I owe them, you know, welfare. I owe them this and I owe them that.”(CBS)

And they still love to carry Mexican Flags while doing it!

Here’s a Bombshell I found buried in a CBS report:

It’s often said illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes. Hermann does pay taxes, and showed me his returns. He doesn’t have a Social Security number, but the IRS gives undocumented workers a special taxpayer number information that’s not shared with immigration authorities.
So the government IS complicit in Illegal Immigration and not interested in enforcement. Not Really.

They have the same monetary stake as Mexico in making sure no one really ever does anything substantial about illegal immigration.

Willful abandonment for money. Now if that isn’t corruption, what is?

Many immigrants think coming to America is like winning a lottery.(CBS) Notice the word “illegal” is verboten? 🙂

As part of the Homeland Security Department’s anti-terrorism mission, the new director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of State and Local Coordination is now Harold Hurtt, an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level such as Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law.

“As police chief in two different cities with huge illegal alien populations—Phoenix and Houston—Hurtt enforced don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration measures that prevented officers from inquiring about a suspects’ legal status in the U.S.,” according to officials at Judicial Watch, a non-partisan, public-interest group that investigates public corruption.

“We can expect Chief Hurtt to continue to ‘protect’ criminal aliens as part of the Obama Administration’s ‘national security team” that includes other leftists who side with criminal aliens such as Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other Obama appointees,” said former military intelligence officer and NYPD police detective Mike Snopes.

His pro-immigration policies enabled illegal immigrants with extensive criminal histories to murder two police officers and seriously injure another while he was chief in Phoenix and later in Houston. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Hurtt on behalf of the deceased Houston officer’s wife for implementing the sanctuary policies that led to her husband’s murder at the hands of an illegal alien fugitive.

Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales, asked, ” How can Arizona pass a law like this?” indignantly adding, “There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona. Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs. We are one family, socially and economically.”  She was speaking in Spanish about the social and economic family of Mexico and Arizona.

Nothing personal, but really, Mexico, your  “poor relations”  are not  America’s “family” nor America’s  problem to support. Don’t cry for Arizona, Mexico, take care of your own family. As  “Thomas Paine” has said,  “The greatest compassion you can show for 20 million illegal immigrants is to teach them the rule of law.”

AMEN!

But the government would rather have the latino votes to continue their power , gin up a race war, and the use the  money to hide their own malfeasance!

But We are from the Government and we are here to protect and serve! 🙂

It’s the Spin Zone

How you say something can effect how it’s perceived.

That is, if you can find it.

Take yesterday’s preliminary hearing on SB 1070.

The Los Angeles Times, which is an open borders pro-illegal newspaper opened with:

A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of a key part of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but did not say whether she would prevent the measure from taking effect next week.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said during a hearing that the provision that makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents apparently conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot create their own immigration registration systems.

John Bouma, a lawyer representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in the seven lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the measure, tried to convince Bolton otherwise. Then he gave up.

“I didn’t have the feeling I persuaded you last week either,” he said, referring to similar arguments on another lawsuit.

Sounds bad doesn’t it? But consider the source.

But my favourite that I’ve seen is good ole’ Katie Couric, CBS NEWS:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

If those words were written in Arizona today, they might include a footnote: just make sure they have their papers.

No bias here. 🙂

They also have stories on Neo-Nazis patrolling the border and a puff piece on the violence at the border that says it isn’t so bad.

Diminish,distract,and destroy. Liberal “journalism” in action.

Then you read The AP story on The Daily Caller:

PHOENIX (AP) — The judge who will decide whether Arizona’s new immigration law is constitutional hasn’t indicated whether she’ll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law.

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona.

“You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored,” said Bolton, who didn’t issue a ruling after the two hearings.

Notice the Difference? 🙂

Now that couldn’t be media bias now could it?

Perish the thought! 🙂

Especially after the “Journolist” releases. 🙂

But I will at least say  it was nice to see this buried down at the bottom of the Times article:

“I guess we have some explanation of why we have so many [smugglers] and aliens unlawfully here,” Bouma said. “The federal government doesn’t want them prosecuted and doesn’t think the state should.”

🙂

But then it followed immediately with this liberal lie: Government statistics show that the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants annually than the George W. Bush administration.

So what, he’s spent as much as Bush did in 8 years in 18 months. But you won’t here that from the Journo-List inspired liberal press.

But again, it’s the liberal Bush Derangement Syndrome coming back up like a bad case of acid reflux.

But then comes: Arizona is the favorite crossing point for illegal entrants from Mexico, and even though the numbers have dropped off during the recession, fears of violence from Mexican drug traffickers persist. Bouma noted a sign the federal Bureau of Land Management recently posted in the desert 30 miles south of Phoenix:

“Danger — Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended. Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area.”

Bolton said she had seen pictures of the sign, heavily publicized by Brewer, and that it was “awful.”

At the very end. Do you not think this was important?

Daily Caller:

Attorney John Bouma, who is defending the law on behalf of Gov. Jan Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them. They don’t want to know about them,” he said.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven’t demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not mere speculation — must be shown.

“In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that’s Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned … defies reality,” Bouma said. “All this hypothetical that we’re going to go out and arrest everybody that’s Hispanic, look around. That’s impossible.”

Yeah, don’t tell the Ministry of Truth that there are Hispanics who are for SB1070, it will be another “Uncle Tom” moment, or is that “Uncle Jose”.

The New York Times opens with a picture of Hispanic Protesters…gee no bias there. 🙂

With just a week remaining before Arizona’s stringent new immigration law is set to take effect, a federal judge in Phoenix heard, for the first time, from Obama administration lawyers urging her to strike down the controversial legislation while dozens of demonstrators argued both sides outside the courthouse.

As protesters blocked traffic, chanted, sang, yelled and banged on bass drums, lawyers from the Justice Department and for the State of Arizona sparred over whether the law, known locally as SB1070, violates the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal law generally trumps state law. The federal judge, Susan R. Bolton, asked pointed questions of both sides, but made no ruling from the bench before adjourning at 3 p.m.

So it’s all about the protesters.

Edwin S. Kneedler, the lawyer for the federal government, argued that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws under the Constitution and that Arizona was, in essence, establishing its own immigration policy — which in some cases would be stricter than the federal law and does not take into account either humanitarian concerns or the government’s foreign policy goals.

<<Barf Bag on standby>>

Touchy-feely “feel good” Lies. Gee, the liberal press never does that… 🙂

“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” he said.

Buried in the middle of the article:  John J. Bouma, asserted that the state law actually mirrors the letter of the federal law, even if that federal law is not enforced fully in practice. He argued the state had every right to ask its peace officers to call up federal authorities and check on a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or other arrests, even if it created a headache for federal authorities.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them, and they don’t want to know about them — that’s what they are saying,” Mr. Bouma said, gesturing to the Justice Department lawyers.

“What we get is the plaintiff over here saying we cannot do anything,” he added. “That it’s not Arizona’s problem, that we should just live with it.”

As Judge Bolton questioned the federal government’s counsel, she expressed skepticism that the state was indeed carrying out its own immigration enforcement policy. She asked several times whether the statute would actually take the decision about what to do with an illegal immigrant away from federal authorities.

“How does it become immigration enforcement policy? It’s an immigration status check,” she said. “Arizona cannot remove anybody, and they don’t purport they can.”

So the meat is buried, and the headlines are biased.

About 30 protesters blocked traffic, many wearing T-shirts that said “Stop the Hate.” Several unfurled a large, white banner that blared “Stop SB1070. We will not comply.” Others in the group held a banner in Spanish saying: “There is no problem with immigration; there is a problem with capitalism. Revolution is the solution.” After two hours, the police cleared the intersection and arrested seven people.

Ah, LA RAZA and MeCHA showed up… 🙂

Antoinette Murray, 45, said she feared the law would prompt police officers to stop citizens who look Hispanic and arrest them if they cannot produce the right documents. “If they look at someone and they are of Mexican descent, they are going to be guilty until proven innocent,” she said. “It makes you guilty for being brown.”

The a priori racism argument yet again.

Sound familiar:

“You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona …” the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”–President Obama April 29, 2010.

Outside the courthouse, people of all political stripes mounted noisy demonstrations. Charlene Greenwood, 46 and unemployed, described herself as a Tea Party member, wore a semiautomatic pistol on her hip and signs that read, “Illegal immigrants have better health care than I do” and, “Bank robbers, drug dealers and prostitutes are just trying to support their families too.”

So you go for the most extreme “loon” you can find and highlight them. No bias there.

In Sci-Fi Fandom this is known as “going for the guy in the spock ears” only. The most extreme element is normal to the person who wants to be condescending to begin with.

To confirm the stereotype.

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” –Candidate Obama said. 4/12/2008

But the old grey lady had to end their piece with one more sob story:

Among the protesters were several illegal immigrants who were waiting for judges to decide their cases. Rudy Gomez, 37, said he came to the country illegally from Guatemala in 1997 and has been working as a roofer ever since.

He has four children and fears he may be caught and deported in the crackdown envisioned under the law, he said. “I’m not doing anything wrong,” he said. “This is my home. This is where I live.”

Boo Frickin’-Hoo!

Come here legally and people will welcome you.

But he’s been here 13 years. Has 4 kids that we are undoubtedly paying for (education, health care,etc) , and he’s taken a construction job from a legal american.

And we are supposed to look the other way.

Because it’s the federal government’s job to look the other way.

And if you dare look, the almighty OZ will crush you where you stand!

I don’t think so.

“A law that is unenforced is no law at all,” said John Bouma, the lawyer representing Arizona. “We have had repeated pleas … that have basically gone unheeded.”(Reuters)

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don’t have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law “in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way.”(WP)

States’ Rights: A federal judge hears arguments over whether a state law that mirrors federal law on immigration should take effect next week. Can a state protect its borders when the federal government won’t?

Critics of Arizona’s enlisting local police to enforce federal immigration law fail to note the existence of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to do just that. The Department of Homeland Security has memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with some 70 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships to enforce federal law. Nine of these jurisdictions are in Arizona, and all of the agreements were inked while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was Arizona governor.

Judge Bolton also heard arguments on whether the Arizona law should be put on hold for now and whether the federal lawsuit should be dismissed. Unfortunately, illegal immigration, a raging drug war in Mexico and an increasing presence by Hezbollah south of the border cannot be put on hold. As the case began, Mexican authorities fought raging gun battles in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas. Nuevo Laredo is among several northern cities under siege from a turf battle between the Gulf cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas gang of hit men. Violence and kidnappings have spilled across our border. The case for border security and immigration enforcement have never been stronger.

A bid by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to block the suit failed 55-43 with five Democrats voting with him and two Republicans siding with the Department of Justice. Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against Arizona and in favor of open borders.

Rhode Island has a policy issued through an executive order identical to Arizona’s law. Rhode Island has not been sued, probably because its policy was not enacted in an election cycle. Nine other states have joined in a legal brief supporting Arizona in federal court, and a number of states are considering similar laws.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has declared the Wolverine State the lead state backing the Arizona law in court. It has filed a brief in federal court on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

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

The duty of this administration is to protect the borders of the United States and to enforce our laws, not to wage a legal war against Arizona for doing what the feds have failed to do.(IBD)

The power the Feds refuse to use and want bar anyone else from using.

Now that’s protecting your base and your base wanna-be’s, just not your citizens.

But what else would you expect from our “post-racial” President and his takeover-happy apparatchik-minded Liberals.

Criminal Crisis

“The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. “The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies.”

The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s role in immigration control.

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

So if you want to ignore the Federal law and set up a Sanctuary City that’s ok with us. Do something else and you’re “interfering” with our power.

The Empire has spoken! 🙂

If, in fact, any entity is actively “interfering” with the enforcement of federal immigration laws, it is these cities, which refuse cooperation with federal enforcement authorities. What Schmaler is doing, and what many legal experts claim, is willfully misrepresenting both the law in question and the role adopted by sanctuary cities.

If there is a “big difference” to be had here it is the sanctuary city is actively refusing to enforce the law while Arizona is actively attempting to enforce it.

And which is it our chief law enforcement agency decides to sue?  Of course, the entity trying to enforce our laws…

Just as a side Note, our cough-cough “esteemed” ex-gov Janet was on Greta Van Sustreen last night from Laredo, TX and asked about SB1070 and “racial profiling” and she dropped back and punted!

She refused to answer the question directly and even used Obama’s “misquided” and toted how much great stuff she has done and will be doing.

It was a real barf fest. Not that I excepted anything less from her. When she was Governor she only wanted to look tough on the border issue because of re-election campaign in 2006 and it was a poke in the eye of a Republican President.

But soon enough she bailed on the state just as everything went to hell. She drove it into the iceberg and then stole the life raft for herself.

Of course, ignored in all of this is the state of Rhode Island which has, for years, essentially had and enforced a state law that is almost a mirror of the Arizona law.

But since suing a Northeastern Liberal state not on the border which doesn’t have the vote potential is not politically advantageous we’ll just ignore it. They aren’t a big enough score.

We want spectacle. We want intimidation. We want FEAR! 🙂

The Empire has Spoken!

They have, in a very short time, turned the Department of Justice into the Department of Agendas, injecting an agenda driven politics into an area where it should never, ever be allowed. The result is a perversion of law and the breaking of a centuries old promise in our social contract.(examiner)

But if the end justifies the means, go for it! 🙂

And you have groups and the Attorney General just waiting for any whiff or any atom of any angstrom of “racial profiling” at 12:01am July 29th.

The attorney general, speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week in an interview aired on CBS on Sunday, said the pre-emption argument was the stronger attack against the law. But he said if the law does go into effect despite the suit, the Justice Department will watch and see whether profiling is taking place.

“If that was the case, we would have the tools, and we would bring suit on that basis,” he said.

So do I think that by 12:02am on July 29th there will be a lawsuit alledging “racial profiling”?

Yes.

But I’m a cynic of the highest order.

I think that the ACLU, LA Raza, and other groups will try there darnedest to set-up the police and then scream “racial profiling” even if it doesn’t exist. And they will do it each and every day.

Because, that’s what liberals do.

They lawyer you to death.

They beat you into submission with Lawyers.

That’s why we so many problems caused by lawyers.

Former U.S. Attorney General and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Edwin Meese addressed overcriminalization in his introduction to “One Nation Under Arrest.”  Meese writes:

America is in the throes of overcriminalization: We are making and enforcing far too many criminal laws that create traps for the innocent, but unwary, and that threaten to make criminals out of those who are doing their best to be respectable, law-abiding citizens

Last night on Fox Business, reporter John Stossel had a program about this problem:

The show focuses on the destruction that over-criminalization caused to average Americans Krister Evertson and George and Kathy Norris.

Krister, an Eagle Scout with no criminal record – not even a single traffic ticket, was initially arrested by four FBI agents wearing black SWAT gear and pointing automatic rifles at him because he didn’t know that obscure federal regulations required him to put a certain sticker on his otherwise lawful UPS package.  After spending 21 months in an Oregon federal prison, Krister today lives by himself in a ramshackle aluminum trailer sitting on the fenced-in grounds of a construction company’s equipment yard.  Because he is on parole, he is not allowed even to move to Alaska – where he was arrested – to live with his 80-year-old mother whom he used to care for.

George Norris, a 63-year-old retiree with diabetes and heart problems, had no criminal record the day armed agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (?!) ransacked his house looking for evidence that he had imported endangered orchids for his home-based business. Although the feds found no evidence of illegal orchids, Norris spent 17 months in prison – including over 10 weeks in solitary confinement – because a small percentage of his paperwork was inaccurate.

And he went to prison because after spending his entire life savings, $100,000, he was advised to plead guilty so he could be sentenced to probation. Instead, he spent 17 months in a Federal Prison!

Imagine: A Gang member with tatooes on his eyeballs comes up to him, “whatcha in for?”

“I sold legal orchids without the proper paperwork”

“Man, you’re one dangerous dude!” 🙂

And there’s the food police, you know, the people who want to ban salt, fat, and pop, etc. because they are bad for you and you’re too incompetent to be responsible for yourself.

The Video: http://overcriminalized.com/Video.aspx

Also: “The Food Police” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZZgLmmtwRk

There shall be no cupcakes. No chocolate cake and no carrot cake. According to New York City’s latest regulations, not even zucchini bread makes the cut.

In an effort to limit how much sugar and fat students put in their bellies at school, the Education Department has effectively banned most bake sales, the lucrative if not quite healthy fund-raising tool for generations of teams and clubs.

The change is part of a new wellness policy that also limits what can be sold in vending machines and student-run stores, which use profits to help finance activities like pep rallies and proms.

Did you know that Girl Scouts are evil perveyers of obese-creating cookies??

They are pushers!

They are evil crack dealers of fat!!

Warning  Labels on Fast Food. A Skull and Cross Bones on your Big Mac perhaps?

A HazMat sticker on that Little Debbie Snack Cake?

A Heart attack sign on that plate of Nachos?

If you refuse to do what is right, then the government will be forced to come in and make you do it.

It’s in your best interest.

All those who believe they are born with free choice, need to take a few classes in marketing psychology to understand how limited their scope of personal freedom really is in today’s America. In fact, our free choice is really the freedom to choose between Pepsi and Coke, not freedom to choose a healthy lifestyle. There are too many psychological cues pushing the average Joe and Jane towards obesity – mostly cheap unhealthy fare available anywhere anytime. (fooducate blog)

Part of being free is being free to make bad choices, to take risks, and to bear the consequences. Part of being free is that you, personally, may decide what you eat or drink. It’s a liberty so elementary that our founders never even imagined that it would need protection, but today, it does.

To be sure, there are many costs associated with socialized health care, and some of the choices we make will certainly raise those costs. That’s one big reason why the nanny state is suddenly in the food business. But if we absolutely must have socialized health care — a point I don’t for a moment concede — then I’d prefer to pay a little bit extra and keep all my other liberties, thanks.(Cato Institute)

But liberals and their pit bull lawyers never give up that easily.

They are, after all, vastly superior in every way to you. You just don’t know it. And if you want disagree, well, meet Mr and Mrs Lawsuit!

San Francisco is banning pop in vending machines, but not Starbucks, as bad for you.

Much like the Financial Reform that just passed that heaps tons of regulations on the private sector, but says absolutely nothing about federally-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the real problem that is still out there.

But it make it look like they are “doing something” and it’s for “your own good”.

And if you want to complain that the government is not doing it’s job, and you want to do it or help them do it, shut up and sit down, they know better.

We’ll sue you for trying to do our job too.

So if you step on a federal law land mine or are arrested by the food police, it’s for your own good, citizen.

Want to take responsibility for yourself, NOT ALLOWED.

That’s the government’s job.

We are are from the government and we are here to protect your from yourself!

Bow to your Masters or else!

Rejoice Citizen. 🙂

The Right Direction

As a follow-up to my earlier post on employment and stimulus, here’s a chart of what may be the most significant data on the topic.  Barack Obama claims that the unemployment rate dropping from 9.7% to 9.5% shows that we’re moving in the right direction economically — but that data doesn’t include those who have left the workforce out of discouragement.  They have no jobs and have given up looking for another due to economic conditions, according to the categorization by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  This chart shows the direction in which our economic policies have taken the US:

(numbers in thousands)

These represent the gross numbers of able-bodied workers outside the workforce and no longer looking for jobs.  The red star indicated when Barack Obama’s stimulus was passed, and we can see the effects or lack thereof on the workforce afterward.  Not only has the unemployment rate gone up and the number of jobs continued to drop since February 2009, Americans are increasingly leaving the workforce instead of joining it.

In what universe does this show “the right direction”?(hotair.com)

The Liberal spin universe that’s who!

The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

This month’s U6 unemployment number? Down from 16.6% in May to 16.5% in June.

Remember, though, that even the U6 is a government manipulated number, so we need to look a little bit deeper to see what the REAL unemployment rate is in America.

John Williams of Shadow Stats runs the numbers each month, and according to his most recent report, we’re actually hovering at around 21.5%. According to Williams, this is how the Shadow Stats “SGS Alternative” is calculated:

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

Williams’ unemployment numbers are more than double what Washington is telling us.(BIN)

June Unemployment

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

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF

Website to see: http://bordersheriffs.com/

July 15, 2010 – A non-partisan, non-profit organization – The Legacy Foundation – has agreed to raise money and provide legal defense to assist Arizona county sheriffs Paul Babeu and Larry Dever defend themselves against pro-amnesty interest groups and federal government lawsuits filed to prevent Arizona law enforcement officials from implementing SB1070, Arizona’s new illegal immigration law and to explore potential counter-litigation.

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever

Dever’s county borders Mexico. Babeu’s county is a major corridor for human and drug smuggling. Both men are strong 1070 advocates, having served on the frontlines of the illegal immigration crisis and defended the American border against the stream of illegal-immigration-fueled criminal activity passing through their counties daily, for more than a decade. Dever’s Cochise County is largely considered Ground Zero for illegal immigration and its related crime, including the murder of rancher Robert Krentz.
Babeu and Dever have retained prominent Conservative Attorney Jordan Rose and her firm, Rose Law Group pc, to defend the Sheriff’s Offices against federal litigation and explore any/all opportunities to countersue the federal government.
“We are grateful to be able to provide the Sheriffs with the most aggressive and creative legal counsel as the lives of their men and women are on the line each day trying to enforce our laws,” Rose said.
The announcement was made today on a radio show hosted by Jim Sharpe on 550 KFYI in Phoenix. Sharpe has been a long-standing defender of 1070 and a caller’s suggestion on his show was the genesis of the fund. Sharpe has explored the hypocrisy of the federal government suing a state over a law that mirrors its own – with added safeguards against racial profiling that the federal law doesn’t include.
Funding for the legal defense will be provided by the Legacy Foundation an Iowa-based, non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) that views Arizona ’s SB1070 debate as a national issue. Donations can be made at www.BorderSheriffs.com.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu

The Offices of Cochise County Sheriff Dever and Pinal County Sheriff Babeu are named personally in the lawsuit recently filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. These Sheriffs stand on the front lines of the border crisis given their patrol areas. And whereas the Arizona Governor is mounting a defense to recent litigation against the state, these men have been on the defensive for more than 30 years given a failed border-security and immigration program. They’ve declared it’s time to find a long-term resolution to this problem.
“I have spent 30 years defending this border against both criminal and economic attacks against the United States,” Dever said. “To sue my office, for defending this nation and our local, state and federal laws is despicable.”
Babeu added, “Inaction is not an option. Local law enforcement has long-successfully enforced local, state and federal laws. Carving an exception for immigration is unacceptable.”
Lawsuits filed against Arizona and its law enforcement officials stand to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. This defense will be funded not by already-tapped county coffers, but through private donations.

***********

A Now a Threat, from the guy who said he wouldn’t process Illegals caught by Arizona cops, ICE Director, John Morton:

RICHMOND, Va. —States should not follow Arizona’s lead and enact strict new Immigration laws because ridding the country of illegal immigrants is the federal government’s job, the director of the nation’s Immigration enforcement agency said Tuesday.

“As long as the federal government shows no interest in securing the border and no interest in internal enforcement to promote self-deportation, then states and localities will have to pick up the slack,” Prince William County Board of Supervisors chairman Corey A. Stewart said.

“Immigration  — the entry of people in and out of the country — is clearly a federal responsibility,” Morton said. (Chicago Tribune)

And clearly you don’t want to do your job! 😦

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

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

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

HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania joined eight other states on Wednesday in a legal brief supporting Arizona’s immigration law, just days after the Obama administration sued to block its enforcement.

“We believe the lawsuit filed by the federal government in this case undermines the constitutional authority of all our states,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, who is also the Republican gubernatorial nominee.

Also joining the brief filed on Wednesday were Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

Amidst protests and the federal government’s opposition to Arizona’s new immigration law, Utah, South Carolina and Oklahoma have begun to draft similar anti illegal immigration laws. Legislatures in these 3 states have previously taken steps to curtail illegal immigration and believe these laws have a good chance of passing during the 2011 session.

Utah is currently proposing legislation that softens the Arizona law by requiring its law enforcement to have probable cause, rather than the lesser reasonable suspicion, before stopping and questioning someone they suspect of being illegal. Utah passed a law last year making it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers.

Oklahoma is considering furthering the Arizona law by allowing the state to seize the property of businesses that knowingly employ illegals. Oklahoma has previously passed legislation making it illegal to knowingly transport or shelter illegal immigrants and has blocked illegals from obtaining a drivers license or in-state tuition.

South Carolina is considering a bill that would closely reflect the Arizona law. They previously passed laws making it illegal to harbor or transport illegal immigrants and forcing businesses to check the immigration status of all workers.

Eric Holder is going to busy not reading these laws too and then suing these states as well.

Maybe they can just sue every legal American. 🙂

After all:

Washington Post political columnist Dana Milbank recently wrote a column about Arizona’s response to illegal immigration and called it a “pariah state.” However, voters nationwide are far more worried about the nation’s Political Class than about Arizona’s response to illegal immigration.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of voters are embarrassed by Arizona and its behavior. Sixty-two percent (62%) are not.

However, 59% are embarrassed by the nation’s Political Class and its behavior. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not.

Overall, by a three-to-one margin, voters see the Political Class as a greater threat to the nation than laws like the one passed recently in Arizona. Sixty-four percent (64%) see the Political Class as the bigger threat, while 20% say the opposite.

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

But what do the people know. The Political Class is vastly superior… 🙂

Will the State Defendent Please Rise

Statement by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

PHOENIX – “Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona.  It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law.  As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels.  Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.  Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.  These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.

“The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional.  It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades.  Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws.  Despite the Department of Justice’s claims in paragraph 62 of today’s lawsuit, Arizona is not trying ‘to establish its own immigration policy’ or ‘directly regulate the immigration status of aliens.’  Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(E) states that the federal government, along with local law enforcement officers authorized by the federal government, can only determine an alien’s immigration status.   Subsection (L) of that same section goes on to state that the law ‘shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration.’

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

“The best thing government can do is to create a stable, predictable environment, governed by an easily understood set of rules or laws. We do not need to make this more complicated than it already is.  We must first and foremost create a secure border. Enhanced trade, economic opportunity and freedom will surely follow.

“I am pleased that President Obama and the Department of Justice did not pursue the baseless claims of illegal racial profiling in the lawsuit.   When signing S.B. 1070, I said, ‘My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.’ Arizona’s law expressly prohibits unconstitutional racial profiling.  However, words are not enough.  For this reason, I ordered the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to develop training on the new law for Arizona’s police officers.   AZPOST has completed the training course and has published it for the all world to see at http://www.azpost.state.az.us/SB1070infocenter.htm.  AZPOST has done its job professionally and served Arizona well.

“I will not stop fighting to protect the citizens of Arizona, and to defend Arizonans in federal court.  I have set up a legal defense fund to pay the substantial legal fees that Arizona has been, and will be, forced to incur as a result of all of these lawsuits.  Contributions to the Border Security and Immigration Defense Fund can be made at http://www.keepazsafe.com.  My legal team will not hesitate to assert the rights of the State of Arizona in this matter.  Arizona will ultimately prevail against the lawsuits – including this latest assault by the Obama Administration. Our laws will be found to be constitutional – because that is exactly what they are.”

So the President is playing politics with National Security.

The Dept. of Justice that dropped the Black Panther case because of race politics, is now suing Arizona for race politics.

Politics. Politics. Politics.

The exploitation of Illegal aliens reaches a new low.

“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” US Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.

Arizona, the Justice Department said, “crossed a constitutional line.”

However, he added, “diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country’s safety.”

Yeah, stopping them coming across a porous border is definitely “diverting”!! 😦

“The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,” Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement.

The real problem is that BOTH parties are not interested in securing the border, for different reasons, but neither wants to do it.

But only the Democrats and this President wants to sue a State to prevent anyone from doing something about it!

So the federal government will use taxpayers money to sue taxpayers for wanting security.

America, what a country!

“The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests,” the suit says.

<<WHERE’S MY BARF BAG!!>>

The lawsuit goes on to say that a “state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

So if the government wants to ignore national security and border security you aren’t allowed to do anything about it!

We are from the Government and we are here to protect you! 🙂

That is, if you’re politically advantageous to us, or we want to pander to you.

Otherwise, screw you!

When U.S. cities and even entire states declare themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens, they act outside the law, and by their actions could be charged with a felony for each violation of federal law by “concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens” (8 U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325; Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275).
Funny that President Obama and Eric Holder have no problem with “sanctuary” cities encroaching on immigration policy and enforcement.

It’s all Politics, all the time.

We, the Government, aren’t going to do anything about the Border, but you’re not allowed to do anything about it either!

So much for Protect from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Only if they are perceived to be politically advantageous to us.

Doesn’t that make you feel safer! 🙂

Covering Their Fannie (and Freddie)

Keep in Mind that the Financial Reform Bill, which is now in some trouble, is written largely by Sen. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. The people who brought you the subprime mess to begin with their insistence on subprime mortgages for people who couldn’t even afford those.

But we were discriminating against the poor!

Oh No! We can’t have that!

Everyone must be equal! 🙂

Subprime Scandal: Missing from stories about finance reform is what Democrats left out of it: a fix for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which continue to bleed billions.

Nor has it been explained why the two mortgage giants at the heart of the housing crisis were excluded. A little research, however, provides answers. Many of the Senate and House conferees who assembled the final overhaul bill are among the biggest recipients of cash from Fannie and Freddie, which over the years have been plagued by Democrat cronyism and corruption.

Some of the Hill’s biggest protectors of the toxic twins and their market-distorting “affordable housing” mission landed key positions as conferees on the panel that wrote the final draft of the bank reform legislation. For example, conference committee leaders Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., respectively raked in more than $133,000 and $40,000 in donations from Fannie and Freddie, Federal Election Commission records show.

The two lawmakers, in turn, have been the congressional chartered companies’ staunchest defenders. Leading up to the housing meltdown, Dodd insisted time and again — despite growing evidence to the contrary — that Fannie and Freddie were “fundamentally strong” and “in good shape.”

Frank maintained that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,” Frank griped, “the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

To satisfy such politically mandated lending goals, Washington-based Fannie and Freddie loaded up on subprime and other high-risk home loans. Their exposure was greater than all the major Wall Street players combined. And now they’re insolvent, with taxpayers potentially on the hook for as much as $1 trillion.

Already Fannie and Freddie’s $160 billion government bailout has topped that spent on AIG, Citigroup and other Democrat poster boys of the crisis, making their rescue the mother of all bailouts.

We can’t think of two entities more deserving of overhaul. Yet the Dodd-Frank Act doesn’t even try to reform them. This means nothing will change except the size of government’s hand in the economy. By not addressing Fannie and Freddie, economist Brian Wesbury noted “the government is taking no blame for the subprime crisis and is demanding more power over the U.S. financial system.”

Several other conferees instrumental in keeping Fannie and Freddie exempt from the new financial rules also show up among the top beneficiaries of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash (see table).

President Obama and top aide Rahm Emanuel also ranked among top recipients of Fannie and Freddie gifts when they were in Congress. From the White House, they lobbied Congress for a financial overhaul and got 90% of what they asked — including a pass for Fannie and Freddie, where Emanuel once served as director.

Their private piggy bank for “social justice” — which they used to provide high-risk loans that otherwise were out of reach for constituents — remains safe from promised “sweeping reform.”

In the ultimate insult, the two lawmakers most deserving of blame for the financial crisis carry the name of the legislation that supposedly will deliver us from financial crisis. The villains are, according to the media, the white knights riding in to save us from the havoc they caused. A more sinister script could not have been written. (IBD)

Unless you’re an elitist Democrat who has complete contempt for “the people” and are only out there to push your agenda and nothing else.

But don’t worry, we’re from the government and we are here to help you!! 🙂

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: A PREVIEW

Anyone wanting a preview of Obama-Care need just focus on Massachusetts, the state that provided the blueprint for Obama’s plan. It makes a great case for making haste in repealing ObamaCare.

In Massachusetts, health care prices are out of control, emergency rooms are overcrowded, the government is at war with itself and private insurers are running in the red, refusing to enter critical markets on the government’s unrealistic terms.

The party line now is that the Bay State’s reform was not about cost control but rather expanding access to care. The program’s backers claim that the price spiral they find themselves in was expected, anticipated, even if they didn’t actually have a plan for it.

That’s a revisionist’s tale. In early 2006, the plan’s backers — led by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney — adamantly asserted that his plan would in fact control costs, provide universal coverage and improve the quality of care. (If this sounds familiar, it’s because Obama’s team borrowed the marketing scripts.)

Disinterested outsiders predicted that both prices and total costs would most likely increase under the government-dominated system, since massive new demand, reimbursed at the lowest prices, would be forced on a fixed supply. They were shouted down by insiders vested in getting the reform passed.

Guess who was right? 🙂

Three years prior to reform, insurance premiums for employers were increasing 3.7% more slowly in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country.  Today, the opposite is true.  Prices in Massachusetts are increasing 5.7% more than in other states. In Boston, prices for employer-provided family plans are increasing 8.2% faster than in other large metropolitan areas.

“Because the plan’s main components are the same as those of the new health reform law,” the study’s authors note, “the effects of the plan provide a window onto the country’s future.”

But it’s “fair”. 🙂

******

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION & BORDER SECURITY

While President Obama was meeting at the White House with The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other Hispanic activists, he sent a Power Point presentation that said virtually nothing to Gov. Brewer.

Now he’s going to make a Campaign Speech tonight on it.

I know I’m excited! 😦

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama hopes to rally new momentum behind the push for an immigration overhaul by explaining why he thinks a comprehensive approach is the only way to fix what he and others say is a system badly in need of repair.

(aka Sen. Jon Kyl’s “hostage” comment) Do it my way, that benefits me or not at all.

Obama was laying out his rationale in a {Campaign} speech Thursday, his first as president on the issue.

Obama wasn’t expected to announce any new proposals or policy changes. But feeling pressure from a range of supporters, he was aiming to jump-start the effort he had promised to make a priority in his first year and which advocates had hoped would be completed by now.

aka “Amnesty”.

The speech follows up on back-to-back meetings Obama had with advocates and lawmakers at the White House this week.

Gov. Brewer got 20 minutes crammed into the schedule at the last minute and then a Power Point presentation nearly a month later. 😦

Obama has said a comprehensive solution means “accountability for everybody” — from the U.S. government meeting its obligation to secure the border, to businesses facing the consequences of knowingly employing illegal immigrants, to those who enter the country illegally owning up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.

Has anyone told Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who a week ago put out a PSA saying if your Illegal and being treated or paid unfairly to giver her a call and The US Dept. of Labor would help you out??

Recent developments on immigration influenced his decision to give a speech, White House officials say, most notably Arizona’s enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and protests across the country against it.

“He thought this was a good time to talk plainly with the American people about his views on immigration,” spokesman Bill Burton said.

Talk Plainly, Obama? Now that’s a novel idea.

Is he even capable of that?

NO.

Oh, and there’s that pesky LAWSUIT against SB1070. You know the one where we are “racists” and “misguided”. 😦

So this is a campaign ploy.

As everything else is.

He looks tough.

He panders to his base.

The Ministry of Truth slobber all over him.

Liberal go all mushy.

Then nothing happens.

But it looks good.

And he wants “to do something”. Or at least look and sound like it.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing!  (Richard III)


Familiarity Breeds

“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

Financial Reform is done.

Sound familiar?

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.– House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties, 3/9/10

A brother of the Same Mother(f*kers!)

And having one of the architect of this the mess ‘fix’ it feels me with confidence, especially when he is not running for re-election.

********

Now for comedy you can’t make up:

Community activist Elena Herrada speaking on a panel discussion at the US Social Forum in Detroit, MI yesterday – compares the border patrol to the KKK. Herrada encouraged her audience to not sit next to border patrol officers in restaurants, asking, “Would you sit next to the Ku Klux Klan if they were sitting in a restaurant with a hood on over their head?” She continued, “There is no place for border patrol in our community, they have no good intentions. So when you see them refuse to sit with them, refuse to eat with them, pretend like they are the menace that they are.

Mind you, there is a foreign country just across the not-that-wide Detroit River, it’s Called CANADA!! so the only real Border Patrol she’s likely to see is at the Bridge going over to Windsor! 🙂

******

More Comedy:

From 620-WTMJ

MILWAUKEE – The Milwaukee County Board spent part of the day debating a measure that would call for the county to boycott doing business with companies in Arizona.

Communities around the nation have passed similar measures in response to a law in Arizona that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
There was an odd moment during the debate when Supervisor Peggy West stood up and seemed to be confused about her geography.  “If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this.  But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border,” West said during debate.


Her colleague, Joe Rice, quickly corrected her, “I just want to assure my colleague that Arizona does in fact share a border with the country of Mexico.”

WELCOME TO LIBERAL EDUCATION.

And, you have a foreign border just north of you too, it’s called CANADA!!

“I did get a passing grade in Geography in high school and in college and I do obviously know that Arizona is on the border,” West said in an interview after today’s meeting.

Oh Really? Are you sure about that?

Maybe they just “deemed” it.

The board tabled the measure, taking no action on it today.

The Video:

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html

*******

NOW IT’S THE STATE’S TURN:

Dozens of California lawmakers are pushing to make their state the first in the nation to impose an across-the-board boycott on Arizona over its immigration law — though the state’s largest city just voted to selectively scale back its boycott after local lawmakers realized it could backfire.

The Democratic state lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled a resolution that would impose several restrictions against Arizona. The measure calls for California to issue a travel advisory on visits to its eastern neighbor, halt state investment there and urge Major League Baseball to reconsider letting the state host the 2011 All-Star Game.

Though dozens of cities and organizations have voiced their opposition to Arizona’s law by instituting bans on employee travel, canceling conventions in the state and threatening to pull contracts, California would be the first state to do so.

Sen. Gil Cedillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the proposal, said the Arizona law “undermines fundamental civil rights and civil liberties.”

He said it poses a “special threat to people of color” who live and travel through Arizona.

Though Arizona officials argue that the boycotts do little to change policy and only hurt businesses and workers in the state, proponents of the policies say they passed them out of concern over racial profiling.

However, the Los Angeles City Council — one of the cities leading the charge against Arizona — just backed off part of its boycott because it didn’t want to cut ties with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections and generated $6 million for the city last year.

The metropolis had previously banned most city travel to Arizona, as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. That kind of policy has since been replicated by other city governments.

But council members decided to make an exception on Wednesday, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale.

“The boycott never intended to impede public safety,” Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon said during a meeting Wednesday.

Just mature, rational, logical thinking! 🙂

*******

NOW IT’S THE FEDS TURN

Two federal agencies have denied U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ charge they are boycotting Arizona because of SB 1070. The congresswoman earlier this week chastised the Border Patrol and the Department of Education for canceling scheduled events.

Border Patrol officials say they did not cancel any Arizona events, according to a statement issued by the agency’s public-affairs office in Washington, D.C.

The Border Patrol’s parent agency “has not canceled any conferences in Arizona. We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case,” the statement says.

The Education Department says it moved a joint event with Mexican and Canadian attendees at the request of the Mexicans, The Associated Press reported. However, the Education Department said it still plans to hold other upcoming conferences in Arizona.

Giffords’ office stands by its news release, said C.J. Karamargin, Giffords’ spokesman. “Meetings were scheduled, meetings were canceled and the reason was SB 1070,” he said.

Giffords is an Arizona Democrat opposed to SB-1070!! 🙂

Ever since U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed – apparently prematurely – that the Justice Department would be bringing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial new immigration law, we’ve all been watching anxiously for the DOJ’s official filing.

That was almost a week ago, and Justice is still saying they are “reviewing” the possibility.

Well, this may be the reason for the delay:

Arizona Democrats, with tough re-election battles looming, have urged the Obama administration not to sue the state over its controversial immigration job.

The Hill reported yesterday that Democratic congressman Harry Mitchell has sent President Obama a “sharply worded letter” urging him to call off plans for Justice to sue his state. Two other House Dems, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick, are also calling for Obama to back off of SB 1070.

The problem, it seems, is that widespread support for the law among Arizonians has caused trouble for AZ Dems in tough reelection battles. Republican opponents have been turning up the heat, painting the Democrats as unsupportive of the law and soft on illegal immigration. In an effort to respond to this tactic, Dems have tried to avoid mentioning SB 1070 while talking up the need for immigration reform and increased border security. If Justice brings suit, the election rhetoric will necessarily be once again focused on the law itself.

Mitchell’s letter seems to strike a distinctly Republican tone:

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.” (Blue Wave news)

Strange bedfellows indeed!

***********

Notice in this next one, Border Security is  not only not mentioned it’s not even referenced:

WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Thursday marked what they called a “milestone” of 100 co-sponsors for a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Flanked by a group of immigrants from across the country, Democratic lawmakers said at a news conference that achieving 100 co-sponsors shows the immigration bill has the momentum necessary to become law.

The bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. House members are wary of facing voters in November who are split on what to do about immigration. Arizona’s controversial immigration law is adding considerable fuel to the fire.

The Arizona law requires law-enforcement officers, while stopping someone for another reason, to check immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the U.S. illegally. It also makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime.

At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas – who along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduced the federal immigration bill last December – said the legislation is not an “amnesty bill” for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that it would not grant citizenship without punishment.

Rather, he said the bill would create a system that “is tough on enforcement, fair to taxpayers, and enforceable.”

The House bill would increase the number of green cards available and would create a program for illegal immigrants and their families giving them semi-legal status for six years if they learned English and U.S. civics.

The program also would require applicants to pay a fine of $500 and undergo a background check. The bill also would increase border security.

“Never have I seen the division that I see today and the hate that I see today,” Ortiz said in reference to the Arizona law, which barring any legal action will go into effect next month. “But people are beginning to understand the necessity of passing this important comprehensive immigration reform bill.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said in the past, however, that she would not bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor until the Senate has passed its own version.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, called the climate surrounding the immigration issue “hostile” and added that not passing a comprehensive immigration measure would be the “BP oil spill of not doing the right thing.”

The Democrats’ immigration proposal, Jackson Lee said, “is going to save this nation.” (AZ Daily Star)

Still believe any time a Democrat is talking about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that it’s not AMNESTY and has nothing at all to do with Border Security?

And still don’t believe Jon Kyl when he said that Obama was going to hold Border Security hostage to the Agenda?

I would hope not.

Secure in the Knowledge

Ecuador?

Really?

Ecuador?

PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday she’s angry over comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the Obama administration will sue the state over its new immigration law.

In a June 8 media interview in Ecuador that began circulating Thursday in the U.S., Clinton said President Barack Obama thinks the federal government should determine immigration policy and that the Justice Department “will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler on Thursday declined to say whether the department would sue and that “the department continues to review the law.”

The department has been looking at the law for weeks for possible civil rights violations, with an eye toward a possible court challenge.

It’s unclear why Clinton made the comment since it’s not her area. She couldn’t be reached Thursday for comment.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Obama and Clinton have both made it clear that the administration opposes the law.

“I will defer to the Justice Department on the legal steps that are available and where they stand on the review of the law,” Crowley said. “The secretary believes that comprehensive immigration reform is a better course of action.”

Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement that “this is no way to treat the people of Arizona.”

“To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous,” she said. “If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

Someone is going to be taken out to the Chicago Woodshed for this one!

Two Weeks ago when Obama was forced to meet with Governor Brewer he said he’d send his people to Arizona to meet with her about the situation and tell her what he planned to do.

No surprise, Nothing happened.

Greta Van Sustern: Joining us by phone is Arizona governor Jan Brewer. Good evening, Governor. And before we get to the question whether or not the president’s kept his word on his two weeks he’ll give you information, tell me, have you heard anything about whether or not the Justice Department has made a decision to sue Arizona over your new statute?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ. (Via telephone): No, we have not! What a disappointment! You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing.

Only if you actually expected something to happen.

I know I didn’t.

Your Government is so good that they have hung signs up in southern Arizona that say for Americans not to tread here because it’s unsafe!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05PjLi7-i9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-gUGBssZc

So we are from the Government and we are here to keep you safe! 🙂

And speaking of the government keeping you safe…

Coast Guard Orders Barges to Stop

So why stop now?

“The Coast Guard came and shut them down,” Jindal said. “You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, ‘Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'”

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

“We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil,” said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Louisiana Governor Couldn’t Overrule Coast Guard

The governor said he didn’t have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard’s decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

“They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible,” he said. But “every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer.”

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.(ABC)

He had to wait three weeks while a half dozen bureaucracies go their fingers in pie to study the environmental impact of building berms.

What about the impact of the OIL?!!

Whoops!

And this government is the one you want running Health Care??!!!

God Help us All!

Fifty-nine days into the crisis, it still can be tough to figure out who is in charge in Louisiana, and the problem appears to be the same in other Gulf Coast states.

In Alabama today, Gov. Bob Riley said that he’s had problems with the Coast Guard, too.

Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean booms tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline.

The Coast Guard went all the way to Bahrain to find it, but when it came time to deploy it?

“It was picked up and moved to Louisiana,” Riley said today.

The governor said the problem is there’s still no single person giving a “yes” or “no.” While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard’s command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“It’s like this huge committee down there,” Riley said, “and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power.”(ABC)

But don’t worry, President Obama is on it!

Obama in his Campaign Speech: ” As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn’t working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.”

Just like he was open to new ideas from Republicans during the Health Care “debate” 🙂

Just don’t ask The Coast Guard, NOAA, the EPA, because you’ll have to wait until they get their bureaucratic heads out of their collective asses!

But National Health Care will be great and wonderful, just wait and see!

We are from the government and we are here to keep you safe & protected.

Rejoice!

The April Fools

The Cone of Silence is being lowered.

The government takeover of Health Care is no longer to be discussed openly.

If we don’t talk about it, enough people will forget about it by November.

“My assumption is that this is going to wash out. It’s just not going to be that central (to the election). If anything, it might turn out to be a net plus for the Democrats,” said Joel Aberbach, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Fifth Column/Mainstream Media/Ministry of Truth will beat the drum that it’s no big deal, nothing to see, it’s the law, get over it.

Not worth debating. (which it wasn’t before it was passed either).

They will diminish it.

You’re just a bitter old right winger if you continue complaining it about.

“We Won. You Lost” get over it.

But we will talk about it as little as possible.

Let the fire die of neglect.

Then I read this from David Broder:

Most Republicans I have talked with say they are convinced that their outnumbered legislators have done the right thing by denying virtually all their votes to Obama and using every device possible to slow down or derail his agenda.

Most of the Democrats I interviewed are just as certain that the folks in the White House and the speaker’s office were justified in pushing the health care bill ahead to final passage in the face of polls showing most voters were opposed.

But the partisanship on both sides was itself a turnoff to independents.

They were the people who had taken Obama seriously when he said he wanted to move Washington beyond the recriminations of the George W. Bush years.

Regardless of their views on health care — or the economy or education or anything else — they are turned off by the inability of both parties to overcome their parochial concerns and find agreement on steps to curb the joblessness and debt that are consuming the country. (IBD)

And I got to thinking about the coming court fight over ObamaCare and my concern that Liberal Judges will dismiss it out of hand, like many liberal Democrat Attorney Generals do just because they are Liberals.

Not because of legal merit, but because of ideology.

We have a new Political structure in this country.

We have Homo Sapien Liberalis and Homo Sapien Non-Liberalis.

And Homo Sapien Liberalis will not go against it’s own kind.

So it’s not merely that you have to defeat them in November, you have to defeat them in every election on every level, every time.

Otherwise, they’ll keep popping up like the weeds in my backyard.

And you are the fool to think otherwise.

The days of actual bi-partisanship are gone.

Homo Sapien Liberalis doesn’t work that way.

And if they are in power and you oppose them, they will try and crush you, destroy you, diminish, demean and disrespect you.

You are, after all, a mental defective for disagreeing with them.

After their victory in the Health Care fight, what have they done since?

Gone on full bore attack on the Tea Party activist. Full on.

And the Fifth Column is right there with them.

Think I’m kidding: Read this from the Leftist Huffington Post:

Is there a double standard going on here? Surely there is. But what is worse is that the way that Tea Baggers and the Republican leaders frame the issue is that anyone who “stands up” and “protests” the Obama administration is a patriot, but anyone who does the same to a Republican is a spoiler, a low life, and a possible traitor.

When Republicans in Congress heckle the president or other legislators, they model the kind of behavior that degenerates further into the kind of violence the young heckler at the McCain rally experienced. When Republicans do not stand up for the right to express one’s opinion regardless of party, they enforce a kind of group-think that can only harm freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has defended the right of citizens to engage in robust and raucous colloquy. That ruling applies not only to Tea Party protesters but to all Americans as well. (Lennard Davis-Professor at University of Illinois-Chicago)

The poor leftists are victims of the mean, nasty “violent”, Free speech crushing right-wingers! Waaaaa!!

The nerve of those oppressive Tea party activists! 😦

And the whole “racism” angle is back.

The Left’s favourite pit bull is being let out into the yard again.

Frank Rich of The New York Times and Colbert King of The Washington Post are among the columnists willingly checking their honesty – or their brains – at the door to throw political mud. Either these people are too ignorant to know their charges or false, or they don’t care and spit their bile anyway.

King wrote last week of looking at “angry faces” at Tea Party rallies and finding them “eerily familiar,” resembling protesters seeking to prevent a black University of Alabama enrollee in 1956.

Rich peppered his column with Third Reich imagery, eventually backing up his claim of racism with comparisons to those who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Leaving aside for the moment that much opposition to that measure came from Democrats, it cannot be said plainly enough today: These men and their numerous partners in this smear should be ashamed – if nothing else, for logical flaws beneath a fifth-grader.

Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.

OK, boys, let’s see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.

Logic and basic human decency prevent me from making that connection seriously. I would like to believe that if these craven critics actually attended a Tea Party event, their testimony would change. But I doubt it. Theirs is a screeching born of panic, the need to demonize a movement rather than debate it. (Mark Davis)

So it’s fight between two species both fighting for survival.

But to illustrate the problem, this was found in the Comment Section of Mark Davis’s Op-ed piece:

Yesterday, the University of Washington held a debate about the constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform bill. The Seattle Times reports that none of the panelists at the debate argued that the bill was unconstitutional because the organizers of the event couldn’t find any law professors who held that view:

The University of Washington billed it as a debate among distinguished law faculty over whether the new federal health-care law is constitutional.

But while the four panelists at a packed event Tuesday may have differed on some of the finer points, they all agreed on the big question: They said the new law passes constitutional muster and that various lawsuits arguing the opposite — including the one joined last week by state Attorney General Rob McKenna — have little merit or chance of success. Even John McKay, the former Republican U.S. attorney for Western Washington (who was forced out in 2006 under contentious circumstances) said that while he sympathized with some of the political issues in play, he thought the lawsuits lacked merit. In fact, he questioned the timing and thrust of the cases: “One way to say it is, that this has to be seen as a political exercise,” he said.

Moderator Hugh Spitzer noted the lack of a vigorous dissenting voice. “I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional,” he said. “But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand.”

My guess is that they either didn’t look hard enough, didn’t care to look to hard, or that no one wanted to be the Christian thrown to the lions in a Liberal Coliseum to shreded by the panel and the liberal audience.

The fact that they held a “debate” anyways, with the other side being debated at all is indicative of Homo Sapien Liberalis.

The Liberals smugly went on with the show confident that they are right simply because they “couldn’t find anyone” to oppose them.

Which I’m positive is disingenuous at best.

It’s not like Homo Sapien Liberalis is actually capable to listening to arguments against it’s own positions and changing their minds.

No, that would be a Jedi Mind Trick. And they must stay strong.

They are after all, always right. No Matter what.

Just ask them.

Hope and Change, you say.

Bi-Partisanship, you say.

Freedom and Democracy, you say.

I say APRIL FOOLS!

Only, you’re a fool to believe the Left anymore.