Saturday, July 24, 2010


The federal case against the state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over SB1070 has officially begun.  The feds are busily arguing their case, citing the Constitution's supremacy clause.  This is the crux of the Holder DoJ's case.  They argued racism in the press, but have chosen to go with what they considered to be the more solid argument of preemption in court.

Preemption means that the state of Arizona is allegedly stepping on federal toes with their immigration law.  The feds are arguing SB1070 is unconstitutional because federal law overrides it, according to the supremacy clause; they further assert that only the federal government is capable of and lawfully allowed to pursue immigration enforcement.  It seems the judge, Susan Bolton, is having a hard time reconciling that line of attack (via the Washington Post):

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

The DoJ's stance that immigration enforcement is strictly the purview of the federal government was their primary argument today:

"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom.
The state pushed back on this assumption:
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."

Mr. Kneedler also argued that the law is detrimental to foreign relations:

He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said

Brewer's lawyer, Mr. Bouma, shrugged off the foreign policy claims:

"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."
Today marked the opening salvo on this highly charged issue, but there is no doubt there will be more to come.  Although the judge seems to be questioning the main point of the federal case, it doesn't mean Arizona and Brewer have won yet. 

It is, however, a promising start for the beleaguered state.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010


The Obama administration is in the midst of a series of crises that all have something in common.  They are all gushers, and the administration is slow to react and ineffective with all of them.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the most physical  representation of this premise. The Obama administration was responsible for coordinating the cleanup and working with BP in partnership to deal with the disaster, while allowing BP to fix the well as quickly as possible (preferably with the help of a panel of industry experts, not congressmen).  Instead, he waited a ridiculously long time -  a month - to address the nation about the disaster, dragged his feet on requests by governors of the affected states and waited almost two months to talk to the heads of BP - on day 58, to be exact.  To make things worse, instead of working in partnership with BP to solve the problem and expedite the cleanup, the administration threatened litigation, demanded huge sums of money and demonized the company and the industry to the public in an attempt to garner support for their pet eco-legislation.  And here we are, more than 80 days later, and the oil is still gushing, the press are blocked from reporting accurately and the people are suffering.  The oil is still creeping towards our shores and the response has been sporadic and anemic.  It has been nearly three months - there should be a synchronized, well organized response worked out, but there isn't.  It seems sometimes that the primary objective of the administration is litigation and moratoriums, not making things right on the ground, where it counts.

Which brings us to our next political gusher.  Jobs.  There just doesn't seem to be any relief in sight, even with a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package, a huge increase in budgetary spending. and all sorts of porky little goodies in a myriad of other legislative actions.  The administration is trying to sell the public that they are pro-business, but the fear in the business sector over increased upcoming regulations and taxation and the demonization of corporate america tells a different story.  The drilling moratorium they are trying to force through the judicial system (they're on their third attempt already) seems to be more about scoring political points with their base, but will probably do more harm than good if successful, since there are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line - in a recession, in states that are already in deep distress from the loss of the fishing industry and tourism.  Every month we are told that we have turned the corner, and things are getting better.  But when the unemployment number dropped from 9.7% to 9.5% recently, it wasn't because of an increase in jobs, it was because over 500,000 people have given up and dropped out of the workforce.  That is not a victory. 

The third political gusher is the deficit/debt.  This country is hemorrhaging money at an alarming pace.  For every issue that has come up, the administration's answer seems to have been throwing enormous sums of money at it.  We are being burdened with new legislation that is going to cost north of a trillion dollars and wasted ten economically devastating months  The $835 billion stimulus was a bust, and so they have put forward a new whatever-you-want-to-call-it-just-so-its-not-'stimulus' bill, arguing that they just didn't go big enough the first time.  Really?  Nearly a trillion dollars wasn't enough?  The experts are advising an immediate end to spending or there is a possibility of a major crash.  Instead they are trying to pour more money into the system like it's going out of style, and, at best, we are stagnating; at worst we are going over a cliff.

The fourth gusher is in Arizona, where they have been plagued by a flood of illegal immigrants.  Most of the illegals are peaceful, hardworking people who just want a better life, but there is are many that are not, and they are wreaking havok on the state.  Above and beyond that, the peaceful illegals are still a burden on the state - a state that is facing a budget deficit of over a billion dollars this year and more than three billion next year.  The biggest problem, though, is that the mexican drug cartels have moved in with a vengeance.  The administration's response to the situation has been to sue the state over their immigration enforcement legislation and to put up signs declaring portions of the state to be too dangerous for americans.  Because nothing says 'effective governance' like forfeiting sovereignty of 80 miles of American land.  Obama has halted all building on a border fence and, although he has sent down national guard troops, it is woefully inadequate.  The administration seems content to allow things to continue as they have been, even though more and more americans are dying, and a major city, Phoenix, is becoming a violent no-man's land

For those who prefer to play the 'blame Bush' game, yes, many of these problems started under Bush. But the 2006 and 2008 elections were referendums against the Bush years. Obama and the democrat led congress ran on and were put in office specifically to change these things. The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same.  Or, in this case, get worse.

Which brings us to the final gusher.  This is the one that has been caused by all the others - the deluge of political fallout.  And boy, is it a doozy.  From the drop in approval to the sinking polls, it doesn't look good.  This administration seems to have forgotten that they were ushered into power by citizens who were not so much voting for them as voting against the previous administration. They have dropped the ball on that mandate, and as a result voters are flowing in an ever increasing flood away from congressional democrats who, in turn, are starting to distance themselves from the president.  Others are even trying to sell themselves as 'outside the beltway'.  Um, if you've been in office for, say, 18 years, you're an insider.   This gusher started with a trickle of political goodwill last year, but now is approaching floodlike conditions.  Even the White House spokesman is conceding a possible loss of the House.  Here we are in mid-July, and reality seems to be suddenly dawning on those in power (but not all).  They are trying to staunch the flow by slinging mud and blaming others, but the other gushers have so seeped into people's consciences that it's unlikely they will be distracted.

In 2008, we were faced with an economic crisis that was worse than anything we had faced in decades, so we installed a government that promised change.  In a year and a half, we have added unprecedented spending, the worst oil spill in american history, a major crisis on the border and unemployment that went from 6.7% at the end of the Bush administration all the way up to 10.2% in Oct. '09, settling now to the current rate of 9.5%, with no end in sight.  All of these major crises have been backburnered by the administration in favor of passing health care legislation or attempting to push through amnesty comprehensive immigration reform and cap and trade in order to capitalize on them without ever doing anything concrete to solve the actual crisis.  With all of these crises, the administration has taken abominably long to act, which has, in turn, allowed them to get so much worse.

The final gusher is set reach maximum flow in November and, much like the other gushers, the administration is doing too little, too late, and this one looks like it, too, is out of their control.

Monday, July 12, 2010


Today a gentleman from Alan Grayson's campaign knocked on my door.  His purpose was to have me sign paperwork so that Mr. Grayson and his campaign could help me register to vote, because apparently I'm not capable of doing it myself.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I have been voting for many years now, and have never once had someone working for a candidate come to my door to offer to take care of registering for me.  I prefer to register the legal way, all by myself.  I find it difficult to trust the "congressman from ACORN" with my voting information.   After all, the man is implicated in election shenanigans already:

Please note the use of Alinsky Rule #5 when deflecting questioning about the tea party allegations in an interview with CNN:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

This rule seems to be his personal motto.  Hopefully Alinsky meant  he should make a complete ass out of himself in the process, because if so, Grayson nailed it.
Grayson denies any connection to this scandal, but he seems to think he is too smart by half and that Tea Party supporters are idiots, so why not try to pull the wool over their eyes?  After all, he's been so very supportive of the tea baggers partyers in the past (warning: Joy Behar is in the linked clip - those with weak stomachs should not view).  Why wouldn't they fall for it?

The question is, would he really stoop to such things? He can certainly afford it - he's the 7th richest member of the House (ranked 12th when you include the Senate). In addition, on a list of 30 vulnerable House seats, he ranks 13th. As an accomplished lawyer, there is a good chance he knows how to set up organizations and make it nearly impossible to discover who controls them.

That covers means, motive and ability. All that's left is a concrete tie to Public Opinion Strategies. Channel 6's Tony Pipitone seems tenacious, so hopefully he will find more information. 

In the meantime, Grayson seems to be taking a two-pronged approach to this election.  He understands his district is historically republican, so attempting to split the ticket by setting up and funding a 'tea party' candidate seems like a logical way to pull out a win in November.  The 'Congressman from ACORN' is also apparently taking on the voter registration duties of the allegedly defunct organization now as well, if the door-to-door experience I had today was any indication. That's a scary thought.

With a little luck, Pipitone will uncover the missing link, and the story will get legs.  Until then, please be sure to check out Grayson's legitimate opponents:

 Patricia Sullivan, Bruce O’Donoghue, Dan Fanelli, Peg Dunmire, Kurt KellyTodd Long and Steven Gerritzen (Whig).

Wednesday, July 7, 2010


Democrats are apparently going to be foregoing standing on a platform this election cycle, preferring instead to just proceed directly to the mud slinging, an event which is traditionally deployed in the final weeks of the election.  Guess they don't have much else in their quiver these days.

According to the Washington Post:

Jon Vogel, executive director of the DCCC, said Democrats are merely pointing out that some Republican recruits in competitive House races are "flawed candidates."
He added, "We have made this election a choice. . . . They're trying to run this national message in part about fiscal discipline, but they've recruited a number of candidates not credible to carry that message."

The problem with this strategy is twofold. 

First and foremost, voters are highly motivated this year, are issue driven and are paying very close attention.  They want to know what the voting record is for the candidates and they want to know their stand on the issues.  They won't have much patience for backbiting and mud slinging.

The second problem also lies in the unusual level of voter awareness this cycle.  This time, though, what they are aware of is the playbook that is being used.  This line of attack is directly, practically verbatim out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, in the "Tactics" section - number four, to be exact:

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Perhaps it's time to remind them of tactic number seven - "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".
Stop changing the subject and clouding the debate with mud.  It's time to deal with the real issues.


In the newest bombshell revelation in a series of them from J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ attorney asserts that the Department of Justice is not interested in prosecuting so-called 'motor voter' cases.  'Motor voter' laws were created in the 1990's to, among other things, ensure fair and legal elections, primarily through cleansing the voter rolls of people who have moved, died or are no longer eligible to vote for various reasons such as incarceration.

According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, a political appointee who supervises the voting section at the DOJ, in a meeting scheduled for the entire voting section back in November of 2009, stated that there was no interest in enforcing section 8 of the law.  Section 8 is the deaths, duplicates and ineligibles provision of the law.  She said that it reduced voter turnout, prevented access to the ballot box, not increased it, and they had no interest in enforcing the law because of it.  Proof of his claims lies in a motor voter case that was brought by the Bush administration that was dismissed in Missouri in 2009 and a lack of motor votor prosecutions since then.  According to the Wall Street Journal:

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri's voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.

This is a huge development.  If Adams' assertions are true, this could have major repercussions for the administration:

Mr. Adams' allegations would seem to call for the senior management of Justice to be compelled to testify under oath to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But Justice is making none of its officials available and is refusing to enforce subpoenas issued by the commission. The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive coverup of its politicization of voting rights cases.

No wonder they continue to push through their radical, unpopular agenda.  They are not constrained by the usual political fears for reelection.  These people are Chicago pols - Chicago, where the dead vote and no one ever moves away.  Toss in a few million illegal immigrants and a DOJ that refuses to enforce voting laws, and voila! you have a recipe for perpetual reelection.  This is an issue that should raise serious concerns, because this could signal the end of legitimate elections in this country. 

The neo-pravda media will undoubtedly ignore this latest outrage, and the left is already busily attempting to discredit Adams, namely by saying he is politically motivated.  No doubt accusations of racism will soon follow.  Why change the pattern now?

The jury is still out on whether his allegations are true or not, but, considering these revelations came while he was under oath, there is some weight to them.  The ball is in DOJ's court to prove him wrong.  Accusing him of political motivations and attacking his record does not prove him wrong, it just changes the subject.  Considering their track record thus far on dismissing cases involving voter intimidation and voter fraud, there seems to be enough smoke to warrant an investigation into whether there is any fire.

The problem is, where do the American people turn for justice when the Justice Department is the problem?

Sunday, July 4, 2010


Happy 234th Birthday, America!

Have a safe, happy Fourth of July.  Have fun, and enjoy the fireworks!

God bless America!

Thursday, July 1, 2010


As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is the keeper of the national wallet.  She has also been the driving force behind every major spending bill that has come to the floor since 2007.  She is responsible for passing the budget and even created legislation that would, as she and others in the administration insist on alleging, "save or create" jobs. 

Today, she came out with a statement that not only brings up questions about her competence, but her sanity as well (perhaps a botox-induced brain injury?).  When talking to reporters today about extending unemployment benefits yet again in a "jobs" bill she has been trying to put over for the past month, her spin went spiraling out of control:

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

What she is trying to say is that the unemployment benefits put money in people's pockets, which they then spend.  That spending is apparently what causes job creation.  If that were so, some of those unemployed people would be getting those new jobs, right?  But with the jobless numbers bad yet again, it sure doesn't seem like her half-baked scheme is working. 

Someone should clue Ms. Pelosi in that the spending people do when they are on unemployment is on the bare necessities - things there are already jobs for.  It is when you spend over your normal budget on 'splurge items' that potential jobs might be made.  Considering unemployment benefits only pay a fraction of what people made at the jobs they lost, there is no additional spending - every last penny is spent on necessities. 

In fact, one might argue that high unemployment causes even more job losses, because the unemployed people are not only not splurging anymore, they are also tightening their belts - cutting out expenditures like, say, pest control or dining out entirely, and reducing costs by dropping things like premium cable packages or cell phone service for more basic plans.  This reduction in spending affects the bottom line of various businesses, which then effects their job creating abilities.  It's economics 101, Madame Speaker. 

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi should be put on unemployment this year so that she can understand the concept more fully....

Above and beyond that, the best she can come up with for job creation is unemployment benefits?   Hundreds of billions of dollars down the rabbit hole at this woman's insistence, and this is what we get for it?

How is this woman not being laughed out of Congress - or ridden out of town on a rail?