SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Lets see...

Federal spending has increased 9% just this year - after a record of 16% in 2009. 

We are throwing away money that we don't have to dead people and criminals.  And lets not forget the chinese 'sex workers', co-eds and turtles.

Meanwhile, the dollar is sliding into irrelevance.

What's a desperate Fed to do?  Inflation!

The Pelosi-led Congress cut and ran a week early without passing a budget  or even taking a vote on the Bush tax cuts. 

A record breaking 41 million people are now on food stamps.  Ironically, some Obama supporters will have to stop drinking the kool-aid, at least if they live in NYC.

The United States has ceded sovereignty over a large piece of Arizona, Pakistan is taking billions of our taxpayer dollars with one hand and stabbing us in the back with the other, and Iran is eagerly exploring the trafficking possibilities in Afghanistan. 

The woman leading Congress thinks that food stamps and unemployment checks are the "biggest bang" for our stimulus buck. 

A congressman running for reelection claims there is no national debt.  

Is it any wonder republicans are leading in the polls?

ARIZONA ON TRIAL

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.

MAYDAY, MAY DAY

Violence erupted at immigration protests across the country this weekend, but of course the agitators got a pass from the mainstream media.  From California to New York, there were numerous cases of graffiti, broken wondows, and even violent attacks against anti-illegal immigration supporters.  Amnesty supporters hurt their cause with their behavior, but they seem oblivious to that fact.  Perhaps because even with all of that, their rallies are called "Mostly Peaceful" by the media, while the TEA parties have SWAT called on them.  They are, of course, emboldened by this. 

Every year it's the same - amnesty supporters, as well as marxists, anarchists and other socialist groups march and rally on May Day and by the end of the day, there is vandalism and even violence, as well as some arrests.  This year was no different, except, perhaps, for the vehemence in the wake of the Arizona law.  Here is the photo of the day (h/t What Planet Am I On):

That photo encapsulates the entire mindset of the left on this issue.  They do not agree with our immigration laws and thus are exempt from them.  I propose this sign as the official rebuttal to the TEA party's "Keep the Guvment out of my Medicare" sign.   Both signs are idiotic and cancel each other out.

Then there are those who feel that "America is a continent, not a country".   Apparently  it's quite confusing, but the country is actually called "The United States of America", and it is located on the North American continent.  This means that the country is a confederation of states that have united together to share their destiny as a single entity on the North American continent. Perhaps Mexico should simply petition for statehood - Puerto Rico could be #51 and Mexico could be #52!   Much as Brasil is a country in South America, the United States is a country in North America.  Otherwise, we would have had to name ourselves after the original thirteen colonies.  NorSouth Vircondelmarvarhodepencarogeormassland just doesn't trip off the tongue quite as easily, does it?

The accusations of having to "show your papers" is ridiculous.  Yes, they will have to show their papers when they are pulled over or stopped by the police.  Just like natural-born citizens and legal immigrants do every day.  Those "papers" are called drivers licenses, state id cards and green cards.  This disgusting attempt by the left to confuse the issue with correlations to Nazi Germany is insulting to the millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Czechs and others who were slaughtered by Hitler and his henchmen during WWII.  To compare Arizona police making a legal stop which might or might not end with requests for proof of citizenship to the gestapo making Jews disappear via a trip to Auschwitz is nothing short of obscene.  Not to mention the all-out attempt to paint our police as racist, gestapo-like enforcers.  Note to the left: the police are not the bad guys.  The people breaking the laws - including the federal immigration law - are the bad guys.  Time for a reality check, people.  Arizona has merely given state authorities the same powers as federal authorities in the enforcement of a standing federal law.  No more, no less.  These claims of crimes against humanity are insane.  Racial profiling is specifically prohibited.

Immigrant rights are not civil rights.  Comparing the two is ridiculous.  The civil rights movement was necessary because legal American citizens were being discriminated against.  In the case of illegal immigrants, they are not legal citizens and so they have no rights in this country.  Period.

We already have laws on the books providing the legal entry of immigrants into this country - something that happens every day.  Those laws were enacted under the McCarran-Walter bill of 1952 and have been amended over the years, but the core of it requires legal emigration, the carrying of a green card at all times, and breaking the law can result in felony charges.  It is also illegal to harbor an illegal immigrant - a federal law our more liberal cities flout on a daily basis.  One "wise latina" at a D.C. rally doesn't want to see a Berlin Wall here in America.  Perhaps she is unaware that the US and Mexico are not the same country, as Germany was before the wall.  A wall between the two countries would merely, well, separate two countries.  Other countries are allowed to patrol and guard their borders, why can't we?

Why do these people feel entitled to be able to just walk over our borders and instantly become citizens?  What makes them so much more special that the millions of legal immigrants who jump through the federal hoops to become legal citizens every year? 

This whole argument boils down to a case of not agreeing with a law and feeling that is reason enough to ignore it.  It is just too easy to paint any resistance as racist.  What other laws should we be allowed to ignore?  How about theft - or should I call it "spreading the wealth around"?  No doubt that one should be ignored, too.

The clear fault for this mess is the federal government's refusal to enforce federal laws currently on the books.  Arizona did what the feds refuse to do - enforce the law.

The illegals and their supporters only hurt their cause with their offensive, violent tactics.  If you want to come here legally, we will welcome you with open arms.  Otherwise, just like every other country on the planet - including Mexico - we will enforce our laws and kick you out.

For those who "demand" legalization, go home and "demand" things from your own government.  If you want to be part of this country, come here legally.  If you break our laws and refuse to renounce your foreign citizenship, you have no right to change our laws. Go change your own country's government; leave mine alone.