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.

ORCHESTRATING THE OIL SPILL

Yesterday, federal judge Martin L.C. Feldman struck down the moratorium on offshore drilling that was imposed on Louisiana by the Obama administration.   The 22 page ruling commented on the lack of proof that a blanket ban was required, as well as the burden it would place on the citizens of the state.   The people of Louisiana are really hurting.  The ban would send the oil rigs, and thus even more local jobs, to places like Brazil and Africa. 

At the inquisition Congressional hearings last week, oil company executives testified that a six-month blanket ban on drilling would force them to move their drills to other countries, as an idle drill can cost upwards of $1 million per day.  That seems to be the sum total of the information we managed to get out of them at the hearings - how much did that congressional circus cost the taxpayers again? Considering the damage to the other major industries of the state - fishing, shrimping and tourism - they cannot afford to have another industry shut down for no reason (via the New York Times): 

“The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger,” wrote Judge Feldman

The most interesting remarks in the injunction were on the report presented to the judge by the Interior Department.  This report included the much touted peer review by experts assembled by the National Academy of Engineering - a review the administration had insisted backed the ban.  The judge noted that the findings of the experts were "misstated".  In reality, the findings by the experts that a moratorium was the way to go were complete fabrications.  This act of deception on the part of Salazar and the administration to manipulate the situation is shameful in the extreme, not to mention flat-out fraudulent.  Where are the calls for Salazar's resignation?

The real story is that the report was signed off on by the experts, but the paragraphs recommending a moratorium were added after the fact.  The experts have been vocal in their opposition to the shenanigans regarding the report - opposition that the administration attempted to shrug off, but the judge's findings leave little room for doubt about their authenticity.  In response to his ruling, the left is in full attack mode, of course.  Secretary of the Interior Salazar is going to attempt a new moratorium, this time more specific and targeted, insisting a deepwater ban in necessary.  Maybe this time they will get a more sympathetic judge to see things their way.  For the sake of Louisianans, let's hope not. 

On another front in the 'war' on the oil spill, the feds have halted dredging for sand berms.  They feel the area that is being dredged is environmentally detrimental and want to move the operation two miles further out into the gulf.  All dredging is to be halted until the move is complete - seven precious days.  In a letter to Obama, Plaquemines Parish President Billly Nungesser pleads for compromise: 

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama.

Nungesser requested that the dredging be allowed to continue for the next seven days as they move dredging equipment in an effort to placate the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.  No doubt dredging is damaging to the environment, but could it really be worse than what the oil spill will do?  It's high time  federal agencies like Fish and Wildlife and the Department of the Interior look at the bigger picture here. 

It's beginning to seem like this is no longer a question of incompetence - it is now moving into the realm of active interference.  But for what reason?  Considering how adamant (and blatant) the administration is about passing Cap and Trade legislation on the back of this tragedy, it's not too hard to figure out.  It's hard to believe our government is willing to allow such damage to the country in order to pass their agenda.  It seems far-fetched, because our government should have our best interests at heart, but it is getting harder and harder to believe they do these days.  Their continued insistence on passing wildly unpopular legislation raises questions about their motives.  The recent revelations that Obama has stated there will be no securing the borders until amnesty comprehensive immigration reform is passed illustrates how willing this administration is to hold the American public hostage in order to obtain the desired results.  Let's not forget that, according to the patron saint of Progressives, Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means (numbers 1, 3 and 10 in particular).

At best, this is a perfect illustration of Ronald Reagan's nine scariest words in the english language - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".  At worst, our government is allowing a major catastrophe to become even worse so that they can pass their dream agenda.  An agenda that will further cripple us with massive taxes and skyrocketing energy prices. 

Talk about orchestrating chaos....

THE NIGHTMARE DRAGS ON

Demon pass is officially the rule of the land.  I feel a little dirty; do you?

There are numerous challenges lining up in case the swamp thing passes on Sunday.  Let's hope some of those constitutional challenges gain traction, because our Dear Leader has indicated that he's so thrilled with how demon pass is working out for him that he's probably going to use it on immigration and other things.  If you don't feel dirty yet...you will.

Fred Barnes of the Wall Street Journal wrote a great op-ed on the future ramifications of Obamacare passing - especially if it passes with demon pass.

America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn't end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.

This bill isn't just a nightmare, it's a nightmare you just can't wake up from.

ACORN SUES Updated

This is just great. ACORN and the two Maryland employees who were on camera and eventually fired are filing suit against Giles, O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart because of the hidden camera expose.

Why is this great news?

Because ACORN and the employees really don't have a leg to stand on, and may actually harm themselves because filing suit opens their organization up to scrutiny.

There is talk that they are going to go after Fox News, too, for playing the videos, which is also why they included Breitbart in the suit. I know there is more money in Fox's pockets, but they have no right to sue them - all they did was air an expose. It happens all the time - heck, 60 Minutes were constantly doing hidden camera exposes with their reporters. This is like suing the Washington Post for printing the Watergate story. Nixon would have had more of a case than ACORN, though, because at least Woodward and Bernstein worked for the Post. Giles and O'Keefe were completely freelance when they made the videos. They became Breitbart's employees after the stings. So why is it suddenly a big no-no?

Three reasons. First, Giles and O'Keefe exposed a far-left organization - how dare they? That was their biggest mistake. If they had exposed, say, the Heritage Foundation, I'm sure they would already by nominated for Pulitzers.

Second, it makes those drooling lapdogs in the press look really, really bad.

Third, ACORN has a lot of connections. There are plenty of people who don't want ACORN's books - or anything about ACORN, really - to become public record. Investigations of any kind are frowned on.

I think this is either going to get thrown out, or ACORN will try to quietly withdraw the suit once they realize what a huge mistake they just made.

BTW - while I was researching this post, I came across an interesting little article about charity. It seems that, at least in this country, some people walk the walk and some people just talk the talk. So....those who constantly squawk about 'service' and 'community' and being their brother's keepers should maybe zip it and practice what they preach. This poll proves that personal initiative always outstrips mandates.

UPDATE: Hannah Giles has just started up a legal defense fund. I'll post O'Keefe's when he sets one up.