To say I was shocked to learn that the State Department included Arizona in its section on Immigration in the paper the State Department presented to the Human Rights Commission. Surely, I misheard this. No way would the State Department include one of its own states on such a list to the United Nations. I did not mishear anything, or misread anything. Sadly, yes, the State Department did.

Let’s be clear here: Arizona is now on the list for trying to uphold Federal Immigration Law, and for making it a law that people who have been stopped for violations can be asked for their papers.

What shocks me even more was Secretary Clinton’s willingness to put Arizona in this category. Yes, she thought it would be a “model,” according to this Fox News report:

[snip] Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as “a model” to other nations.

“The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,’ Crowley told reporters. [enip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)


A “model”? We have girls and their teachers being gassed in Afghanistan. Women in Iran being stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Hundreds of women being raped in Congo. And our State Department puts ARIZONA on a Human Rights list?

As if I didn’t already have a headache from my root canal.

Oh, and speaking of Iran, I trust you recall that Iran – IRAN – is on the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights. WTH???

Do I even need to tell you how upset Governor Jan Brewer is about being included on this list? Yes, she called it “offensive,” and has fired off a letter to Secretary Clinton. The State Department, though, is standing by its list, as PJ Crowley states below:

How is it that PJ Crowley is the spokesman for the State Department? Good grief.

Well, for my money, I’d rather have Martha MacCullum any day of the week. At least she is someone who thinks the US should be held to a higher standard than countries which engage in such horrific human rights abuses as detailed above and by MacCullum, herself. As she said, we SHOULD be held to a higher standard than these countries, and I couldn’t agree more. Do we really want to be in the same category regarding Human Rights as Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, and similar countries? Hell to the NO, and why the State Department Spokesperson doesn’t get that is troubling indeed.

Bottom line, though, Arizona fits nowhere in that list the State Department presented to the United Nations. This is a States Right v. Federal Right. Perhaps Gov. Brewer should turn the tables on the State Department, and the DOJ. Their refusal to abide by their Constitutional Duty to protect the borders and uphold federal laws are creating human rights abuses for people living in Arizona. How about that, huh? Yeah. I’m sure AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu would be more than willing to testify to that effect as he essentially does below:

That Secretary Clinton saw fit to put this into a report to the UN is disturbing. She needs to rectify this now, and apologize to both Arizona, and the country, for even considering what Arizona is trying to accomplish as a “human rights abuse.” That is absurd, and I cannot believe she went along with this wrongheaded move.

As someone who supported Hillary Clinton 1000%, I am disappointed in her, to say the least. And this? Well, I’m waiting for that apology, Secretary Clinton.

UPDATE: I had a comment at my blog about not providing a link to the actual report, and what the report said (though I think PJ Crowley DID state what was said about Arizona. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is the LINK to the report, and here is where AZ came into the discussion:

94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.

Make of this what you will, but I stand by my post – I think it was irresponsible at BEST to include Arizona and the government’s case against AZ, in a report to the UN on Human Rights in this manner (making it clear that the Federal Gov’t has taken AZ to court, and all of the implications therein). I might add, I think #94 takes the wind out of the Fed’s sails in regard to suing AZ, don’t you? Could just be me, though.

I changed the title to better reflect how AZ was mentioned in the report. I apologize for not being clearer before, but honestly, it was only my raging headache that prevented me from making the point succinctly. Sorry for that, though.

Anyway, there is the link – read it for yourself, and decide.

  • FranSC

    RRRAmy – I missed this post last week when I was loggerblocked with work.  I actually looked for a posting on this subject, but didn’t have enough time.

    Like you, this truly bothered me – that Hillary would do something like this.  First of all, this seems like an unlikely issue for the *State Dept*.  What a stretch to put it in a report to the UN???  I don’t get it! 

    As soon as I heard this my first thought was the comment written here on NQ on another topic, but fits here (sorry I can’t give credit to the commenter):  Something to the effect, “They (0 admin) are making sure Hillary is given tasks that would make it nearly impossible for her to walk it back” (an insurance policy to make sure she can’t run against thee one) – meaning, things like the very subject of this post.  So true. 

    But, I will say, if she is being coersed into these things that she does not fully support, that would be grounds for resigning and explanation enough. 

    It is very difficult for me to believe this is for real.  PJ Crowley is 100% on the 0bama bandwagon, so who knows whether he has more loyalty to them or Hillary.  I just hope to hell she didn’t hire him!  I suspect he has been there. 

    I understand what “My site” is saying about FoxNews.  Yes, they gave Hillary a fair shake *after* they realized she was in what appeared to be a huge fight for the nomination – prefering her to 0.  Before that, not so much.  Since it has come out recently that Hillary may run against 0 in 2012, their sniping about the Clintons has increased.  I had the same thoughts as My Site. 

    If Hillary were to run, we may have no where to go for news but the internet.  Despite the fact FoxNews now thankfully has an on-going investigation of the primary and election fraud, I have said for a long time Fox did not investigate the primary of 2008 and all the reports they received on the caucus fraud, etc., because they are afraid it would help Hillary.  They want a conservative and that usually means republican, regardless of their “fair and balanced” claims.  

    In the case of the AZ/UN situation, I don’t think Fox has blown this up, but I do think there is a possibility that she has been burdened with doing things to support 0bama – enough that she can be tainted with the same criticism he is having to take. 

  • Athena the Warrior

    This administration has proven time and time again what it thinks of the Constitution.

  • rosa

    well said felizarte!

  • felizarte

    Is this really the issue you want Hillary to fall on her sword for?  We don’t know everything she knows or what she is working on that impact the set of priorities she has to consider every moment, every single day that impacts the country.  The same standards should be applied to her as to every other govt. official, including Barack Obama.  I am not willing to penalize her (in my mind at least) on the surface of things, especially in an environment where we can’t really verify the sources, media or govt.  I can only say that based on her public record of accomplishments, I can still trust her to do what is right, or the less bad in the circumstances affecting her decisions.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Cindy,

    By now, we all should know that no matter what Hillary does, she will be blamed, attacked and vilified.  No woman is EVER going be given the same standards as a man in the same position, making the same decisions.

    Obviously, we haven’t learned a thing about the double standard imposed on any woman, for any reason, since the horrid 2008 primary when two accomplished women were treated like a punching bag by anyone who disagreed with them.

    I refuse to condemn Hillary for becoming SOS, because had she refused, she would have been attacked as a sore loser; if she refuses to support obama’s policies which her supporters don’t like, they attack her and not obama. 

    It was Hillary who gave the heads-up to AZ when she talked about the lawsuit about to be filed by the DOJ in an interview.  I suspect she was called on the carpet for that because we all know Hillary doesn’t have a habit of saying something controversial by “accident”.

    We have a corrupt government and powerful forces who put obama in the WH against the express will of the people.  Does anyone honestly think Hillary’s carreer would remain intact if she openly defied obama at this juncture?  Get real. 

    Also, if she were to retire now, do you really believe the MSM and the forces behind obama would not go after her should she speak openly against the obama administration?  They would make certain that she never got into office again, because they also control the elections (which was clearly evident considering who won both the 2000 2004 general elections).  They easily stopped her from getting the nomination and the presidency, so do you really believe they’ve lost the power to stop her again? 

    Could we put aside the double standard against Hillary for a moment and think of what she is up against?  Based on the latest poll numbers for obama, it appears to me that given enough rope, the obama administration is going to hang itself and come 2012, if he continues to go downhill like he is now, I bet Hillary will be the one everyone will want to run for the presidency.  It would be one of the most historic, if not THE, most historic race in our country’s history on so many levels.

    I still believe in Hillary.

  • FLDemFem

    Of course they were welcome, they had visas!!

  • Perry Schwartz

    I can not wait untill November!

  • Mr. Natural

    Rosie may have been the Riveter, and there were a lot of Wendy Welders building Liberty and Victory ships. Nevada even had Magnesium Maggies working at Basic Metals. 

    My granny was a machinist. Taught me, among other things, the violin, how to set up a lathe and read a micrometer.

    This was even more ironic when contrasted to the fact that her husband couldn’t put the top on a bottle of Four Roses without cross-threading it.

    The history of female telegraphers (not necessarily radio operators) in the US goes back to just before the War of the Rebellion (1861-1865)*, although, as a practice I suspect it may have been partly motivated by trying to get the wages down.

    * Please note that I did NOT say, “War for Southern Independence.” That would have been rayciss ‘n shit…

  • felizarte

    The only time I will give up on Hillary is if she personally comes out in support of the mosque at ground zero. 

  • felizarte

    Mr. Natural, there’s a lot about Philippine politics you don’t know.  But this is not the place for further discussion on that subject.

  • Retired

    Bitter irony.  My mother was the first female radio operator for Trans Canada Airways circa the early 1940s, at a time when radio was considered to be “to technical” for a woman to handle.

  • oowawa

    Well, Rev. Amy–Thee One figures he can man-up and kick Jan Brewer’s butt; not so sure about Arnold . . .  (But my money’s on Jan . . . )

  • beachnan

    Cindy, I wouldn’t have trusted anyone else with SOS position.  Who would you rather have in there,,,Richardson, Kerry, Edwards, Dean?  I would rather have her in this vital position than anyone else.

  • ~~JustMe~~

    I hear you oowawa! Always good to hear/see what is out there!

  • ~~JustMe~~

    I hear you oowawa!

  • FLDemFem

    Then don’t do it at the polling place. Make the required document at the polling place be the voter registration card. And to get that, you should have to prove you are eligible to vote, ie. a citizen.

  • oowawa

    But there is a very big gap between this video and the claims made in the DeSpain comment.  If Hillary had ever made the claim asserted in DeSpain’s comment, she NEVER would have been considered for national office:

    “If I ever become President of “The United States,” my first official act will be  to surrender sovereignty over the “United States of America” to the United  Nations.”   

    That’s so ludicrous, it’s laughable, and anyone with a video of that statement would have reamed her unmercifully with it and sent her packing in short order. 

    Let’s not make things up.  If someone has this video, which according to DeSpain, was on “the first page of the United Nations website,” please produce it–or shall we start a tin-hat theory of how the evil Clinton campaign managed to destroy all existing copies . . .  Sheesh!

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    It is the GRATUITOUS mention of AZ in the report, and as jbjd said, the context.  What was the point of themmentioning AZ?  CA has far more severe laws re: immigration, but you don’t see any lawsuits against them, or mention in a Human Rights report. 

    The way in which AZ is mentioned is the problem, as well as it being mentioned at all (what, they really had to mention that they had a suit against AZ, but couldn’t say anything because they had a suit against them??).

    I might add, my lack of a link initially was in no way to muddy the waters.  Most people here are fully capable of performing their own search – I simply didn’t think abt it at the time (raging headache, as already noted).  Just saying.

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    It is the GRATUITOUS mention of AZ in the report, and as jbjd said, the context.  What was the point of themmentioning AZ?  CA has far more severe laws re: immigration, but you don’t see any lawsuits against them, or mention in a Human Rights report. 

    The way in which AZ is mentioned is the problem, as well as it being mentioned at all (what, they really had to mention that they had a suit against AZ, but couldn’t say anything because they had a suit against them??).

    I might add, my lack of a link initially was in no way to muddy the waters.  Most people here are fully capable of performing their own search – I simply didn’t think abt it at the time (raging headache, as already noted).  Just saying.

  • Wisewoman

    Silly people just being mentioned in a Human Rights Report is an underhanded way of sticking it to the state of Az.  That type of action was at one time beneath Hillary.  Now she is like a wandering lost soul not able to stand for her own beliefs.  This is the toxic effect of Obama.  All who “stand with him is polluted by him”.  As an AA I always defended Hillary and was incensed when the Obama nuts accused her and Bill of being racists by slander, innuendoes, and outright lies.  This is the final straw.  Now I just pity her because she has truly lost her way.  Az does not merit being even mentioned in this type of Human Rights report and if we Hillary fans were truly honest we would  admit that.

  • eyelets

    The state and local police force can enforce federal immigration law.  I was pretty sure they could but I looked it up just to make sure.  I am not sure what the catalyst for the state to feel it needed to make it’s own law. Perhaps there was a brutal incident. Or, perhaps out of desperation and/or to prove a point.  

    Whatever the reason, by just mentioning Arizona passively but specifically in a Human Right’s paper (along with the lawsuits) indicates that Obama is willing to go for the jugular over this and to make sure that no other state challenges him.  It is his same old  M.O.  that has proven to be effective. 

  • jbjd

    kafir, as this is for the most part a self-policing blog, I would hope that you have achieved sufficient jollies by now that you are predisposed to removing your blatantly misogynistic comment.  Otherwise, you might forget; and your daughter/wife/mother might some day be directed to view the posting that captures the contempt in which they are held by their son/husband/father.

  • eyelets

    The state and local police force can enforce federal immigration law.  I was pretty sure they could but I looked it up just to make sure.  I am not sure what the catalyst for the state to feel it needed to make it’s own law. Perhaps there was a brutal incident. Or, perhaps out of desperation and/or to prove a point.  

    Whatever the reason, by just mentioning Arizona passively but specifically in a Human Right’s paper indicates that Obama is willing to go for the jugular over this and make sure that no other state challenges him.  It is his exact M.O.

  • Talk2ThePaw

    In sane world you would think proof would be required, but nay we are not living in a sane country at this point in time.  Most states have made it illegal to require proof of citizenship at the polling place, and the registrars offices do not bother to check citizenship.

  • FLDemFem

    If they mark the box, then they should be required to prove that they are citizens, especially if their English is minimal or non-existant. Checking on citizenship for voters is not discrimination, or racial profiling, it is fulfilling the Constitutional requirement for voter eligibility. Which requires that all voters be citizens.

  • ~~JustMe~~

    a comment and it seems to have disappeared.

    Just happened to me oowawa and then it was back!! Thought my eyes had gone funny 😉

  • FLDemFem

    The Constitution says that you have to be a citizen to vote. There is no getting around that. The Supreme Court will settle Maine’s hash if they try to get non-citizens voting. It’s un-Constitutional and in a way that is not open to interpretation. It clearly says that only citizens have the right to vote. The rest of the Constitution refers to “persons” when listing rights and such. Only in the part where the eligibility for office and voting are put forth is the word “citizen” used.

  • oowawa

    I wrote a previous comment expressing extreme doubt over this “citation” from a comment by Gordon DeSpain, and it seems to have disappeared.  This needs to be said.  DeSpain’s comment is bogus!  Prove me wrong, and I’ll eat my humble pie meekly . . .

  • oowawa

    Way cool!  Hey kafir, I’ve detected just a hint of an accent in your writing; I was going to ask–oh, never mind.  It’s fine to remain mysterious . . .

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    Excellent point, Tricia.  Thanks for that.  

    Considering other states already have more severe immigration laws (like CA, for example), it continues to beg the question why the Fed is going after AZ, much less mention it at ALL in this report, doesn’t it?

    Great discussion, everyone!