Does Holder care that Obama continues to by-pass Congress with his numerous Executive Orders, skirting US law? Nah. Does he care that Labor Secretary Solis declares that the US will extend all the same labor rights and benefits to illegal immigrants that citizens enjoy? Nuh uh. Does he think it is the least bit suspicious that the head of the AFL/CIO, Richard Trumka, has made, on average, a visit to the White House every 16 days, or that Trumka talks to the White House EVERY DAY, which might imply an extraordinary influence on policy? Yawn. Nope.

So what DOES Holder and the DOJ see as critical? Upholding India’s law – even though India did not ask them to do so.

Huh?

Yes, the DOJ is going after Gibson Guitars for using a particular type of wood from India for their fret boards that the DOJ claims violates INDIA’S laws. WTH? Are you kidding me?? The answer would be no – this is not a joke. The DOJ has raided Gibson Guitars. I am just shaking my head in disbelief. I saw something about this while on vacation, and thought it must have been the (virgin) Pina Coladas by the pool, but no – it is real. The US DOJ is going after them for what they perceive as Gibson violating another country’s laws :

Juszkiewiz said the government suggested that the company’s use of unfinished wood from India is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because of the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. The Holder Justice Department raided at least two Gibson manufacturing plants this week forcing hundreds of workers off their jobs. Juszkiewiz says the company lost a million dollars this week.

Finally, Henry Juszkiewicz told Dana, “The Obama Justice Department wants us to just shut our doors and go away.” He says he will continue to fight for the Gibson company and its workers.

To say that the CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, is hot under the collar about this is both an understatement, and understandable:

“What it does is it shuts down production because we use that as raw material. If they take our raw material we can’t produce the product. So it’s been extremely disruptive beyond the value content,” said Juszkiewicz, according to a story from Nashville’s NewsChannel 5 WTVF-TV.

According to a press release from Gibson, the heart of the issue comes down to the Department of Justice’s interpretation of a law in India.

Federal agencies have “suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.),” the Gibson press release said.

This is not Gibson’s first brush with federal agents. In 2009, agents seized guitars and ebony fingerboard blanks from Madagascar, according to the Gibson press release and other stories.

Holy cow. Are they KIDDING with this? Really? This is where we are? Holding companies to account for laws in OTHER countries, which it appears they are not violating anyway? It is disturbing to the extreme that the same agency that gave us “Fast and Furious” is going after a guitar maker for wood legally imported from another country based on its interpretation of the other country’s laws.

This is insanity. The DOJ is failing across the board to ensure compliance in this country on a host of laws, but they are raiding a small manufacturing company that is in compliance with US laws? Wow. I tell you, 2012 cannot come soon enough for me. No telling how much more damage Obama and his Administration will do to the country in the time remaining to his destructive stint in the White House, but good grief, this is just beyond the pale. What’s next, going after any number of companies because they might not support The One with their donations (better watch out, Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz – you could be next), or because their companies are not unionized? Holder claims this is not political in nature. And I think he is full of crap.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Obama realized the CEO of Gibson Guitars will be in attendance at his big Jobs speech tonight (which sounds like it will be more of the same o’, same o’ from him – I expected nothing less). Yep, Henry Juszkiewicz will be the guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), sitting there looking at Obama while he blathers on. Rich, ain’t it?

Something is seriously, seriously wrong at the DOJ when they start trying to impose the laws of other countries on a select company, select because its CEO belongs to the wrong party, it would seem. Hmm. This reminds me of something. What could it be? Oh, yes – now I remember. Revenge. And that has no place in our government.

Update below the fold.

I could barely believe my eyes when I saw this headline, “Afghans Angry Over Florida Koran Burning Kill UN Staff.”

This is not a joke. If it were, it would be a sick one, but the reality is much, much worse. Indeed, a mob of over 20,000 people went on a rampage because a copy of the Koran was burned in Florida.

You may recall that there had been a bit of a brouhaha over a church in Gainesville, Florida threatening/promising to burn a Koran to mark the anniversary of 9/11 last year, but they did not. That pesky little fact did not stop this from happening:

[snip] Last year, even though Mr. Jones called off his burning of the Koran, a subsequent wave of protests at NATO facilities in Afghanistan led to at least five deaths. In several of those incidents, Taliban agitators played a role, allegedly spreading rumors that the Koran burning had taken place. However, the Taliban have had little or no presence in Mazar-i-Sharif, one of the most peaceful places in Afghanistan. [snip]

What? Nothing even happened and they killed a bunch of people? Holy crappydoo.

That being said, on March 20th, Rev, Jones and his flock did burn the Koran. Bear in mind, this is a small, way out on the periphery church we are talking about here. Honestly, why do a bunch of Afghans even CARE what this whacko down in Gainesville is doing?

But care they do, and so far, they have killed 7 – SEVEN – UN workers and 5 Afghan as a result. And they weren’t even Americans. Nope:

[snip] The dead included at least seven United Nations workers — four Nepalese guards and three Europeans from Romania, Sweden and Norway — according to United Nations officials in New York. One was a woman. Early reports, later denied by Afghan officials, said that at least two of the dead had been beheaded. Five Afghans were also killed. [snip]

Yes, they went on quite the rampage over this event that happened 11 days ago in a small city in Florida. Holy shit.

(EPA / April 1, 2011)

I’m sorry, but that is just insane. It is just insane. Never mind that it is a bit of a violation of the Big Ten to commit murder, but these people were spurred to action by a sermon in a mosque! I am not kidding you:

[snip] The incident began when thousands of protesters poured out of the Blue Mosque in Mazar-i-Sharif after Friday prayers and attacked the nearby headquarters of the United Nations, according to Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, spokesman for Gen. Daoud Daoud, the Afghan National Police commander for northern Afghanistan.

After disarming or shooting the United Nations compound’s guards, the crowd surged inside. Mr. Ahmadzai said that eight of the foreign staff workers, whose nationalities were not known immediately, were killed by gunfire, and that two others were captured by the mob and beheaded. Other reports said that the operations center was burned down as well. [snip]

Oh, but wait – it gets better:

[snip]A prominent Afghan cleric, Mullavi Qyamudin Kashaf, acting chief of the Ulema Council of Afghanistan, called for American authorities to arrest and try Mr. Jones as a war criminal.

The Ulema Council recently met to discuss the Koran burning, he said. “We expressed our deep concerns about this act and we were expecting the violence that we are witnessing now,” Mr. Kashaf said. “Unless they try him and give him the highest possible punishment, we will witness violence and protests not only in Afghanistan but in the entire world.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Let me get this straight – these Muslim mobs have murdered over 17 people, including foreign nationals, 5 at the very notion of a Koran being burned, and 12 because one was burned, and they want the MINISTER to be arrested on war crime charges?

That simply defies all logic, common sense, humanity, and religion. That is just insane. Insane. That’s right, I am calling this mob of 20,000 people who attacked guards at the UN because a book was burned insane. I’m sorry, this is not just insane, but crazy, nutso, whacked out, fruit loopy, or any other applicable term. How else to descrivea huge mob went on a rampage at a UN facility over the burning of a book. Yes, it was a religious text, but still – like I said, to kill people over one book being burned is just crazy. Not to mention doing so last year at a NATO facility (about which I had heard nothing) over the RUMOR of a Koran being burned.

I know that this is not the first instance of something like this, fatwas have been called for people from Salmon Rushdie to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for depictions or even descriptions, of Islam, or Muhammad. And I know that Rev. Jones had been warned about burning the Koran out of fear of repercussions.

But why do we have to kowtow to people who would commit murder over something so relatively minor as burning a holy book? Why do we allow them to dictate to us what we can and cannot do for fear of violence? Isn’t that an extreme form of bullying? Why do we allow it?

Instead of expecting everyone else to walk around on eggshells lest we set them off, how about we expect THEM to not fly off into a murderous rage at the least perceived slight? Why don’t we tell THEM it is unacceptable for them to KILL someone over a cartoon? Or a book? Good grief, if all religious groups reacted the same way, we would be in for a world of hurt. Can you imagine if Christians flew off into a murderous rage every time there was a piece of artwork that depicted Jesus in less than a positive light? Good grief, it would be a whole different world, that’s for sure.

Why are we allowing these radical religious extremists to dictate to us what we can and cannot do? Why are we not demanding that they stop acting so violently or else THEY will face consequences? When we constantly pander to the lowest common denominator, it brings us all down.

Whether one agrees with what Jones did or not, the response in Afghanistan is just crazy. Murdering people over a burned book is insane.

That’s what I think, anyway. What do you think?

*Update: Sunday morning, and the protests over the burning of one Koran continue to rage. More people have lost their lives as a result of the crowds being whipped up. Here is more:

[snip] The Taliban said in a statement emailed to media outlets that the US and other Western countries have wrongly excused the burning a Koran by the pastor of a Florida church on March 20 as freedom of speech and that Afghans “cannot accept this un-Islamic act.”

Nato officials re-iterated their condemnation of the Koran burning in an apparent attempt to quell the rising anger.

“We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Koran,” said the statement issued by military commander Gen. David Petraeus and the top Nato civilian representative in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill.

“We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Koran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people,” the statement said.

On Saturday, US President Barack Obama extended his condolences to the families of those killed by the protesters and said desecration of the Koran “is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry.” But he said that does not justify attacking and killing innocent people, calling it “outrageous and an affront to human decency and dignity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Frankly, I don’t cotton to being lectured by the TALIBAN. Nor do I appreciate that NATO and General Petraeus are not putting the blame where it belongs – those who are engaging in these murderous rampages. For THREE freaking days now, they have been raging. That is an extreme, absurd, deluded response by the Afghan people, and to try and appease them in any way, shape, or form, after they are committing these kinds of atrocities is immoral, and reprehensible. We cannot, CANNOT, allow these radical extremists to dictate what we are able to do here in the United States of America. WE CANNOT.

This is so insidious, this twisting of blame and responsibility, the bending over backward to not offend those who hate us. Whether or not the minister should have burned the Koran may be debated, but HE did not kill anyone. These people did. And they alone bear responsibility for their heinous actions and attacks. No one MADE them kill someone.

UPDATE 2: A new report claims Pakistan fanned the flames of anger over the trial and burning of the Koran by Rev. Jones. Apparently, the media wasn’t really covering what he was doing, but a little news brief was picked up by Agence France Presse, thus beginning Pakistan’s pushing this to international heights. Rev. Jones has been tried by a Sharia Court, found guilty of blasphemy, the punishment of which is death.

Here are some of the highlights of how Pakistan pushed this:

[snip] On the evening of March 20, the “trial” went ahead with Jones presiding. It ended with another pastor setting alight a kerosene-soaked copy of the Qur’an.

A brief Agence France Presse (AFP) report said that although the event was open to the public fewer than 30 people attended. A subsequent local media report said the only journalists who turned up on the day were an AFP stringer, several students and an unassigned photographer. A video clip was posted online, however.

The following day, the Organization of the Islamic Conference – the bloc of 56 Muslim-majority nations – issued a statement warning about “unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.” Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva drew its attention to the Gainesville incident.

On March 22, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, in a speech to the federal parliament, condemned the incident “in the strongest possible words,” and Pakistan’s foreign ministry called the burning a “despicable act.”

Dozens of reports on the Qur’an burning appeared in Pakistani media outlets on March 22-23, but the story received negligible coverage elsewhere in the Islamic world. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

There is much more to this, but it seems apparent that this incident was blown into international proportions by Pakistan, then onto even less stable countries like Iran and Afghanistan. And now, over 20 people have lost their lives. That is just appalling, and our leaders need to stop kowtowing over this, IMHO, that is.

Yes, recently the former governor of Minnesota suffered the indignity others of us have had to endure, and his response is to sue the Department of Homeland Security and TSA for unlawful, warrantless search. And why was the good former governor given the TSA assault treatment? He had a titanium hip replacement.

Welcome to my world, Governor.

Yes, like me, rather than use a wand to search the former governor, he was subjected to the same sexual assault numerous other Americans have had to suffer. He had this to say about it:

[snip]Rather than being scanned with a hand-held wand, he says he was subjected to an intrusive pat-down that “exposed him to humiliation and degradation through unwanted touching, gripping and rubbing of the intimate areas of his body.”

Ventura, who was governor of Minnesota from 1999 through 2002, says such searches not only intrude on his “personal privacy and dignity” but cause him to be concerned about his “personal health and well-being.”

Ventura asked a federal judge in Minnesota to issue an injunction so he would no longer be subjected to “warrantless and suspicionless” scans and searches. [snip]

Right there with ya, brother. Ventura’s lawyer, David Olsen, cites these reasons for the lawsuit:

[snip] “He’s made a decision that someone needs to make a stand and he’s not one to back down from a fight,” said Olsen. “He sees the erosion of civil liberties here and he’s willing to stand up not only for himself, but for others.”

The suit names Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Good for Governor Ventura. This kind of treatment of law-abiding citizens simply because they/we have purchased an airplane ticket and had to suffer from a joint replacement should not also have to suffer this kind of indignity, this assault. There is no other word for it but that.

I was curious, given the outrage and brouhaha over these illegal searches if Obama would mention it in his SOTU address, you know, like maybe they were going to stop doing them, and return to using a wand should the need arise.

Well, Obama said something about it alright:

Ahahahaha – so very funny, President Obama. What a freakin’ jokester you are. For those of us who have been sexually assaulted by the TSA, elderly people, children, folks with joint replacements, colostomy bags, et. al, this is no laughing matter. Add to that people who have been sexually assaulted previously in their lives. This kind of thing, this public assault and indignity, can make those assaults fly to the fore of someone’s life, doubly victimizing them.

And Obama makes a joke about it. That is just cruel. Cruel and mean-spirited. That is one of the big problems with Obama – he has no compassion, or certainly does not appear to have any.

The ACLU is none too happy about this little “joke” of Obama’s either. The ACLU is collecting information from travelers, including me, about these “pat-downs,” and is working on a case to end this un-Constitutional practice.

As for me, I wish I could join in with Governor Ventura on this lawsuit. I wish I had thought quickly enough to have my partner photograph these assaults/pat-downs. And, for our next upcoming trip, we will be driving – from the Charleston, SC area to Miami, FL (for a cruise) rather than flying. I cannot, I WILL not, go through that again, certainly not so soon after the last indignity.

That the Dept. of Homeland Security, specifically Janet Napolitano, continues to assert this is the way to go, and that the president of the United States, rather than ceasing this horrendous practice, makes a joke about it, is telling indeed. What it says is that our leaders do not have our best interests in mind. That they do not care about our civil liberties being trashed by the very people who have sworn to up hold them. To them, this is a joking manner.

Mr. President, government sanctioned sexual assault is no joke. Shame on you for even treating it as such. This practice should be ended, and now. Oh, and try something new and different next time, like a little bit of compassion, would you? Just a thought…

What a blessing. This is just the kind of good news that is welcomed as we continue to deal with a struggling economy, political bickering, severe storms across the country, creating all kinds of havoc. Wow.

Here is some of what Rep. Giffords can anticipate while in rehab: [snip]

(Dr. Edwardo) Lopez said that for patients with traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, there is a basic comprehensive method that almost all rehabilitation centers follow, which is exactly what Giffords and her family can expect in her continuing recovery.

“This phase of inpatient rehab provides the patient stability because the patient still requires day to day nurse care, this is the best time for her to begin a structured program,” he said.

Before Giffords’ current doctors at University Medical Center in Tucson were able to consider moving her into a rehab program, Lopez said there are certain criteria that a patient in her condition must meet, with the most important being medical stability.

“The patient must be able to tolerate at least three hours of daily therapy. There can be breaks and resting periods. The first phase would be to see how her tolerance to upright activity is without any major changes in the cardiovascular system or to vital signs,” he said. “The goal is gradual build up of endurance.”

Once Giffords is transported successfully to TIRR Memorial Hermann and settled into her room, there will be a number of medical professionals she will deal with on a daily basis, Lopez said.

“She will of course continue receiving physical therapy, which is anything related to mobility and strengthening of her body. The use of various equipment and devices facilitates this process,” he said.

Lopez said she will also get treated by occupational therapists. Their job is to deal with activities of daily living, like personal hygiene, dressing and bathing, as well as other cognitive components. They try to get patients to develop their attentiveness and ability to respond to questions. It will also be the duty of the occupational therapists to work with Giffords’ surgeons and decide what kind of therapy her damaged eye requires.

Speech therapy for Giffords will address all language and speech issues. It will also help her in her ability to swallow.

“A neuropsychologist team will provide a more formal type of testing to where the patient is cognitively in regards to sensory and motor function as well as arousal,” Lopez said.

In addition to daily therapy with a physical, occupational and speech therapists, Lopez said TBI units definitely have vast experience in the use of psychopharmacological agents that might help in the healing process and the deficits that patients may have. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This is great news, indeed. I hope, and pray, for the Representative’s full recovery, and for all of those who were injured in this horrible attack.

And while we are talking about Tucson, and the shooting, here is a tidbit from the Fox News All Stars discussing the “civility” issue, the one the Left was able to frame this attack as being the root cause of Loughner’s insanity. With no evidence then or now to justify this meme. Pay particular attention to Dr. Krauthammer’s response, and then the discussion with Stephen Hayes:

Um, so what’s the deal with SEIU?? Their behavior has been outrageous for quite some time. Who could forget their showing up on the door of a Bank of America bigwig, banging on the door, and terrorizing a 14 year old boy? That poor child had to hide in the bathroom. And that was after they had assaulted a Tea Party member down in Florida.

But apparently, they didn’t get the memo that Obama put out, on this ginned up issue about civility. Even discounting that manufactured issue, how about Michelle’s connection to WalMart, about which I wrote just this Thursday?? Oopsy daisy – is there a little disconnect between this SEIU (ACORN) union? Possibly. Still, their tactics have been out of control for some time now, and this is just one more illustration of the same violent behavior they have exhibited for a while. That they continue to be tolerated is shocking in and of itself.

Wow. Who knows, maybe this crafted “civility” issue will be the beginning of their undoing. One can hope. And one can hope that Rep. Giffords continues down the road of recovery.

It’s Friday. Thank heavens!

Once again, revising history, and having their baseless meme become the theme of the week. That would be the Left, beginning with “Heckuva Job” Sheriff Dupnik, who kicked off the “report” of the shootout in Tucson as being the result of rhetoric.

Oh, yes, you may not know this, but President Obama called Sheriff Dupnik to thank him. I just bet he did, since Sheriff Dupnik got the ball rolling blaming Gov. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other Conservatives, for this heinous crime. There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric had anything to do with this – in fact, quite the opposite.

Surprisingly, though, some of the bigger media outfits refuse to correct the original unsubstantiated claims against Palin, et. al. I am not kidding. People like George Stephanopoulos refuses to issue a correction. Sadly, pathetically, he is not alone. How about this one:

[snip] CNN’s Piers Morgan, who takes over longtime television newsman Larry King’s timeslot next week, tweeted, “This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications,” linking the map Palin made of targeted congressional districts for the 2010 midterm elections. [snip}

Or this from Candy Crowley to Dick Durbin:

[snip] CNN’s State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked Senator Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, “I guess that the undertow — and certainly it’s not an undertow on the Internet — but the undertow with politicians now speaking publicly is, well, the Republicans and the Tea Party and Sarah Palin have gone way too far in their rhetoric; it’s been violent rhetoric, and therefore this sort of thing happens. Are you making that direct connection?”

She asked Durbin that in response to Durbin saying, “we live in a world of violent images and violent words, but those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues. The phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response. And I think that we all have an obligation, both political parties — and let me salute the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, whose statement yesterday was clear and unequivocal that we are not accepting this kind of conduct as being anywhere near the mainstream.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. Way to walk back this fallacious meme there, George, Candy, and Piers.

Yet now, “Civility” has become the catch phrase of the week, used by Obama in the so-called “Memorial Service” on Wednesday night. Yes, it is being used as a way not to encourage civil debate, but to stifle any debate at all.

This is quite a coup. Especially as the House is getting ready to begin a new session, with their first order of business being the repeal of Obamacare. Now the discussion by the pundits is how the Republicans are going to handle this, will everyone be separated at the State of the Union, or will they break with tradition and sit all together, and on, and on, and on.

I am not opposed to civility in the least. I am a Southerner, after all, and many of us do still have manners down here. We know it is better to bite our tongues sometimes instead of giving a tongue lashing. But that is done out of respect, not out of a desire to censor. It seems to me that what is going on post-Tucson is more of the latter, than the former, especially given the way the entire discussion (if one can call baseless, horrendous allegations a “discussion”). For some reason, it only seems to apply to one side. Guess which one? Again, that is not being civil, that is silencing – there is a world of difference.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign speech in Tucson, I have to say this. I am beyond disgusted that the whole event has been framed as being about HIM, about what he will say, will this bump up his approval numbers, etc., etc. This service was SUPPOSED to be in honor of those whose lives were senselessly taken from them. Not about President Obama and if he could take yet another shot at “defining” his presidency. Because you know Fort Hood didn’t count.

And not that it should – I don’t think ANY funeral/memorial service should be used for this kind of political gain. It is disturbing how so many are comparing this speech to Clinton’s Oklahoma City bombing speech, a clear ideological attack on our government. Or Bush’s speech after 9/11, a clear, orchestrated, attack on our country. This heinous crime was neither of those things. Rather, it was the actions of one deranged man, who, by all accounts, had no ideological gripe.

Obama is getting praise heaped upon him for taking advantage of this horrible shooting by giving a campaign speech. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the primary target of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, DailyKos, and too many other personalities and blogs to list here., is getting nothing but scathing attacks for her attempt to defend herself from these scurrilous attacks. She is not supposed to speak out, she is not supposed to respond, she is supposed to shut up and go away. That was the point of these baseless assertions in the first place, to so discredit her, to claim, as Michael Daly did, that she had “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood on her hands…”

Ah, yes – so civil this discourse from the Left.

This is so disturbing to see how this tragedy has been shaped. My ridiculous “representative,” Jim Clyburn, had the audacity to play the race card in putting down Sarah Palin’s response. Oh, yes he did, and he was sexist to boot:

[snip] “You know, Sarah Palin just can’t seem to get it, on any front. I think she’s an attractive person, she is articulate,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. “But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

“I have some experiences that maybe she does not have,” he said. “When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. Let me just say, Clyburn is by far NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, so for him, of all people, to make that assertion about Palin is just laughable. Clyburn continues to stoke the flames that the Tucson shooting had anything to do with Palin at all. That is not just wrong-headed, it is plain wrong to incite people against someone based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. Clyburn is the worst kind of “offender,” too, attacking her for her rhetoric while not minding his own. What a piece of work he is.

But Clyburn got what he wanted, with Obama’s willing assistance – to transform this tragedy to essentially be a put down of Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. The media is their willing accomplice, from Fox to MSNBC (not surprisingly, the viewers of MSNBC are far more likely to believe Palin, et. al, ARE responsible for what happened to Rep. Giffords and the other victims. And they claim Fox is biased? Spare me.).

To think this all started by an unprofessional sheriff placing blame where it didn’t belong, and a bunch of opportunists jumping on the bandwagon. Wow. And no amount of facts to the contrary will alter THEIR rhetoric. That is unethical, immoral, cruel, offensive, and hypocritical. But they got their way, so what do they care?

At least the majority of Americans see through this political ploy, yet it continues to be played up to the hilt by the media, and the politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the loudest voices, and they won’t leave this alone until we all accept their lie as the truth…

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

It is believed that his cover was blown in retaliation for naming ISI chief Ahamad Shuja Pasha in a US lawsuit by families of 26/11 Mumbai attack victims. The suit asserts that Pasha and other ISI officers were ‘purposefully engaged in the direct provision of material support or resources’ to the planners of the Mumbai attacks.

A similar legal complaint was filed in Pakistan on behalf of Kareem Khan, a resident of North Waziristan who said that his son and brother were killed in a drone strike. Khan was seeking $500 million in compensation, and accusing CIA’s top officer in Pakistan of running a clandestine spying operation out of the United States Embassy.

This locking of horns should have been tackled sensibly. Instead, the confrontation ended up costing CIA an experienced officer. Interestingly, not many Americans known the name of the former CIA station chief, whereas whole of Pakistan is familiar of his name, especially the people in North Waziristan. Yes, North Waziristan, which the US believes is the new haven of militant extremists. 

This is not the first time that the two agencies have engaged in a power struggle. On September 30th this year, a US fighter helicopter crossed into Pakistan airspace and fired on a position occupied by Pakistani soldiers. As a result of this attack, three soldiers were killed and the rest severely injured. 

Hurting an ally came with a huge price for the US when Pakistan halted the flow of NATO supplies into Afghanistan through the Torkham for at least 10 days. It’s not that the trucks were just parked and were driven away after the ban was lifted. The Pakistani agency made sure to set an example and did not guard the trucks. As a result, the trucks were attacked by terrorists. 

These are just two major incidents that happened this year on Pakistan’s home ground, where the CIA, NATO, the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department cannot act without the ISI’s blessing. Its not your turf, but theirs.
Not helping ease relations were notorious incidents such as the threat by an obscure American pastor to burn the Quran, protests against a proposed Islamic Center in New York City and a Pakistani official delegation cutting its trip to United States short because of protocol issues. 

To make matters worse, none of the internecine US-Pakistan clashes were reported properly in the American press. The coverage was either one-sided or full of accusations. The media did cover the NATO trucks blockage, but offered neither context nor an apology for the cause of the attack. It did cover the removal of the CIA spy but did not suggest establishing person-to-person contact rather than strictly military-to-military relations. 

US agencies, whether on or off the ground, have to realize that Pakistan has sacrificed a lot more than it deserves. The Americans at the same time need to know that United States’ presence in Afghanistan has radicalized Pakistanis and turned many of them not only against the West. One count says the Pakistan army has lost more than 3,200 soldiers in recent fighting against Taliban forces along their border with Afghanistan. This does not include the civilians killed by drone attacks or by the suicide bombers.

This little rift between the two agencies is an open secret, and has been going on for years now. Every now and then, the CIA tries to prove that it has more resources and pushes ISI to ‘act as advised’. It needs to bring its ego down a notch, just for the sake of the war which both countries have to win. 

In case you haven’t had the “pleasure” of flying lately, here is a little taste of what you might expect at the airport …

And as shocking as this video is, the push back is only now starting to build. Fortunately there are still some true government representatives willing to take action.

In a news conference yesterday, New Jersey State Senators Michael J. Doherty (R-Hunterdon, Warren) and James Beach (D-Camden) announced they will present resolutions to the New Jersey Senate and Assembly that calls on the U.S. Congress to end TSA screening procedures that require either Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), full body scans, or an Enhanced Pat-Down at U.S. airports.

From Senator Doherty:

“The pursuit of security should not force Americans to surrender their civil liberties or basic human dignity at a TSA checkpoint,” said Doherty. “Subjecting law-abiding American citizens to naked body scans and full body pat downs is intolerable, humiliating, vulnerable to abuse, and is fast becoming a disincentive to travel. Particularly concerning to us is the fact that physical searches result in children being touched in private areas of the body. Terrorists hate America because of the freedoms upon which this great nation was built. By implementing these screening measures, the TSA has already handed a victory to those who seek to destroy our freedoms.”

From Beach:

“While no one questions the need for greater security at our airports, no one should be forced to hand over their dignity in the name of safety, ” said Senator Jim Beach (D-Camden). “Creating a pat-down procedure that is purposely invasive and time-consuming is no way to make passengers feel safer or more secure. In fact, it can do the opposite. With the busiest travel day of the year just 10 days away, the TSA needs to get a reality check and soon. Airport security is meant to make passengers feel better about flying, not humiliate them.”

Joining Senator Doherty at the press conference was N.J. Senator Diane Allen (R- Burlington), American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, and Assembly members Erik Peterson, Alison McHose, John DiMaio, and Valerie Vanieri Huttle.

Senator Allen expressed reservations about passenger exposure to unnecessary radiation.

“Certain Americans, including cancer patients and survivors who are being treated or have been treated with radiation therapy are told by their doctors to avoid unnecessary exposure to additional radiation. As a cancer survivor myself, the new imaging equipment used for full body scans concerns me greatly. The U.S. government has not provided adequate information on the potential health impacts of these machines- to say nothing of the invasive nature of the alternative presented to passengers. David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University has in fact said it is likely that at least some people who are exposed to the new scanners will develop cancer as a result, with frequent fliers and children among the most susceptible.”

Wow. How refreshing. Government representatives of the people responding in clear and unequivocal terms to the growing backlash against both the full body scans and the Enhanced Pat-Down technique.

And that backlash is coming from all corners. Larry Johnson highlights a couple of egregious incidents - one involving a terrified three year old child, the other an adult male who refused both the scanner and the enhanced pat-down and is now being investigated by TSA and faces the threat of a lawsuit.

A US Airline Pilots Association letter to its members describes one pilot’s recent experience:

One US Airways pilot, after being selected for an enhanced pat-down, experienced a frisking that has left him unable to function as a crewmember. The words this pilot used to describe the incident included “sexual molestation,” and in the aftermath of trying to recover, this pilot reported that he had literally vomited in his own driveway while contemplating going back to work and facing the possibility of a similar encounter with the TSA.

The letter goes on to recommend that:

Pilots should NOT submit to AIT screening. The TSA has offered no credible specifications for the radiation emitted by these machines. As pilots, we are exposed to more radiation as a function of our normal duties than nearly every other category of worker in the United States. Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks.

On Tuesday, airline pilots Michael Roberts and Ann Poe filed a suit against the TSA seeking to block the use of body scanners and enhanced pat-downs. The TSA responded by exempting children under 12.

“After a thorough risk assessment and after hearing concerns from parents, we made the decision that a modified pat-down would be used for children 12 years old and under who require extra screening,” TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee said in a statement.

So what about the poor 13, 14, 15 or 16 year old child getting an enhanced pat-down?

During a one-minute speech on the House floor, Rep. Ted Poe (Texas):

“[T]he populace is giving up more rights in the name of alleged security. These body scanners are a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures … There must be a better way to have security at airports than taking pornographic photographs of our citizens, including children, and then giving apparent kickbacks to political hacks.”

CNN employee Rosemary Fitzpatrick was subjected to a pat-down at the Orlando, Florida, airport on Wednesday night after her underwire bra set off a magnetometer. Let this be a warning to all women who wear underwire bras.  Apparently, if you set off the magnetometer, you automatically get the enhanced pat-down with no opt-out.

“I felt helpless, I felt violated, and I felt humiliated,” Fitzpatrick said, adding that she was reduced to tears at the checkpoint. She particularly objected to the fact that travelers were not warned about the new procedures…

The TSA employees “conducted themselves in a professional manner, so my complaint is not about them professionally,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

She told the TSA the agency needs to get the word out so the travelers know their rights.

“I am appalled and disgusted at the new search procedures and the fact that passengers have not been made aware of the new invasive steps prior to entering the security area,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “It appears once you enter the security area, passengers forfeit their rights. There were no signs, video information, etc. at the entrance of the security area the airport. Why?”

She added: “As an experienced traveler for work who was in tears for most of the search process, I have never experienced a more traumatic and invasive travel event!”

In what I’m sure was an effort to stem the bleeding of support, John Pistole head of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) offered to have airport screeners come to Capitol Hill to provide senators with first hand experience at the Enhanced Pat-Down technique. According to Pistole:

the [enhanced] pat-down technique is so thorough that, had it been used, it would have thwarted the suspected Christmas Day bomber, who allegedly hid an explosive device in his underwear.

He declined to go into specific details on Wednesday about what the pat-down technique entails, saying that he didn’t want to give “a road map to anybody” on how to defeat the technique.

While I’m sure that comment was intended to instill confidence in its effectiveness, so far I haven’t heard of any Senate takers on the complimentary pat-downs. I wonder why?  Do you think any on Capital Hill are suddenly developing an aversion to flying home for the holidays?

The real icing on this cake is that while the full body scans will reveal intimate, personal, and private  conditions like the necessity of an adult diaper, a colostomy bag, artificial limb or other personal medical equipment, it won’t necessarily do the job of preventing a terrorist device from getting on the plane or even into the airport where they could do equal or greater damange.  The Christian Science Monitor points out:

“It remains unclear whether the AIT [scanners] would have been able to detect the weapon Mr. Abdulmutallab used in his attempted attack,” says a March report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Italian security officials stopped using the scanners in September. “We didn’t get good results from body scanners during testing,” said Vito Riggio, the president of Italy’s aviation authority, describing the scans as slow and ineffective.

British scientists found that the scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but missed plastic, chemicals and liquids, reported UK newspaper The Independent in January.

Larry Johnson discussed the limitations of these procedures and how we should move forward with Aviation Security that Is Sane and Sensible.  Jane Hamsher gives an interesting timeline to how we wound up with “porno scanners” through the help of Michael Chertoff, the christmas bomber, and stimulus money. (Doesn’t that just warm your heart .)

I’m also betting the airline industry will be joining the push back next as they feel the repercussions of customers opting out of flying all together.  I, for one, will be voting against these procedures with my travel dollars and enjoying the freedoms and comforts of the open road this holiday season.

*Update*

Ron Paul says “Enough is enough!” and introduces HR 6416 The American Traveler Dignity Act (big h/t Noogan)

Go Ron Paul!

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams’ initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP’s actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:

But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:

This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won’t be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama’s DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

I might add, after the big 18 minute speech, we can also add Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman to the list of people whose Obama-fog is being lifted. That’s quite a trifecta, and in large part due to the Obama speech about how we would deal with this devastating oil spill, all 18 minutes, which apparently lacked specificity. Just ask Olbermann. Wow, who even knew this was possible?

But to be fair, Stewart’s rehab back into the Reality-based community started earlier than the MSNBC Trifecta, not waiting for the speechifying of the Flawed Analogy Maker in Chief. At least from what I have seen in clips. But when I saw this on Tuesday night, I admit, I was stunned:

Holy moley – it’s as if this BP spill has finally broken through all of the Kool Aide induced amnesia, and some folks are finally starting to put together the pieces like we did during the primaries. Though Stewart missed one – that Obama as president also supports spying on American citizens. But other than that, it was as if Stewart finally decided to look at all of the things we had been screaming about in 2008 and 2009. Of course, he had to have the obligatory dig at Sarah Palin. We can’t have it all be about how hoodwinked the Obots were by Obama or else their heads might explode, so Stewart used the favorite punching bag of the Democrats, Sarah Palin, as a way to reduce tension in their brains. Whatever. Maybe he’ll get over that someday.

It should be interesting to see how Stewart responds to Obama’s Big Gulf Oil speech on Wednesday night’s show. If Tuesday night is any indication, Stewart may have finally gotten it. Perhaps he’ll report on the Safety Award the Obama Administration gave to the Deepwater Horizon, even though the Bush Administration gave it citations, or the lack of federal inspections, or that Obama only has 20 minutes scheduled for his big meeting with the BP Oil Execs (and, WTH with that??), or even why in the world Obama is still kowtowing to the unions and not waiving the Jones Act so other countries can come HELP US with this spill? Will more members of the MSM start to put these all together, or just leave it to a few sites while they continue to protect the Obama Presidency (how’s that working out for you now, Chris Matthews?)? Time will tell, and soon enough…

So, thanks, Larry, for helping me to go back to “The Daily Show.” Maybe there is some hope after all, you think?

Okay, here goes:

Section 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in_________ shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of __________ and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

“Demanding Documentation”?? What? How dare they demand substantiating documentation of someone’s legal status. That’s an outrage! Ahem.

You may be thinking this MUST be Arizona with this strong language regarding questioning suspected illegal immigrants given the levels of protest. I mean, yikes, that’s some pretty strong language there in that entire section. They ain’t messing around, that’s for sure.

But what really struck me was the threat in #3-C regarding the prohibition against limiting or not cooperating with this law. Why? Because that would include the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just two, which have voted to boycott Arizona over their very similar law. This is California’s law on Illegal Immigrants.

Yep. So, when Obama, the President, dismisses out of hand a law that is extremely close to California’s own law, that says something. Perhaps Obama can’t be expected to know about California’s law. But the freaking governor of the state should know about it, especially being a LEGAL immigrant himself. That makes Schwarzenegger’s comment regarding Arizona even more surprising:

“I was also to go and give a commencement speech in Arizona, but with my accent I was worried they were going to deport me back to Austria,” said Schwarzenegger.

The governor has said he’s strongly opposed to the Arizona law. He says the attempt to control illegal immigration will create a “mess.

So, is he admitting that he is failing to follow the laws of his own state, and the Federal Government? Kinda seems that way to me.

Perhaps, instead of Obama criticizing Arizona, he should take a look at why the current federal law is not being upheld. Maybe he could ask if these cities and states who refuse to uphold this law are willing to forgive and all federal tax dollars – OUR dollars – because they are in violation of federal law. Yeah, right. I know, that will happen about the same time our unicorns and Obama cash show up, as my buddy, SFIndie, is wont to say.

I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure that all of these elected officials were required to take oaths of office pledging to uphold the laws and Constitution. Did some of these laws become optional at some point? Sure seems that way since entire cities are willing to take stands saying they REFUSE to uphold laws on the books in their own state. And if they refuse to follow federal and state laws, why should anyone follow what THEY say?

In the meantime, maybe these folks in CA can get off their high horses about Arizona, and maybe take a little look see at their own laws. Just a suggestion. Especially since Arizona is NOT going to take this lying down:

Moreover, this travel thing goes both ways, too. Oh, yes. Arizona residents are basically saying, “You can bite us” to San Diego:

Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

I believe this is known as, “Screw me? Screw YOU screw me!” And don’t think this isn’t affecting San Diego:

That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancelations from Arizona guests,” Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper.

Roughly 2 million Arizonans visit San Diego each year but the recession has taken a toll on the hotel industry that was hoping for a comeback this year. Hotels are offering deep discounts to fill up their undersold rooms while the tourism board spends $7 million this spring and summer season to promote travel to the area.

Imagine that. There are actually consequences to the actions taken by these city councils, and Arizonans have no reason to see them as “symbolic.”

Add these kneejerk, politically motivated decisions to our elected officials deciding they do not have to follow state or federal laws they decide they don’t like. Can you imagine what would happen if we decide there are laws we just areen’t going to bother following, and take a step further, demand others not follow, too? Oh, I know – whaddya say we try doing that with our taxes and see how far we get? Yeah, I know – not very far.

Maybe the Governor of Arizona needs to put her law down side by side California’s law, and have a little chat with her fellow governor. Let him know this thing goes both ways, and she is not going to sit back while California threatens Arizona simply for enforcing federal law.

And if California refuses to enforce federal laws, I say take their damn funding away. They cannot have it both ways, right? Let’s hear it.

In light of recent events in Arizona to strengthen Federal law regarding illegal immigration and the subsequent brouhaha over that law, I asked a friend about her own immigration story. She immigrated from the Pacific Islands some years ago. I wondered what the process was like when she became a citizen, and what her take is on those who come here illegally. She has graciously allowed me to reprint in full her response to my questions. Out of respect for her privacy, her name shall remain anonymous. And now, her response to my many questions.

Just to set the scenario, she came to the country initially to attend her sister’s wedding on the West Coast, and to see the country.

So here is my story:

So, today, with all the debate about immigration, you can guess how I feel about people who refuse to get in line and go through the process. I learned a lot about due process and working within the system and the many ways the system can be circumvented, in talking to others who had the same problems. For the most part, the American process is based on the honor system. So people who do not subscribe to any personal honor code can circumvent, not only the immigration process but the entitlement programs. I chose to be an American and I resent the idea of the country’s finances being drained by illegals.
She’s not the only one by a long shot. The Pew Research Center has found a broad support for the Arizona law:

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove.

While young people are generally split on the law, most approve of showing documentation:

[snip] However, even most young people approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status; 61% approve of this element of the law while 35% disapprove. Larger percentages of older age groups support this provision.

In the “More Bad News For Obama” Department, there is this:

As has been the case since last fall, the public is highly critical of Barack Obama’s handling of immigration policy. Just 25% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, while more than twice as many (54%) disapprove. That is little changed from last month (29% approve) and down slightly from last November (31%).

In the current survey, 76% of Republicans disapprove of Obama’s handling of immigration policy, while just 8% approve. Independents disapprove of Obama’s job on the issue by more than two-to-one (57% to 25%). Even among Democrats, as many disapprove (38%) as approve (37%) of the way he is handling the issue, while a quarter (25%) offer no opinion.

Great thanks to my friend for allowing me to tell her story. It is most relevant to the current climate around Illegal Immigration, and Immigration in general. As more states look to add this type of legislation, as cities and even schools* enact boycotts of Arizona, in essence thumbing their noses at Federal Law, this issue is far from resolved.

Kinda makes you wonder what’s going to happen in November, doesn’t it?

*IMHO, it was reprehensible for the school superintendent to make this decision. It was purely political to keep a Chicago team from playing at a tournament in Arizona, one for which they had worked HARD, and had absolutely no input into this horrible decision. The claim that it might be threatening to members of the team is ridiculous – none of them is an illegal alien. They let their students go to China, but not Arizona?? For them to have this taken from them for pure politics is reprehensible.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is even a matter of debate. It is against the law to enter this country without documentation. What part of “illegal” do these people not understand? Sheesh.

Add to that the arrest of Lawrence Taylor for rape of a 16-year-old girl, and the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault, and these are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to athletes committing crimes against women. Numerous professional athletes have been charged with domestic violence, including the manager of the Braves, Bobby Cox, Rockies pitcher Pedro Astacio, and too many to list here now.

And that is a sad commentary on our sports culture, our culture in general. It is that culture about which Sally Jenkins wrote recently in this Washington Post article, “George Huguely, Ben Roethlisberger, Lawrence Taylor: Male Athletes Encouraged To Do The Wrong Thing“:

George Huguely is said to have been a vicious drunk who menaced Yeardley Love, yet there has been no indication that any of his teammates said anything to police. Ben Roethlisberger seems to be a serial insulter of women, whose behavior is shielded by the off-duty cops he employs. And if the charges are true, Lawrence Taylor ignored the bruises on a 16-year-old girl’s face as he had sex with her, never thinking to ask who beat her.

It’s a bad stretch for women in the sports pages. After reading the news accounts and police reports, it’s reasonable to ask: Should women fear athletes? Is there something in our sports culture that condones these assaults? It’s a difficult, even upsetting question, because it risks demonizing scores of decent, guiltless men. But we’ve got to ask it, because something is going on here — there’s a disturbing association, and surely we’re just as obliged to address it as we are concussions.

“We can no longer dismiss these actions as representative of a few bad apples,” says Jay Coakley, author of “Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies,” and a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado. “The evidence suggests that they are connected to particular group cultures that are in need of critical assessment.”

Well, that’s putting it mildly, isn’t it? Women being murdered by someone they know, the ultimate act of domestic violence, is nothing new. That is disturbing enough. But there’s more:

What do we mean when we ask whether there was something in the lacrosse “culture” that led to the murder of Yeardley Love? The Latin root of the word “cultura” means “to grow.” It means the attitudes, practices, and values that are implanted and nourished in a group or society.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about Huguely and his “brothers,” but three attitudes and practices of at least some members of the Virginia lacrosse team seem obvious: physical swagger, heavy drinking and fraternal silence.

In 2008, a drunken Huguely was so brutally combative with a female cop that she felt she had to Taser him. Last year, he assaulted a sleeping teammate who he believed had kissed Love, several former players say, and this year, he had other violent confrontations with Love herself, witnesses say.

We can argue about gaps in the system, but one constituency very likely knew about Huguely’s behavior: his teammates and friends, the ones who watched him smash up windows and bottles and heard him rant about Love.

Why didn’t they tackle him? Why didn’t they turn him in?

Undoubtedly, many of the young men on the Virginia lacrosse team are fine human beings. I don’t mean to question their decency. I don’t mean to blame them.

But I do mean to ask those who knew of Huguely’s behavior an important question. Why did they not treat Yeardley Love as their teammate, too?

Where were her brothers?

Why was she not deserving of the same loyalty as George Huguely? She played lacrosse. She wore a Virginia uniform. She was equally a champion. And yet because she played on the women’s team, she seems not to have been accorded the same protection that Huguely was.

That doesn’t just break the heart. It shatters it into a thousand pieces.

Where were her brothers indeed. I can appreciate that Jenkins doesn’t want to paint the entire team with a broad brush, but in much the same way the Atlanta Falcons and Virginia Tech Hokies remained silent about Michael Vick’s dog fighting, these young men remained silent about Huguely’s violence toward Love (and their own teammate). Not to equate dog fighting to murder by any stretch, but to highlight the culture of tacit acceptance of bad behavior by athletes in general.

As noted above, it isn’t just Huguely:

The allegations against Huguely, Roethlisberger and Taylor share something in common. In all of these cases, the alleged female victims were treated as undeserving of inclusion in the protected circle. They were “others” rather than insiders.

Sports Illustrated’s profile of Roethlisberger and the men who look after him is utterly damning. According to the magazine story, on the night that he allegedly accosted an over-served undergrad in a Milledgeville, Ga., restroom, Roethlisberger held up a tray of tequila shots and hollered, “All my bitches, take some shots!” He exposed himself at the bar. He forced his hand up someone’s skirt. Yet police sergeant Jerry Blash described the alleged victim as “this drunken bitch,” and Roethlisberger’s bodyguards apparently blocked off the area. Protecting Roethlisberger, being “in” with him, took precedence over ethics.

“Who needs the bodyguard here?” Coakley asks incredulously. “What is the role of bodyguard? It’s not to maintain male hegemony and privilege. It’s to maintain order.”

The charge of third-degree rape against Taylor prompts another question. Police allege that a 16-year-old runaway was beaten by a sex trafficker and brought to Taylor’s hotel room, where, according to police report, instead of protecting her, he allegedly protected himself with a condom. If Taylor is guilty, how could he have acted in such a depersonalizing way — unless he viewed her as more object than person?

According to Coakley, the data is clear: Certain types of all-male groups generally have higher rates of assault against women than the average, and their profile is unmistakable. They tend to include sports teams, fraternities, and military units, and they stress the physical subordination of others — and exclusiveness.

Common sense tells me that “sport” in general is not the culprit in all of this so much as excessive celebration and rewarding of it: binge drinking, women-as-trophies, the hubris resulting from exaggerated entitlement and years of being let off the hook. We are hatching physically gifted young men in incubators of besotted excess and a vocabulary of “bitches and hos.”

What has happened to kindness, to the cordial pleasures of friendship between men and women in the sports world? Above all, what has happened to sexuality? When did the most sublime human exchange become more about power and status than romance? When did it become so pornographic and transactional, so implacably cold?

The truth is, women can’t do anything about this problem. Men are the only ones who can change it — by taking responsibility for their locker room culture, and the behavior and language of their teammates. Nothing will change until the biggest stars in the clubhouse are mortally offended, until their grief and remorse over an assault trumps their solidarity.

That bears repeating:

The truth is, women can’t do anything about this problem. Men are the only ones who can change it — by taking responsibility for their locker room culture, and the behavior and language of their teammates. Nothing will change until the biggest stars in the clubhouse are mortally offended, until their grief and remorse over an assault trumps their solidarity.

And it is far past time for them to do so. Athletes who have remained silent need to do so no longer. As long as they refuse to speak up, to speak out, they bear responsibility for the outcome as well.

Honestly, a lot of these athletes could learn a thing or two from people like Tim Tebow. While I may not agree with his stance on Choice, or even his brand of religion, at least he is a stand up guy. I cannot imagine someone like Tebow remaining silent if one of his teammates was acting in the same manner as Huguely, nor would he ever act toward women like Huguely did (threatening to kill a woman police officer because she was a woman?? Wow.).

Bottom line, we cannot, we MUST not, lose more young women like Yeardley Love to the unchecked violence of fellow athletes, athletes who have been protected from having to bear any responsibility for their violent tendencies, or any athletes at all. We cannot lose one more young woman this way, not one more.