That are going to make my head explode. First, news that the ten executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still operating in the red, and which are largely to blame for the housing crisis, got BONUSES. And I am not talking little bonuses, either. Those ten mo-fos got = and you better sit the hell down and swallow whatever you are drinking – $12.79 MILLION DOLLARS. Yes, you read that number correctly.

Gosh, I hate this Administration:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government-sponsored corporations last year met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of foreclosure.

The executives got the bonuses about two years after the federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts — and despite pledges by FHFA, the office tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and others.

Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as Freddie Mac’s CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last year yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay. Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar Wall Street-style compensation packages; Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in performance bonuses. (Click here to read the rest.)

So they got these massive bonuses for mild improvements after getting $170 BILLION of our taxpaying dollars. Are you freakin’ KIDDING me with this? Outrageous, just outrageous.

Just in case you need a reminder, check out this hearing from 2004:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Good grief, this makes my blood boil.

Next up is the Federal Government’s continued attacks on South Carolina, this time about our new Immigration law set to go into force in January. (You may recall that the NLRB went after SC for Boeing opening up a manufacturing plant here rather than in a union state, despite Boeing having plants in other states with unions, and which cost zero union jobs.)

Yes, the DOJ, that bastion of fairness and justice – cough, choke, cough – is attacking the state’s immigration law, which is similar to Arizona’s. If someone commits a crime, and the police have reason to suspect they are illegal, they can ask for proof of citizenship. If the person is illegal, the police officers will call in the appropriate immigration personnel to handle the offender. Additionally, businesses have to ensure their employees are here legally. (I thought everyone had to do that ANYWAY. I have had to prove my citizenship numerous times for positions I have taken.) But this DOJ takes umbrage with all of that, so it has filed a lawsuit against SC, naming Governor Haley as the defendant.

Now, let’s be clear – in no other country can you expect to go on your merry way if you are discovered to be there illegally. If you think you can live and work easily in another country without a visa, passport, or green card, go check it out. I’ll wait. Oh, no, I won’t because your ass will either be in jail, or on a plane home. No other country, including the two with whom we share borders, will allow you to live and work inside their country ILLEGALLY. Their laws are strict, and THEY ENFORCE THEM, unlike the United States.

The Federal government claims that this is their bastion – that’s their beef. Our governor, a daughter of LEGAL immigrants herself, Nikki Haley, said the government is not doing its job, it is not protecting our borders, it is not keeping out illegal aliens, and they are taking our jobs. Considering SC has higher unemployment than the national average, that is no small thing.

Here is more about both the law, and the complaint against it:

[snip] he government wants a judge to stop enforcement of the legislation, which requires that officers call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally following a stop for something else, U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles told The Associated Press.

“The Department of Justice has many important tasks,” Nettles said. “Two of those important tasks are the defense of the constitution and ensuring equality is afforded to all.”

The law says all law enforcement officers are required to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The question must follow an arrest or traffic stop for something else. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents railed against the measure as encouraging racial profiling.

[...]

The law also makes it a felony for someone to make fake photo IDs for illegal residents and creates a new law enforcement unit within the Department of Public Safety to enforce state immigration laws. It also makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to allow themselves to be transported.

Nettles said the law is unconstitutional and violates people’s right to due process.

I’m sorry, but none of those things sound all that egregious to me. The state wants to ensure people are living and working in the state legally, and it wants to punish those who try and get around that by making fake IDs, which I would think is illegal anyway. And this violates” due process”??

You know, if the DOJ wasn’t already such a laughing stock for the crap it has been pulling with not going after actual offenders, like the New Black Panther Party, or lying its freaking ass off over “Fast and Furious,” I might give them a tad more leeway. But they don’t deserve it. Not by a long shot.

Oh, but wait, there’s more. This is from none other than Janet Napolitano:

In a news release, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said South Carolina’s law “diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve, while failing to address the underlying problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. DO YOUR JOBS!!! This is just another wordy excuse for not doing what the US Constitution declares is the role of the Federal Government – to protect the country and its citizens from “invasion.” Do your damn job, and stop attacking states when they have to resort to taking care of their own borders for lack of federal action.

And speaking of the DOJ and lying its ass off over programs like “Fast and Furious,” the DOJ dumped a TON of emails on Congress the night before another hearing on this program. Yep. They have had months to do this, but waited until the very last minute to release 650 pages. Why? Well, because there was a hearing scheduled for the next day, that’s why.

But get this – not only are there more Congresspeople demanding Holder step down, but the data dump revealed the following:

[snip] The new documents, according to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, “indicate that contrary to previous denials by the Justice Department, the criminal division has a great deal of culpability in sweeping the previous Wide Receiver strategy under the rug and then allowing the subsequent Operation Fast and Furious to continue without asking key questions.”

“Most importantly, officials raised very appropriate questions related to Operation Wide Receiver at the same time that many of these same officials were receiving briefings on Operation Fast and Furious,” Grassley said in a statement. “It begs the question why they didn’t ask the same important policy questions about an ongoing case being run out of the same field division.” [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Have I mentioned how much I hate this Administration?

So, sorry if this makes your head explode, too. I just had to share. I am sure there are things going on in your neck of the woods or with this government that are getting on your last nerve, too. Feel free to share that with us, too. I need an aspirin…

Intrepid reporter, Sharyl Atttkisson reported for CBS News brings us the latest on this new twist to “Fast and Furious”:

Police say Jean Baptiste Kingery, a U.S. citizen, was a veritable grenade machine. He’s accused of smuggling parts for as many as 2,000 grenades into Mexico for killer drug cartels — sometimes under the direct watch of U.S. law enforcement.

Law enforcement sources say Kingery could have been prosecuted in the U.S. twice for violating export control laws, but that, each time, prosecutors in Arizona refused to make a case.

Grenades are weapons-of-choice for the cartels. An attack on Aug. 25 in a Monterrey, Mexico casino killed 53 people.

Sources tell CBS News that, in January 2010, ATF had Kingery under surveillance after he bought about 50 grenade bodies and headed to Mexico. But they say prosecutors wouldn’t agree to make a case. So, as ATF agents looked on, Kingery and the grenade parts crossed the border — and simply disappeared.

Six months later, Kingery allegedly got caught leaving the U.S. for Mexico with 114 disassembled grenades in a tire. One ATF agent told investigators he literally begged prosecutors to keep Kingery in custody this time, fearing he was supplying narco-terrorists, but was again ordered to let Kingery go. (Click here to read the rest.)

I imagine this must have been unbelievably frustrating to these ATF agents to watch this guy walk. It probably went against everything they had been trained to do. Yet, under this Administration, under this DOJ, under this ATF, that is precisely what they had to do as this American citizen engaged in some mighty dangerous trafficking into Mexico.

Meanwhile, the DOJ, headed up by Liar in Chief, Eric Holder, has been mighty busy elsewhere. And just what is occupying their time, specifically the Civil Rights Division? I bet you could guess:

A senior official from President Barack Obama’s Justice Department spent Thursday night and Friday in Alabama appealing for evidence that could strike down the state’s innovative immigration-enforcement reform, which business executives say could open thousands of jobs to unemployed Americans.

The full-court press against the state’s immigration reform complements Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy, which seeks to spur turnout by Democratic-leaning Hispanics in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and other swing-states.

The law allows police to make a “reasonable attempt” to verify the legal residency of people who have been arrested or detained, and it requires public schools to check the eligibility of students.

The administration officials “see every Alabaman as having a Bull Connor on the inside waiting to come out … [and] they’re attacking Alabama to motivate left-wing voters in other states,” said Mark Krikorian, direct of the Center for Immigration Studies. Among progressives, “it is 1963 forever,” he added.

The state had an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent in August, slightly down from 10 percent in July. Unemployment in Alabama’s poorest counties, which are mostly African-American, is above 20 percent. (Click here to read the rest, and there is much more to this article.)

In fact, unemployment in the African American community continues to hit hard, so it makes sense this Administration would be so concerned about a state certifying workers are here in the country legally. Oh, no, wait a minute – no it doesn’t, especially when the state contends its own citizens would benefit from illegal immigrants returning to their country. One would think that such rampant unemployment within the AA community would be of primary importance to Obama, who benefited mightily in 2008 from this community. One would be wrong.

No other country in the world has such open borders as those demanded by some in this country, including this Administration, which consistently sides with those who are here ILLEGALLY rather than the states trying to keep them out. The country from which a quarter of these illegal immigrants come, Mexico, has an incredibly strict policy regarding illegal immigrants (did you know that Mexico deports more illegal aliens a year than the United States? Yeah. That says a lot, doesn’t it?). Yet, Obama and his minions seem to care less for the rule of law in this country than about the potential votes they might get. There is something seriously wrong with that.

Just as there is something seriously wrong with government officials watching someone break the law with impunity – numerous times – and doing nothing about it. Nothing. Even knowing that what the person is trafficking will rain down fire and brimstone on those caught up in some drug cartel’s battle. But, hey, whatever, right?

And all of this is taking place under the auspices of our “Department of Justice.” I can only shake my head in disgust. How about you?

But let me put this into context. He made this comment in the midst of a Senate discussion. Here’s more from this Post and Courier article:

Robert Ford, a Charleston Democrat, is under fire for making a comment about the work ethic of South Carolina blacks.

“Brothers won’t work hard like Mexicans will so we need to make sure enough Mexicans are here,” Ford is quoted as saying, according to a posting by Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beauford. Ford’s comments came during a Senate committee meeting on immigration legislation.

Ford told The Post and Courier his comments were directed at all Americans — not any specific ethnic groups. He said new immigrants, illegal or otherwise, work at hard labor job such as construction. Americans whose families have been in the country for generations work as doctors or lawyers or school teachers, he said.

“I was talking about the building of America and how every generation of Americans did the hard work,” Ford said. “Americans are not going to do real hard work. Everybody in America knows that.”

You just cannot make this shit up.

And before you start to think, “wow, this guy is a major racist,” this is Sen. Robert Ford:
Yep, that would be the esteemed senator. Wowie zowie, are people a bit perturbed with him. This is the response by one of the head Republicans in the area:

Joel Sawyer, executive director of the state Republican Party, said Ford should apologize.

“It’s disgusting and abhorrent that any elected official would say something that offensive,” Sawyer said. “He needs to apologize immediately and hopefully the condemnation of his comments will be equally as loud from both sides of the political aisle.”(Photo by O’Neal Compton)

To which did Senator Ford responded:

Ford said he does not mind apologizing, but in this case he said he does not know why anyone would be offended by his comments.

“What am I apologizing for? I made a lot of jokes in my presentation like I always do,” Ford said.

Ford said people who don’t have a sense of humor “need to get a life. I am not going to stop bringing a sense a humor.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, lighten the hell up, people! What’s the big deal? It’s just a joke. Sheesh! Ahem.

The fact that he is now trying to pass this off as just being a joke, while still claiming that Americans won’t work hard, pretty much says it all about the good senator. Wowie zowie.

Evidently, Senator Ford doesn’t know people like our brick mason, who was here until after 10:00pm the night of the Super Bowl. He worked for hours on end in an attempt to finish our foundation before the rains came again. He did finish, by the way, and did a very nice job indeed.

So, what do you think about what Senator Ford said? Should he apologize for his comments? Should people get a sense of humor already?Let’s hear it!

Wow – that is a whole lot of states – maybe Obama can use some of his Obama dollars (aka, Stimulus) to increase the staff at DOJ. He’s gonna have to, if almost half the country enacts legislation to mirror federal law. (Please don’t think about that one too hard – it will just make your head explode.)

And about that whole DOJ lawsuit targeting AZ…Well, I should say, ONE of their lawsuits targeting Arizona, the one directed at Sheriff Arpaio. Oh, yes – the DOJ is handing out these lawsuits in Arizona like they are candy. Not only are they suing the state, but they are suing the Maricopa Community Colleges for – get this – discriminating against would be employees by asking for additional paperwork. And why did they do this? Because the would be employer asked for a Green Card. And the DOJ is filing suit for that? WTH?

(UPDATE) Yes, this is how the DOJ stated their, um, “concern”:

[snip]The Justice Department said a valid driver’s license and a Social Security card are usually sufficient to show that a person is authorized to work. Requesting a green card amounts to “immigration-related employment discrimination,” said Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Federal law forbids treating “authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status,” Perez said. He said the department’s Office of Special Counsel would bring legal actions against employers who impose “unnecessary and discriminatory hurdles to employment for work-authorized noncitizens.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.”

Again, I say, WTH??? Asking for a Green Card is discriminatory?? You have got to be kidding me. Is the DOJ aware of the law passed in 1940 requiring naturalized and legal aliens to carry their papers at all times? Good grief.

Then there is Sheriff Arpaio, who allegedly committed Human Rights violations. Except maybe he didn’t, as this Daily Caller piece by Byron York indicates, “New Evidence Undermines Fed’s Case Against Arizona.” Oh, yeah – this is a doozy:

[snip] Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department’s investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio’s office — and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio’s lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.

[...]

The report, crammed with acronyms and bureaucratese, is not light reading. But struggle through it, and the key sentence is this: “The OI and DRO supervisors consider the conduct and performance of the MCSO … officers to be professional and meeting the requirement of the MOA.” Translated, that means officials from the Homeland Security Department’s Office of Investigation (OI), along with officials from the Detention and Removal Operations office (DRO), concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), in its handling of illegal immigrants, acted in a professional manner and complied with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) under which the government gave them the authority to enforce federal law. That agreement included a ban on racial profiling.

[...]

What happens now? It’s been nearly a year and a half since the investigation began, and the Justice Department has not charged the sheriff’s office with violating anyone’s civil rights. Instead, Thursday’s lawsuit goes after Arpaio for allegedly failing to cooperate fully in the probe.

[...]

Failing to find proof of real discrimination in Maricopa County could ultimately doom the administration’s entire crusade in Arizona. The much-publicized suit against the new immigration law is based on the possibility that it might result in future discrimination, but at the same time the department is struggling to find evidence of civil rights violations in Arpaio’s office, which uses enforcement techniques similar to those outlined in the new law. There’s a real chance that in the end Obama’s war on Arizona will come to nothing. (Click HERE to read the full post.)

Honestly, the whole concept of our Department of Justice suing one of our states for enforcing federal Immigration law is so mind boggling, I hardly have words to describe it. Visualize Scooby Doo’s shaking his head, and that’s what I am doing.

Fortunately, a regular at No Quarter, Noogan, summed it up well with this comment:

This is the issue that crystalizes my fear and loathing of this administration. Everything about it stinks to high heaven. It’s unconscionable. The Federal government suing the state of Arizona for passing a law which mirrors Federal law; at the same time allowing ICE and other government arms of the state to ignore Federal law? This is simply outrageous. It’s breathtakingly tyrannical.

It’s stunningly unconstitutional. Along with allowing the President of Mexico to come here, speak before Congress, maligning this country? These acts are the reason for the widely held suspicions about Obama; and no matter how many times liberals and the professional left mock the anger about it, the fact remains: The President of the United States is violating the Constitution, behaving as a dictator. That’s a very good reason to suspect the man.

I simply don’t have words to express my loathing of Eric Holder and Obama….

Thank you, Noogan. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

One thing is crystal clear – Obama and his Department of “Justice” have it in BIG time for Arizona. They are throwing anything they can against the wall hoping SOMETHING sticks to bring Arizona down. So far, though, all they are doing is demonstrating a callous disregard for the laws they are sworn to uphold.

The DOJ and Obama Administration are sure going to have their hands full if half the country follows Arizona’s lead of trying to enforce Federal law.

Wow. I have to stop now, before my head explodes…

Overall, Krauthammer’s message is concise: let the legislators legislate, that is their job after all, and let the administrators administrate the laws they have been charged to enforce. Easy, right? Sadly, not much any more:

Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Department of Homeland Security suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.

Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.

When questioned, the White House played down the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted The Post, sending “a message to Congress.”

It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation — taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy — or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding “is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving.”

Well, Congress didn’t. Despite the “regulatory cudgel” (to again quote The Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce. [snip]

Krauthammer’s post s well worth the read, and you can read the rest of it here.

Back to this memo for a second here. If you take the time to read it, you will see exactly to what Krauthammer is referring, a reinterpretation of the law, and an “expansion,” if you will, of the law to permit more people to stay here, even though they are illegal aliens. In fact, it allows people who have already been deemed ineligible to change their status. I believe that boils down to amnesty, does it not? And that is only the second page of an eleven page memo. Yikes.

But here’s the thing, as Krauthammer points out: it is NOT the job of Homeland Security to reinterpret the law, but to administer the law. And it is certainly not their job to craft de facto immigration reform “absent legislative action,” as the memo states.

Despite Obama’s strong-arming of Congress, there is a reason why there are three equal branches of government. It’s about damn time for us to get back to treating each branch equally, and for each branch to act accordingly. Don’t you think?

But guess after whom the DOJ refuses to go? Sanctuary cities. You know, places like San Francisco, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Seattle, to name a few, which willingly flaunt federal immigration law by ignoring immigration law as it applies to illegal immigrants. Tacoma Park, MD, flat out refuses to enforce federal immigration laws:

2. All City officials and employees continue–in keeping with our City’s Sanctuary status, and with our long and distinguished history of protecting the human rights of our residents–to preserve all Takoma Park residents’ freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and privacy; and that all Local law enforcement personnel refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

And that doesn’t merit a closer look by the Department of Justice? Evidently not. Takoma Park, and other cities like it, are just A-Okay as far as the DOJ is concerned.

I kid you not. Take a look:

If you prefer to read about it, this article has all of the highlights, or lowlights, depending on your perspective, “Justice: Sanctuary Cities Safe From Law.” That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

Wow.

Well, while our US Department of Justice is all busy suing the bejesus out of one of our states, essentially for doing a job the federal government refuses to do, but doesn’t think anyone else should either, all is not lost. It turns out there are a number of states who are aligning themselves with Arizona, as this article indicates, Brief For 9 States Backs Arizona Immigration Law:

States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally. [snip]

Oh, Cox didn’t stop there. He had plenty more to say:

[snip] “Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement.

Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox’s office, said she was thankful for the support.

In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents “a lot of states,” considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.

“By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person’s immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government,” the brief states. [snip] Click here to read the rest.

Clearly, a number of states, along with Arizona itself, are not willing to take the actions of the DOJ lying down. And good on them, I say. Especially when there is such an egregious double standard. It is just fine and dandy, apparently, for a number of cities to flat out claim they refuse to abide by federal immigration law. But let a state claim they intend to enforce said laws, and all hell breaks lose.

Am I missing something here?

The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue.

Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.

[...]

[A]s a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies, by which illegal immigrants who don’t commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don’t check for immigration papers.

He also, during his tenure as Houston police chief, criticized ICE’s key program that draws on local law enforcement’s support.

“There’s no way you can head up an office if you don’t believe in what the office is supposed to do,” Curtis Collier of U.S. Border Watch, told the Houston Chronicle. …

Ya think? Good grief – it is as much of an “in-your-face” to people and states who want our immigration policies upheld as it could possibly be, if you ask me. But Hurtt has his supporters:

[An ICE spokesperson says] that Hurtt has always been a proponent of the jail model of the 287(g) program, which gives local police authority to initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants linked to serious crimes — but as a police chief, he didn’t favor more proactive local enforcement because he didn’t believe it was the best utilization of his resources.

“I think the critics are only talking about half of what he said,” she said. “He’s always been a strong proponent of every law enforcement agency making those decision on their own.”

Critics say his pro-immigration policies enabled illegal immigrants to kill two police officers and seriously injure another in Phoenix before he left in 2005 and to kill an officer in Houston before he retired in 2009.

The widow of one of the officers, Rodney Johnson, who was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record, is suing Hurtt for enacting policies that she says led to his death.

[...]

“The responsibility of those homicides lies on the shoulder of the individuals who committed the crimes,” Nantel said. …

Ah, yes – his critics are just being SO unfair to him. Right.

And while I am at it, my good friend, Logistics Monster, had the following video of Gov. Brewer speaking out to Obama. And does the Governor have some things to say:

Short and to the point, isn’t Gov. Brewer? Not to mention that she’s right. But clearly, Obama shows his hand with the choice of Hurtt in terms of “Immigration Reform,” not to mention his intent to uphold current law. So far, his loyalty seems to be with those who break immigration law. Interesting take for an American president, isn’t it? Ahem.

I am sure this has NOTHING to do with the upcoming election, right? Yeah, right…

Bear in mind, as you read this AP article, that Mexico has far, far more Draconian laws than the US would ever even dream of having, yet they are trying to tell one of OUR states how to protect its border from. Suffice it to say, if you are caught being in Mexico illegally, you are in for a world of hurt. And that is what makes this so rich:

Mexico Asks Court To Reject Ariz. Immigration Law

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country’s own interests and its citizens’ rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state’s streets.

Citing “grave concerns,” Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn’t be frustrated by one U.S. state.

Mexico also said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens’ rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries’ work on combatting drug trafficking and related violence.

“Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention,” the brief said.

It will be to a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations.

Hold the phone. Mexican citizens “will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure” because they might be asked for their ID if they commit another crime for which they are stopped? If they are in the country legally, and have a legal right to be working in the United States, why would they be afraid?? Good grief. How is it possible people can get this far in life with logic like this (if it can be called “logic,” that is).

Hopefully, the US District Court will not allow another nation to interfere into a US state law. Oh, and it would have been nice if someone had mentioned this to the governor:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, Brewer said she was “very disappointed” to learn of Mexico’s filing and reiterated that “Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional.”

“I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional,” Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

Mexican officials previously had voiced opposition to the Arizona law, with President Felipe Calderon saying June 8 that the law “opens a Pandora’s box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity” by promoting racial profiling and potentially leading to an authoritarian society.

Calderon voiced similar criticism of the law during a May visit to Washington.

U.S. officials have said the Obama administration has serious concerns about the law and may challenge it in court. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently went further by saying a lawsuit is planned.

Okay, maybe it’s because I’m getting over being sick, or having an almost 6 year old here for the week and I am, well, let’s say, not young, or both. But my response to this is, “Bite me” to Mexico. The law in Arizona does not violate human rights, does not violate Federal law, since that law requires ALL persons from other countries here legally to carry papers stating as much for 70 years now, and only comes into play when a violation of one sort or another has been committed (not, as Obama stupidly claimed, when a family merely goes out for ice cream).

And honestly, if they are going to go after Arizona, they should go after California, too, since they have some mighty strict laws about immigration themselves. Just saying.

Or, maybe they should treat their citizens better so they aren’t trying to get into the United States illegally (again, almost 60% of illegal immigrants in the US are from Mexico, so I am not picking on them, but stating a fact. And ya don’t hear the Canadian government threatening to sue, do ya? Nope.). Maybe they should work to make their border less porous, too, instead of making the US do the lion’s share to keep their citizens out. Maybe they should just shut the hell up already since they are not bearing the tremendous cost to land, life, and finances that the US is bearing (you won’t even believe what the US Dept. of the Interior is charging the U.S. Border Patrol – you read that right – for “environmental costs” to the border. I am not making this up. Try $50 million dollars. Yup.). Instead of going after one of our states, focusing on the speck in the eye of another, Mexico should focus on the plank in its own eye, to use a biblical metaphor.

What do you think?

But it begs the question, why. Why is Obama suing Arizona over its new law for real, not just the mealy mouthed circular logic BS Obama has been spewing? Well, Senator Kyl tells his constituents why, following a one-on-one conversation with Obama himself. Take a listen:

Did you catch that? Because Obama is arm-twisting the Republicans to support his Immigration policy (amnesty). That is why he is suing Arizona, and not helping with border protection, a CONSTITUTIONAL mandate. Nope, Obama wants something to do his duty, as Kyl said. That is seriously, seriously wrong.

And there is the Gulf Oil disaster, and the related clean-up. I think this headline says it all, Breaking: Obama Administration Only Accepted Help From 5 Countries Out of 28 That Offered Assistance. What?? WHY? That is the question:

Just last weekend Barack Obama announced that the BP oil spill was like 9-11. This weekend as President Obama went golfing and to the ballgame, the Obama State Department was STILL in the review process on deciding which countries the US would accept help from… 60 days after the disaster!

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

This makes zero sense to me. Zero. What the hell is the matter with him? I am sure he will find a way to blame it on someone else. Hmm, like maybe Hillary? Possibly:

The State Department posted this on their website.
28 countries have offered to help assist the United States with the worst environmental disaster in American history. Only 5 offers have been accepted the rest are under review.
Page 1-

Page 2-

Page 3-

Page 4-

I do not understand this one bit. Oil continues to gush into the Gulf, and the Obama Administration has only cleared FIVE countries to come help?? Look at some of the ones he has not yet cleared. It isn’t like they are two-bit players. This makes zero sense. Either he is playing politics with this spill as he bows down to the unions, or he is continuing to show his complete lack of experience, qualifications, commitment, or all of the above. I am voting for all of the above. It is insane for him to not have all hands on deck to deal with this disaster NOW.

Then there is this, along with not having more countries help us in the Gulf, or setting up the borders to be porous as well as dangerous, without lifting a finger to help and suing states that try to do something about it to bend Republicans to his will. And that would be Eric Holder’s decision to hold off on making a decision (!!) about where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Naturally, Holder says this isn’t at all political. He’s a big liar, too, though (remember when he called the US a bunch of racists after just electing Obama? Uh huh.). I don’t believe for one skinny second this isn’t a political decision, despite the headline, Mid-term Elections Have Nothing To Do With 9/11 Trial Delay, Holder Says. Right. So what is his justification, then? Beats me. Maybe you can figure it out from this:

Attorney General Eric Holder said the decision over where to hold the trial for alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was “weeks away” — three months ago.

Now advocates on both sides of the issue say they expect the Obama administration to punt the decision until after the November midterm elections— when the controversial plan could do less damage to the political fortunes of endangered Democrats and might face less resistance on Capitol Hill.

Holder last week explicitly denied the midterms had anything to do with the timing but would only say discussions are continuing. The White House had no comment.

Any further stalling could pose a serious political problem for President Barack Obama on the left – where advocates cheered his administration’s plan to break from the Bush administration and give top al-Qaida figures trials in American courtrooms, a sign to the country and the world that U.S.-style justice was enough to try to men accused of the worst crimes in the nation’s history. (Click HERE for the rest of the story.)

Seems pretty political to me, like Obama holding our borders hostage, as Kyl said. And, like not allowing other countries to come help clean up the oil, or lifting the Jones Act YET as he continues to kowtow to the unions.

This is criminal. Perhaps not in the strictly legal sense, though I think violating the mandates of the Constitution would rise to that level. So yeah – it most likely is in terms of the Borders and his lack of protection there, or the threat in the Gulf to livelihoods and life.

As president, though, he is seriously derelict in his duty and must be held to account.

+Before 5/31/08, I never thought I would be upset at the Democrats holding all three chambers, but these mid-terms cannot come quickly enough. Perhaps the Republicans will retake the House, and hold Obama accountable for his massive misdeeds, arm-twisting, coercions, and downright contempt for the protection of the people he swore to serve. He clearly is beholden to other interests, not the interests of the people or the country.

Nowhere is this clearer than Arizona and the Gulf Coast. Will they be Obama’s Waterloo?

I’m sorry, WHAT?? A big, huge part of Arizona is continuing to be ceded to Mexico by Obama?? Americans are being told to stay out of a Wildlife Refuge on our own soil? The United States of America is allowing a bunch of drug and human traffickers to take over part of Arizona?

How about getting some damn troops down there, or finish the wall, or something, NOT give up part of a state! What is WRONG with this man??

Can this man be impeached yet??

What’s on your minds today?

UPDATE: This area of the Wildlife Refuge was initially closed in 2006, though to my mind, given the numerous and frequent requests for assistance from Arizona to the Federal government under Obama to help protect its borders, it doesn’t change my point one bit. I have NO qualms blaming Bush for allowing this to happen in 2006, but Obama does NOT get a free pass for ignoring the pleas and cries from AZ now. Rather than HELP them, he is threatening to SUE them. No matter WHO is President, any president who allows part of the United States to be ceded to another country does not deserve to be president.

Obama continues to allow this, has CUT the Border Patrol, has STOPPED the building of the fence, and has refused to give the numbers of National Guard needed to secure the border. So, hell yes, he is culpable for this part of AZ to be taken over by drug/human traffickers! They are on OUR soil, after all.

UPDATE #2: Sec. Clinton has acknowledged that Obama is going to bring a lawsuit against Arizona. You know, because protecting our borders is the Fed’s job. Ahem.

Hold the phone for a second – just what IS the job of the State Attorney General if not to uphold the laws of the state? Just asking. Perhaps that’s what Gov. Brewer wants to know, too:

A sudden new twist in the ongoing rhetorical and legal struggle over Arizona’s tough new law to round up illegal immigrants.

Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state’s Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop. (For a full list of background stories, see Related Items below.)

The governor’s abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall’s gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation’s capital.

As the state’s chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against challenges to the Legislature’s action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government’s inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.

However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.

On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration’s Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer’s handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.

Brewer said, “I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona.”

Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.

Hmmm. Sounds like there is some monkey business going on with the person who is supposed to be on the side of the state, not the party. Gov. Brewer is not taking this collusion lying down:

Her statement (full text below) said:

Due to Attorney General Goddard’s curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona’s new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration laws.

Despite widespread criticism in the media and the Obama administration, whose officials including Holder admitted they had not actually read the legislation, numerous polls have shown deep support for the measure nationally and within Arizona.

And that approval has transferred over to Brewer, who was trailing Goddard early this year in polls of a hypothetical matchup come Nov. 2. Brewer inherited the governor’s office last year when Janet Napolitano resigned to accept the man-caused nomination of Homeland Security secretary from President Obama.

Brewer has sought to meet with the now-vacationing Obama during a trip to Washington next week. But the Democrat has been unable to fit the Republican governor and the border issue into his impossible schedule.

Imagine that – the one who is trying to enforce federal law is actually going up in ratings, while those who seem to want porous borders with no enforcement are going down. Hmm. I wonder what message can POSSIBLY be taken away from THAT?

And how about Obama not meeting with Gov. Brewer while she is in town? She is going to be in town because Obama appointed her to a Special Council a while back. But he refuses to meet with her to discuss this issue about which HE has made an issue. Wowie zowie. Perhaps we should change his title to “Petulant In Chief.”

You gotta give it to Governor Brewer – she is one helluva strong woman. Obama choosing not to meet with her says way more about him than it does about her. He has no qualms throwing out barbs and zingers, but when he is faced with someone who will stand up to him, he hides. What a bully he is, and what a coward. He could take some lessons – a lot of them – from Gov. Brewer, don’t you think?

Obama said claimed that the US has a history as “a nation of law and as a nation of immigrants.” Yes, but that does not mean we should be a nation of ILLEGAL immigrants, and I am pretty sure our nation’s laws deals with that very issue of people coming here illegally.

“I’m President of the United States (stop reminding us). I don”t endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts…” I’m sorry, WHAT did you say?? You cannot flat out, categorically condemn the boycotting of an entire STATE by municipalities in other states for implementing a law that MIRRORS federal law, and is taking action where you are NOT? So much for that “nation of law” bullshit.

How about this, Mr. President, you are SUPPOSED to be the president of all 50 states and all LEGAL citizens, whether they voted for you or not. Perhaps you could try something more like: “I cannot condone the boycott of one state by another, or by cities in another state over people crossing our borders illegally. We have a serious issue with illegal immigration in this country. It is an issue that has been long in developing, and short on solutions by the Federal government in the past. I am going to work hard to change that now, to protect our borders, to give our border states all the help they need to protect their borders, and their border towns. Not just for those states, but for all states in our Great Union who are feeling the financial strain of illegal immigration through elevated costs for housing, medical care, and education.

Moreover, in these difficult economic times, we do not need to have cities and states threaten other states with economic hardship. We must pull together now, not fracture and splinter apart. We are not just Californians, or Arizonians. We are AMERICANS, and we must work together.”

Just a thought, Mr. President. Feel free to use any and all of that – no charge.

My other favorite quote was Obama saying they were reviewing the AZ law because we can’t have “a patchwork of immigration laws.” Well, holy crappydoo, if the current laws were ENFORCED, states would not be forced into this situation now, for crying out loud. Again, ironically, CA has a FAR stricter law on the books than AZ, which the elected officials there clearly, willfully, ignore on a regular basis.

Guess who has joined Arizona in crafting a stronger law? Massachusetts has with a new proposed amendment, as this article highlights, Mass. Senate Passes Crackdown On Illegal Immigrants:

With one lawmaker citing President Lincoln’s respect for the rule of law, the Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown this afternoon on illegal immigrants and those who would hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.

In a surprising turn of events, the legislation replaced a narrower bill that was passed Wednesday over the objections of Republicans.

The measure, which passed on a 28-10 vote as an amendment to the budget, would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring. It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents, and explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security, and would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing.

Ohmygosh, say WHAAAA?? People are going to have to PROVE they are here legally?? Show ID?? It’s an outrage, I tell you!!!! Are Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, San Francisco, and school administrators in IL going to boycott MA now?? Ahem. Here’s more:

The amendment will now be part of negotiations with the House as part of the entire state budget.

Supporters, especially Republicans, struck patriotic notes and spoke of the sanctity of the law as they spoke on the Senate floor.

“It was President Lincoln — and I’m going to paraphrase here — who suggested that respect for the law should be preached from every pulpit taught by every mother to every child,” said Senator Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican.

But one supporter said that the measure was being passed for practical purposes and would hurt people.

Senator Frederick E. Berry, a Peabody Democrat, complained that one of the Republican sponsors acted like the “Patriots had just won the Super Bowl. … I am going to vote for it, but I don’t think we ought to rejoice.”

Democrats had resisted such a sweeping proposal, but spent last evening negotiating today’s measure, shortly after a new polled showed 84 percent of the liberal-leaning state’s voters supported tough immigration rules barring state services to illegal immigrants.

Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat who opposed the amendment, said the measure had not been properly vetted and would add undue obligations to businesses and state government when they could ill afford it. She said it would cost the state money, while programs for children and public safety are being cut and people in her city are being shot at.

“I just don’t think this is an appropriate time to be enforcing an additional cost burden on the state, doing things that are not our job,” Chang-Diaz said.

Huh? I lived and worked in MA. I can tell you for a FACT that I was asked to produce my original Social Security card and other documentation which was photocopied and put into my file. This was at a non-profit organization. Why did they do that? Because it was the LAW. No one complained that it was an undue burden, certainly not me, and I am sure the pennies it cost to make that copy didn’t break the organization, which also received state funds. It was done to comply with state law. So what is this excuse about how it will “hurt” companies doing business with the state? If they aren’t complying with the law, they shouldn’t be allowed to do business with the state. It’s as simple as that. Again, in these economic times, I bet there are any NUMBER of companies who engage in legal hiring practices that willb e willing to work for the commonwealth.

And the amendment would do even more:

The measure would also close what supporters say is a loophole that allows businesses to register cars under a company name, without identifying the owner by Social Security number and federal tax identification number. It would also crate (sic) a toll-free hot line for anonymous reporting of companies that employ illegal immigrants.

The measure comes weeks after immigration measures failed in the House, and amid heightened debate over illegal immigration fueled by the state’s election season and Arizona’s passage in April of the toughest immigration law in the nation.

Recent polls have found that, while voters supported blocking illegal immigrants’ access to public benefits, they were split over whether the Bay State should have a law such as Arizona’s.

Thursday’s Senate amendment would also authorize the state attorney general’s office to broker an agreement with federal authorities to help enforce immigration law. That would be a stark departure for Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has increased outreach to immigrants, encouraging them to file employment complaints, regardless of their legal status. Scores of immigrants whose bosses allegedly failed to pay their wages have turned to her for help in recent years.

The legislation also would increase penalties for driving without a license, one of the main problems facing illegal immigrants in Massachusetts. In November, a panel commissioned by Governor Deval Patrick urged him to push to grant driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, among many other recommendations. Patrick sent the recommendations to his cabinet for study and pledged to return with a proposal in 90 days, but the results have not been made public.

Most immigrants in Massachusetts are here legally, but an estimated 190,000, or 20 percent, are here illegally, according to the census.

Gosh. How draconian they are in Massachusetts. I wonder when Obama is going to come out and challenge THIS new amendment, huh? Is he going to turn Eric Holder loose on Massachusetts? I doubt it.

So riddle me this, Bat-people: why did he do it to Arizona? Why did he and his Justice Department attack Arizona without even reading the damn law first?? He hasn’t attacked California’s. Or any other state – all states? – who have illegal immigration statues on the books currently. So why Arizona? Just for votes? Is that the only reason he is using our tax dollars to have the Justice Department work day and night looking to sue them? Just for votes? I’d sure like to know.

And since we are talking about illegal immigration, I will leave you with this video courtesy of my fellow NQ writer, Linda Anselmi. If you were wondering what has happened to Bertha Lewis since she helped lead ACORN down the tubes, wonder no more:

Maybe there is some justice in this world, even if her arrest wasn’t for all of the nefarious activities of ACORN…

President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, an administration official and an Arizona congresswoman said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, they said.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts blocking drug trafficking. The troops will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, the administration official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending Guard troops to the border.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s popularity has gone through the roof since signing the new Arizona immigration law, despite the bullying of the President himself, not to mention the derogatory comments of both Attorney General Holder and Janet Napolitano, his head of Homeland Security. Brewer stood up for the safety and rights of her constituents, asking the President to step up and do his job and…he blinked.

That’s what happens when you call out a bully.

Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have abdicated their responsibility to secure the border – since it is such a difficult hot button issue and I can only assume both were afraid of risking the ire of Latino voters. This is not about discouraging immigration, but as many others pointed out, we cannot even move forward on immigration reform until we secure the border and protect our citizens – of all ethnicities.

MSNBC further reports…

Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move and Republicans planned to try to attach it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.

I guess the President needed to cut McCain and Kyl off at the pass.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the situation on the border has “greatly deteriorated.” He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent … as well as an additional $500 million, but it’s simply not enough,” McCain said.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said in a statement that the administration would announce the deployments later in the day Tuesday.

It may not be enough but it’s a start. Can’t wait to see what happens from here. Clearly, the President did not want to look like was standing on the sidelines once again.

I sincerely hope more of our representatives stand up for their principles and their constituents. Whether or not we agree with them on a specific issue is less important than the fact that someone is willing to make an honest case for their actions. Only then – when governance and choice is out in the open – can we have an effective debate on legislation, making decisions that will have a positive effect.

Better that than offering a small bandaid or merely paying lip service to a hot button issue.

What say you?

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.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.

Knowing how fair our media is – why wouldn’t our Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, want to get his talking points second hand from a bunch of pundits and media hacks. According to Politico, some of these jokers have even confessed to withholding important parts of the story for books they are writing so they can earn a giant payday for their negligent behavior. I tell ya, it warms the cockles of my heart to know Mr. Holder is right on the job – willing to comment on propaganda and sensationalized headlines rather than reading the actual law.

And how long could it take to read the thing anyway? It’s not as nearly as big as our 2700 page health care legislation, is it?

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama’s request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

“On the basis of what he’s heard” – kind of like hearsay?

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.

“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

Yes, well, one would think so. Our Attorney General gets his talking points from the President’s office who is trying to use the Arizona law to get Latino votes in the midterms and in 2012. Is it surprising Mr. Obama would be speaking negatively about a law he probably hasn’t read either?

The Arizona law’s backers argue that it doesn’t go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

No one is allowed to stop you for no reason. If you are already being questioned for an infraction, only then can someone ask for identification. Just as you would have to offer in any other country.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

Soon.

Well, good for you, Mr. Attorney General. But by all means go on ahead and get on national television and act just like our President, criticizing something before you even know the facts.