This is historic, and if anyone thinks for a second it isn’t, then they are simply fooling themselves. All of those people who screamed about indefinite detention of enemy combatants down at Gitmo, I sure as hell hope you are going to be screaming now. This is not just for those possible terrorists, this is for you, and me.

Now, I am no attorney, or Constitutional scholar, but I can read. The US Constitution, Amendment 6 says this: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

What is not clear about this?

I might add, I said from the very beginning that this alleged “Constitutional Scholar” probably became one so he could better dismantle the law. Sure is looking like it with this.

Glenn Greenwald’s article on this topic is outstanding, and I highly recommend you read the entire piece, but I do want to touch on some highlights here:

[snip] (Y)esterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote aboutthe primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.

A return to McCarthyism under the Obama Administration is what we now have. Wow, great. That is just jake. For all of those people who did not believe us when we said Obama was Bush III, something about which I wrote extensively, who ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned, not only were we right, and bite me, but NOW look what has happened to our nation.

As I said, there is so much more to this article, I cannot begin to do it justice here, read it. But I do want to make sure you see this:

[snip] I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. (Emphasis mine.)That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

If you prefer, you can watch Mr. Greenwald discuss this issue with Cenk Ungar here:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is historic, this is horrible, this is McCarthyism, this is an affront to the US Constitution, this is abhorrent in every way, shape, and form.

I have just one question for those who voted for Obama: How do you like him NOW??

And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

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…

Well, I don’t know about you, but I am ready for a break. Below is a toe-tapping mash up, both of songs and shows, from Glee, and “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” Love it. Hope you do, too:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And since this is an Open Thread, have at it. I’ll even start you off. Thankfully, Speaker Boehner is all too aware that President Obama is trying to circumvent the US Constitution when he keeps saying “if Congress won’t do it, I will!” Never mind that the House has sent bills to the Senate, which, by the way, has not bothered to pass a budget in over 900 days. Apparently, President Obama, He Is Allegedly SOOOO Brilliant, is unaware that the Democrats ruled all three houses for two years, and that the Senate is STILL run by Democrats. I know, picky, picky, picky. Anyway, Speaker BOehner is keeping his eye out for trickery for the Oval Office Occupier.

I hope you all have a great weekend, with more treats than tricks, and maybe some tasty candy, too!

To make matters worse, as Jake Tapper reports, Obama informed the Congress via a letter that we had gone to war. Surprise! Separation of powers? What separation of powers? Read it here:

Amidst claims by members of Congress that they were insufficiently consulted, and ensuing White House pushback, President Obama Monday officially notified congressional leaders that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but given complaints from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the fact that the war started two days ago, it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Then there is the little problem of Obama turning over control of our military to a political coalition.

You can’t make this stuff up. Well, maybe if you worked at The Onion or Mad Magazine.

Holy moley.

So check this out. Remember back in the day when Obama was depicted as the Hope And Change Agent of the Universe? I know, I know, some are still caught up in that Kool Aide induced haze, but not everyone went so far as to change the 100+ year old name of a school. You may recall that a school in New Jersey did just that. Yes, Bangs Avenue Elementary decided to change its name to Barack Obama Elementary a year or so ago.

Guess what? That school is closing. Yep, turns out it will save the district a bunch of money to close it, and send the children to two other schools instead. At the end of this school year, the Barack Obama Elementary School will be no more. The building will keep Obama’s name, though, ans be used for other things (basketball? Golf? Parties?).

I have two quotes from this article I have to share with you. The first is from the Superintendent, Denise Lowe:

[snip] “Change is never easy, but the district is at a pivotal point where difficult decisions must be made,” Lowe said in a statement Thursday afternoon. “The consequences of idleness are far greater than the improvisation that is now necessary.” [snip]

And this one:

[snip] “We needed a change … we need to fix our school district,” said Nina Summerlin, the Parent-Teacher Organization president at both the Obama and Middle schools.[snip]

Oh, my. Now THAT is some “change we can believe in,” right? The irony, the irony.

Oh, want to hear another irony? Wanna guess how much money was being spent PER child in this district (Asbury Park)? About $36,000 per child. And as Michelle Malkin points out, what they get for this hefty price tag are the lowest test results that Education.com offers. Holy moley.

And now for another story you may have seen, but which bears repeating. That would be Senator Claire McCaskill, her plane, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars she owed in back taxes on said plane.

Now, here is what makes this so, oh, what’s the word, laughable. Or hypocritical, take your pick:

[snip] McCaskill recently co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would send pink slips to federal employees who are found to have unpaid taxes, a measure Republicans also highlighted Monday, calling the Democrat a hypocrite. But a McCaskill aide said that was not a fair attack. “Those are people who knowingly have not paid their taxes and have refused to own up to it and to make that right,” an aide told Fox. “She didn’t knowingly do this. This is a situation where a mistake was made. As soon as she found out…she made it right,” the aide told Fox.

Because planes are not licensed the way automobiles are with the state of residence, rather they are licensed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the state has no record of ownership and, therefore, sends no property tax bill.

As for that bill, the McCaskill aide said, “The senator has already written and sent the check to repay this money. There was no effort to evade taxes here.” [snip]

Um, over $287,000, 3 years worth, is not trying to “evade taxes”? Yeah, okay, sure. I suppose that could happen to just anyone, right? And the IRS would SURELY understand such a thing if it happened to a regular old citizen, no doubt about it! They are so understanding about things of that nature. Cough, cough. Well, unless someone is a senator or representative (think Charlie Rangel) that is.

As an aside, who among us can sit down and write out a check for that amount of money at the drop of a hat? Yeah, me, neither. I also have to ask, what the hell kind of plane is this that the annual taxes are so hefty? Good grief.

There were other issues with the plane, too, like her use of it, for which she had to pay back $89,000 to the government. Oops. I guess she forgot what the rules are around things like using taxpayer money to fund political trips, 89 of them, to be specific. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket, she just forgot! Sheesh, what do you want from her? Ahem.

As for McCaskill and the plane, well, this is her take:

[snip] An audibly exasperated McCaskill told reporters, “I have convinced my husband to sell the damned plane. He has hired a broker, and I never intend to step foot on that plane ever again.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it is all that “damn” plane’s fault! Harrumph!

Oh, and before anyone tries to compare this to Sarah Palin selling a jet on Ebay, bear in mind, Palin did not buy that plane, her predecessor did. Nor did Palin want the state to have to pay for it, so she had it sold for $2.1 million.

Once again, we see demonstrated, from the top down from Obama to McCaskill, that the rules, the laws, do not apply to people whom we have elected. Don’t know quite how that has become the case, since they swear to uphold the Constitution, but it sure does seem to be the way of Washington. We see it from Obama essentially waging war without Congressional approval to failing to pay taxes while expecting others to do so lest they face harsh consequences. Those consequences all seem to be for others, though – “for thee, not me.” That might as well be the mew motto on the Presidential Seal, don’t you think? As long as they can get away with it, they seem hellbent on breaking the rules. I think it is far past time they get their comeuppance. Perhaps in 2012?

She is my new hero.

You may recall, I wrote about my recent experience at the, um, hands of the TSA. A full body sexual assault as the result of having an airplane ticket. As I sat in an airport on Tuesday, on my way to a couple of Yankees’ Spring Training Games, and having had to endure yet another sexual assault as a result of my knee replacement, my thoughts turned to Rep. Cissna.

I hated my last experience so much, found it so offensive, that I asked my partner if we could drive to Miami for our cruise, rather than fly. She, of course, agreed. So we made the 9 hour (one way) drive to and from Miami to spare me the unwanted, unwarranted, full body search. Unfortunately, we did not have the luxury of driving this time around, hence my Round 2 of TSA sexual assault. Gee – can’t wait for the return trip home. Ahem.

Before I get into more about Rep. Cissna, though, and in light of my recent pat-downs, I want to share my conversation with the TSA agent this morning. I had to wait in line for my pat-down behind an 88 year old woman who had a knee replacement(hers was 3 years ago). I asked the agent why we could not be wanded down instead, something that would so easily show why we set off the metal detector. She said it was because of the Underwear Bomber. You know the one – the young Somalian man who was on a plane to Detroit that the Powers-That-Be were hesitant to label a terrorist. Yes, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was charged as a civilian, not a terrorist, which included being read his Miranda rights. It is because of this one man, and the failure of the TSA to catch him, that many of us who have health issues are subjected to this invasion of our privacy.

While I was getting my stuff after the TSA assault, I was standing right beside a man who looked like a pilot. He was indeed a pilot, as it turned out, when I could see his “Crew” badge. He, too, was having to get a pat-down. Why? He wore orthotic shoes that he could not take off, lest he “fall over” (his words).

Wow. I feel so much safer, don’t you? And I sure wish someone could tell me why my setting off a metal detector then results in this pat-down to swab for explosives. If it is METAL, then a wand will find it. Just saying.

Now, back to Rep. Cissna. The L.A. Times relates her story in this article, “Alaska’s Legislator’s ‘No’ To TSA Pat-down“:

When Alaska state Rep. Sharon Cissna passed through airport security a few months ago, the false breast she has worn since her mastectomy set off an alert on the new full-body scanner and triggered what she called a “humiliating” pat-down search.

Last week, it happened again. The Anchorage Democrat was leaving Seattle to return to the legislative session in Juneau when her prosthetic breast sent her once again toward the rubber gloves.

“The horror began again,” she recalled, except this time, she refused.

Cissna caught a small plane to British Columbia and boarded a ferry for a two-day journey back to Juneau.

She arrived in the Alaskan capital Thursday to expressions of support from fellow members of the Alaska Legislature, which passed a resolution backing Cissna’s stand that declared “no one should have to sacrifice their dignity in order to travel.”

Alaskans — residents of a state with so few roads that most journeys must be taken by boat or plane — say they do not enjoy the same ability as other Americans to refuse security measures imposed by the Transportation Security Administration.

“We can’t take Amtrak, we can’t take Greyhound, we can’t drive ourselves. Those options aren’t open to us. We have a choice of fly or stay home,” said Republican State Rep. Alan Dick, who spoke on the House floor about Cissna’s case before overwhelming approval of a resolution in support of her. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Anyone who has seen the Discovery show, “Flying Wild: Alaska” knows this is true. Everyone from sports teams to hunters, to mothers returning to their villages after showing off their new babies to family living elsewhere in Alaska, to teachers getting back to their villages in time for school, flying is a way of life in Alaska on par with the rest of us hopping into our cars to go to another town or county.

Rep. Cissna’s colleagues are standing behind her in a big way. The Alaskan House passed a resolution asking that these kinds of pat-downs by the TSA be stopped. To that end, Rep. Cissna has headed to Washington, DC, to discuss this excessive pat-down:

[snip] Cissna says she has heard from people throughout Alaska and across the country expressing their concerns, and she has a clear message to bring to Washington, where she will appear before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Wednesday.

“We’re asking Congress to go back to the physical scanning that was done before. People didn’t have a problem with it. I didn’t have a problem with it. A light pat-down and sometimes they use a wand. The way it used to be.”

The TSA has argued that when anomalies appear on full body scanners the enhanced pat-down is necessary to make sure those anomalies are not dangerous items such as explosives and bomb parts.

Says Cissna, “We want safe skies, believe me. I want people safe. But there’s no proof this (invasive pat-down) is keeping people safe.”

She says her husband has mapped out a route for her trip to Washington that will only include airports that do not yet have full body scanners but rather use metal detectors, which do not red flag her scars.

Cissna will share her own experience with Congress, she says.

“I’ll be talking about the human part. And my fellow representatives have just added a piece of the human part. The people of Alaska will be heard in Washington D.C., will be heard across America,” she says. “This procedure is a feel-up. That may be harsh, but it was harsh.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I concur – it is harsh. And it needs to stop. Now. There are better ways than forcing those with disabilities, or previous illnesses, to endure this kind of harassment.

Apparently, this young man, who is also my hero, Aaron Tobey, concurs that this practice is outrageous. Mr. Tobey, in protest of the illegal search of US citizens, stripped down to his skivvies, revealing the 4th Amendment on his chest:

[snip] The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment outlaws “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Tobey, a 21-year-old University of Cincinnati architecture student, had those very words scrawled across his chest and abdomen when he stripped down to his underwear at a Richmond, Va., airport back in December. He was heading to his grandfather’s funeral at the time. Tobey was arrested and cited for disorderly conduct.

The misdemeanor charge has since been dropped, but Tobey is still suing. The defendants listed in his legal filing are Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the head of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the Richmond airport authority and several security officers there. He’s seeking $250,000 in damages and reimbursement for legal fees.

“This action seeks vindication of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Aaron Tobey, who … was arrested without probable cause, falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted,” the legal complaint states. The civil lawsuit was filed on Tobey’s behalf by the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Good for him. Good for Tobey for standing up for what is right, even though he endured some hardship as a result. He is my hero, too.

Thank heavens for people like Alaskan State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and Aaron Tobey. Cissna is a godsend, given her political clout. I hope, and pray, she is successful in getting this practice abolished. Tobey, too, for also shining a bright light on this un-Constitutional practice, is a brave young man, and I applaud him for his actions. No doubt about it, the TSA assault on American citizens needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. I, for one, cannot take much more of this. And I am not alone…

And why would Malkin say such a thing in her post? This is why:

[snip] Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago.

Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka.

Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

[...]

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation, the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah – just a bit. It goes on from there, and I recommend you read the rest.

The bottom line is this man, Trumka, who called for this level of violence, is now the head of the AFL-CIO, and hanging out with the President of the United States on a regular basis. There is something very wrong about that.

And how about Trumka’s recent target, Gov. Palin? Well, this is something that might surprise you – and then again, maybe not. Alert NQ reader Sybill highlighted just the kind of person Sarah Palin is. This video sure says a lot:

Right? About the only other person at that level I can see jumping in and doing something like this is – you got it – Hillary Clinton. Wow.

Another alert NQ reader, Yttik, provided the following video to close this out today. Given the attacks Tea Party members and Sarah Palin have been enduring since its inception, it seems a fitting end for someone who has come to represent the Tea Party movement. And it is toe-tapping good, too:

Dang straight. That’s “We, the people,” and we DO have a voice.

Thanks for the links and suggestions, folks. Talk about this, or anything else on your mind today!

Remember how Obama went on and on about the mosque-builders and freedom of religion, as if this had anything whatsoever to do with freedom of religion? I know, I know, how could anyone forget THAT little debacle.

But get this. Now the concern is about those of us who are speaking OUT about building the mosque near Ground Zero are inciting terrorists. Yes, if we have the audacity to be upset that Imam Rauf wants to build his cultural center and mosque at a site he picked SOLELY for its proximity to Ground Zero and as a site that was hit by part of the jet that disintegrated flying into the Twin Towers, we are empowering the terrorists.

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported by no less than NPR in this piece by Dina Temple-Raston, “Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.” Oh, oh – someone didn’t get the memo that we don’t use that term anymore – “Islamic Extremists.” What, are they bigots or something? Ahem. Anyway, yes, by us utilizing our Constitutional Right Of Free Speech, we are giving ammunition to the Islamic Extremists who want to do us harm, according to this article:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

“This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. “Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

“It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn’t be happier.”

Ah, yes. It is all our fault that we want just a little sensitivity from this Muslim cleric. How dare we. (And if you want to read the rest of the NPR piece, click HERE.)

Hmmm – what does it say that there is a concern that even “moderate Muslims” in the US, because people are asking for sensitivity, not a pox on all things Islamic, could be coerced into acting against the country in which they live? I can’t decide if that is a backhanded slap against moderate Muslims that they could so easily be pushed, or an attempt to silence critics in general.

But here’s a little newsflash: We don’t have to do a damn thing but be Americans to incite these Islamic Extremists. I’m serious. All we have to do is be who we are, and that is sufficient. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? I don’t recall anyone going out of their way trash-talking Islam to incite that event. Remember 9/11? The WTC, the Pentagon, and whatever the target was of the plane that was wrested away from the terrorists and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was anyone going out of their way to talk smack about Islam? No, I don’t think so. How about the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000?

If you want to get an idea of how much Islamic terrorists have wanted to attack us for a period less than a decade, click here to read a statement to the Joint Chiefs from 2002 listing the numerous terrorist attempts on the US or our territories. That is just from 2/93 – 9/01.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. No amount of political correctness, or respect for Islam in general, can negate the reality that there are Islamic radicals who want to attack Americans here and abroad. And if we stop exercising our rights as American citizens to try and pacify them, to not raise their ire against us, then THEY HAVE WON.

If that is the case, then all of those who died in the attacks on the US Embassies, those 17 sailors who died on board the USS Cole, and the thousands who died on 9/11, did so in vain. And that cannot stand.

We cannot allow the threat of more violence to silence us, whatever the issue is. We cannot be coerced to give up our Constitutional rights on the possibility that our fulfillment of these same rights might feel antagonistic to those who wish us harm. We cannot stop being Americans lest we somehow, whether consciously or not, enrage a group by our sheer existence.

Can we?

*Update* Check out this interview of Andrea Mitchell and Ambassador Ahmed. Apparently, what we should be concerned about is how those of us who oppose the mosque in that location are going to impact President Obama’s desire to reach out to the Muslim World. Oh, wow…

But a warning label on the Constitution? Now that I really did not see coming:

Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they “might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don’t pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.

“Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,” Olson told FoxNews.com. “…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you’re wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history.”

No kidding. I am literally shaking my head at this. A warning. Wow. Yep, it’s offensive alright:

The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.

Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”

Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the “dangerous ideas” it’s trying to protect children from: “limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy.”

And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.

“Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. “The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document.”

As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.

“By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence,” he said.

Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don’t buy from this publisher.

Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.

Wimps. Pick up the damn phone already and explain yourselves already. Sheesh.

Now let me say that I am all for understanding historical documents in the cultural, sociological milieu in which they were written. That informs our understanding of them, like the Bible, for instance. But a warning label on the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence?? You gotta be freakin’ kidding me. This is the very embodiment of political correctness run amuck, 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…

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.

Sigh.

Okay, here’s the thing. I love San Francisco. It is a beautiful city. But seriously, how can they keep electing this woman?? Read it and weep:

While pointing out that it is the responsibility of the federal government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said Thursday it is cheaper to treat teens for drug use than it is to interdict drugs being smuggled across the border.

CNSNews.com pointed out to the speaker at her weekly press briefing that a recent Justice Department report indicated that one in five U.S. teenagers used drugs last year, and then asked: “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?”

“Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States,” said Pelosi. “That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.

“Incarceration is the next cheapest,” Pelosi continued. “It costs seven times more to incarcerate than to have treatment on demand. It costs 15 times more to interdict at the border. And it costs 25 times more with eradication of the cocoa leaf. This is an issue that it is very important to our country because of what it’s doing to our teenagers. That is the problem, what it is doing to our people.”

Yes, treatment is important, but treatment should NOT be the first line of defense in the Drug War, or in sealing our borders. Oh, but wait – perhaps Pelosi is unclear on that concept:

Click HERE for the transcript of this video.

Yep, she is unclear on the concept, especially since she doesn’t know what “seal” means. Here, Nancy, I’ll help you out:

seal or seal up – to close a container or space by covering it with something so that air or other substances cannot get in or out

It’s the getting IN part that is of import here. Understand?

Good grief.

But wait, it gets better, or worse, depending on your perspective: [snip]

According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, “Nineteen percent of youth aged 12 to 17 report past year illicit drug use.” The assessment said that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) are now the predominant supplier of illegal drugs in the United States. “Law enforcement reporting and case initiation data show that Mexican DTOs control most of the wholesale cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine distribution in the United States, as well as much of the marijuana distribution,” said the assessment.

Pelosi did say it was the responsibility of the federal government to control the border, although she did not believe that would prevent illicit drug use by teens in the United States.

“Controlling our border is our responsibility,” she said. “So, whether you’re talking about stopping drugs from coming in or having a well-managed migration policy, we have a responsibility to secure our border. But I don’t know what you meant by ‘seal’ and I think sealing the border doesn’t do a whole lot to reduce demand in the United States. As I travel the country, I know that kids are on meth and they can make it in their bath tub.”

So, if Pelosi is acknowledging that it is the federal government’s JOB to secure the borders, why the hell aren’t they doing it? This is her “logic” why:

To solve the drug problem, she said, requires reducing demand. “Let’s secure our border for every reason that we have responsibility to do so,” she said, “but if it’s talk, if our purpose is to solve that problem, we must reduce demand and the best way to do that is through prevention and through treatment on demand.”

Last week, CNSNews.com similarly asked Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.), who represents a district that covers 300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, if he was committed to sealing the border against the inflow of illegal drugs. Rather than answer the question, Grijalva turned and walked away, eventually shouting back at the reporter that it was “punkish” to ask the question.

It is now considered “punkish” to ask a representative why he is not doing his job? Oh, right – in the Obama World it is. How DARE we expect them to actually do their damn jobs.

If Pelosi is so concerned about cost-saving measures in terms of our borders and drugs, why did she support bailing out the banks, and buying car manufacturers? Perhaps the money spent for those little (cough, cough) endeavors might have been better spent securing – that is SEALING – our borders, dontcha think, Nancy? Nah, I know she doesn’t think so – smoking all that Hopium seems to have addled her brain a bit.

Wow. Oh, yes, the Justice Department. The very one Obama claimed he was going to have look into Arizona’s attempt to secure the borders. That is, their attempt to do what he is not directing the government to do. Then there was his adding insult to injury by poking fun at the state at the Correspondents’ Dinner. Nice. So, Pelosi doesn’t know what “seal” means, and Obama threatens states that are trying to protect their borders. WTH is wrong with these people?

Well, Governor Brewer has a response for these braintrusts (H/T to Larry Johnson for sending me this video):

Any time now, Obama. Stop threatening Arizona, and stop making jokes at their expense. Start providing the security they need to have. That’s your JOB, and a Constitutional mandate to boot. Why Arizona is being treated like a pariah by so many, including the President of the United States, in its attempts to protect its border from invasion, a duty of the federal government, which it has failed MISERABLY to address, is beyond me.

So, Obama – stop demonizing Arizona and start doing your job. Pelosi, learn what the hell “seal the borders” means. I gave you the definition already. You’re welcome. And give these states the help for which they have been asking, Texas and California, too, for that matter. Do your damn job already.

Wowie zowie – no mincing words, just putting it out there. Welcome to the party, Mr. Kneale:

Will someone please rein in our relentlessly hectoring President? Barrack Hussein Obama has taken his gift for inspirational oratory—one of the traits that got him elected—and turned it into something darker and more insidious.

Oh, just stop right there. “Inspirational oratory”? You mean the vapid statements written for him that he read off TOTUS, or this:

I couldn’t listen to it all, either. Hardly eloquent, though, by any stretch of the imagination. Back to the point at hand:

Bam is a bully. Bad enough that he bashes Wall Street, but this President has gone farther than any in modern history in putting the wrong kind of “bully” back into what Teddy Roosevelt had called the bully pulpit.

Obama’s latest broadside came over the weekend, when he vehemently criticized the state of Arizona and its (Republican) governor for passing a tough new law on illegal immigration.

The President called the measure “misguided” and all but labeled it un-American. He even ordered the Department of Justice, before the ink on this bill-signing has even dried, to examine the civil-rights “implications” of the new law. Seems like the courts and rights groups could handle that once any problem actually emerges.

Can you remember any other modern President, wagging a finger from on high, so directly and bitterly criticizing a new law passed by any state?

This is hubris at best and ignorance of the Constitution at worst. The U.S. was founded in part on the precept of states’ rights as an important counterweight to a rapacious federal government. Thus a President must step softly here, questioning gently but avoiding rancor and browbeating.

Hold the phone – are you saying this so-called(by himself and his image creators) Constitutional Scholar doesn’t know the Constitution? Maybe it’s because this is a trumped up title, especially according to those who actually had to work with him at Chicago Law School. You know, at the position he was given by a Board member because he couldn’t get it on his own merits. That one. I know – a mere technicality, especially for his supporters.

Back to the article:

The new state law itself is disturbing, even detestable, and I don’t like it. It forces immigrants to carry with them proof of their legal status and lets cops demand to see the “papers” of anyone (read: any foreign-looking person) to make sure he didn’t sneak into the country. It smacks of Nazis in the Jewish ghetto in Poland.

HOW does this smack of Nazism? Legal immigrants in this country are REQUIRED to carry their Green Cards anyway. Why, if not to be able to produce them on demand? No one is talking about rounding up a bunch of people and putting them in ghettos or concentration camps. They are talking about, with probable cause, to ensure that someone who is engaging in questionable activities is an American citizen or LEGAL immigrant. This is a red herring, meant simply to distract from the issue. Sheesh.

Back to the Obama the Bully:

But it is the law, and Arizona’s people duly elected the legislators who voted for it. They acted, moreover, on an issue the feds clearly have botched—immigration—and are trying to protect the state’s citizens from an influx of drug-cartel violence from Mexico.

Rather than trash an entire state, Bam could have privately lobbied Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and urged her to veto the bill. Or he could have said, simply, that he hoped to pass better solutions at the federal level.

That would have been statesmanlike, but this President gets pouty whenever anyone dares to disagree with him. He seems to view dissension not as healthy public debate but as a suspicious, pernicious challenge to his omnipotence and popularity.

Obama the Bully, at his State of the Union address, had the temerity to criticize the Supreme Court of the United States for its new ruling that companies have a right to free speech in political campaign advertising (a right that unions already enjoyed, by the way). He did this as the justices themselves sat before him in the audience, paying their respects to a leader who showed them none.

Perhaps President Obama had forgotten an American civics lesson: The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land. It is unseemly and disrespectful for a President to so bluntly and blatantly question the justices’ judgment and intent—especially right in front of their faces.

I can’t remember of any other President in my memory having done this. Nixon maybe? An unfortunate comparison, indeed.

Another civics lesson Obama seems to have missed is what is in the Constitution of the United States, and what is in the Declaration of Independence, again, not so great for an alleged scholar:

Right. I don’t know why Kneale is so surprised by this lack of decorum from Obama. He has done nothing but demonstrate a complete and utter lack of regard for decorum, stepping lightly, or exhibiting any modicum of humility, despite his claim that he is humble (missing the point of the word):

Similarly, President Obama maligns Wall Street for trying to have a say in financial reform and lobbying for its interests, though this input is a vital ingredient in any democratic process. Yet Obama doesn’t criticize giant unions like the AFL-CIO and the SEIU when they similarly lobby on fin-reg.

Why? Because the unions agree with him. Even though Wall Street has a far more legitimate claim to get involved in this debate than do the unions, which represent only 7% of the private work force and essentially should have no dog in this fight at all.

Hmm, now that I think about it, nor can I recall any other modern President who has spent so much effort lambasting his immediate predecessor. Reagan didn’t do it to Carter. Clinton didn’t do it to the first George Bush.

And the worst part is, we’re barely calling out Obama the Bully on this behavior at all. We are becoming entirely too accustomed to it, failing to see it for what it really is: a striking lack of civility, and an overflow of divisiveness, from a President who had promised to give us precisely the opposite.

Great – more from SEIU, the union that represents about 2 million people. Someone tell me again why they are so powerful? Are they now taking over for their sister organization, ACORN, since ACORN has been disgraced? Regardless, it is obscene for them to wield as much power in this country as they do, especially with Obama.

Yes, Obama is a bully. Anyone who TRULY watched him throughout the Primary Campaigns, or the Election Campaigns, knew that.

If you continue to doubt the bullying nature of Obama, check out this article in which he and his team call out SWAT cops on a peaceful gathering of Tea Partiers in Quincy, IL, Team Obama Calls Out Swat Team on Tea Party Patriots!. As you can see from the photo below, there was real cause for concern on the part of Obama and his people:

Ooohhhh, scary grandmotherly-looking women singing patriotic songs as you can hear in this clip (H/t to Logistics Monster):

Quite a difference from this recent protest in Arizona:
Yep, there is no doubt that Obama is a bully. There is also no doubt we are living in Upside Down World when SWAT cops are brought in against peaceful protesters, yet there is not an overwhelming presence in AZ when people are completely out of control. It is simply astonishing. Don’t you think?

It is hard to believe the above isn’t a skit from SNL, too. Holy smokes.Huh, I guess not being able to see those transcripts and stuff is kind of important AFTER all.

And just for the hell of it, I have to share this little story with you about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Taxpayers Pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s In-Flight ‘Food, Booze’ . I’m sure that’s in the Constitution, or the Declaration, or somewhere, that we should be shelling $1,000 a WEEK for food and booze for the Speaker:

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. “And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else.”

Holy freakin’ frijoles, really?? And Obama gets up there mouthing crapola about cutting back? Please. The article continues:

Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her “sense of entitlement,” the group said.

“Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline,” the evaluation said.

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

Do the tone-deaf lawmakers in D.C. make your blood boil? Read all about Washington and its politics of corruption in “Breach of Trust.”

“We have … folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc,” said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi’s requests for aircraft.

“Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” it stated. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…”

The e-mail noted that the speaker’s office had “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

Just in case you were wondering, it is not FREE to prep these jets for possible use. Um, did Obama proclaim her Queen of the United States or something when we weren’t looking?? How full of herself can she possibly be?? Oh, wait, there’s more:

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi’s demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco’s airport.

“She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …”

Said another, “This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker(‘s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future.”

Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:

“Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens.”

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

HOLY SHIT. That is just obscene. Can you see the smoke coming out of my ears? Oh, but wait, there is still more:

Among the newest highlights revealed:

* Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker’s family.

* One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.

* According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.

Pelosi’s office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Maybe Judicial Watch could give Obama some tips on what exactly is in that Constitution, at least so this “scholar” knows the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sounds like Pelosi better sit in, too…

“There is a dangerous, misguided movement out there that if we just let business rule the nation, all will be well — markets will take care of themselves, health care, jobs, just let business handle it. You know who says that the loudest? Business.

And now, it can say it even louder. It can shout down any candidate who opposes it. What happened to ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’?” (Excerpt from “Big Biz Needed No Help In The Election Game”, by Mitch Albom, columnist, Detroit Free Press.)

The country is rightfully reeling from the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s partisan 5/4 decision this past Thursday ruling that the “government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.” This decision, without question, continues the devastation of the power of the people in the elections process by ruling that corporations are “persons” who have a First Amendment Right to make campaign contributions without any kind of restriction.

What average citizen can compete with the lobbyists who already have overwhelming influence on our representatives, as well as compete with the deep pocket campaign contributions of our fellow “persons”, Big Business? Campaigns have already become “marketing” campaigns designed to sell a brand or personality more than be a campaign of ideas among the candidates. The American people already know that unlimited ability by a corporation to make campaign contributions to a certain candidate will surely undermine the “checks and balances” that our Founders intended for the elections process which were meant to be the sovereign province of “we, the people”, not “we, the corporations.”

The initial devastation of the essential balance of power between citizens and big business at the ballot box was the advent of voting machines in the elections process. These machines make it impossible for any citizen to oversee the counting of their votes due to the hidden counting by the voting software that runs the machines. Secret vote counting combined with the Court’s most recent decision has rendered a citizen’s role in the elections process virtually non-existent, which is tantamount to not having an election at all. How is this good for democracy?
Not surprisingly, citizens of all political persuasions are already protesting the Court’s decision because they can so clearly see the impending danger to the People’s role in elections and understand that the kind of money that corporations will use now to influence elections will most assuredly diminish, if not totally destroy, our freedom and way of life. In stark contrast, it has been so incredibly difficult for citizens to readily grasp that our right to control and visually witness the entire process of voting to know for certain that the persons truly chosen by the people have been elected has been stolen from us by government officials who cleverly convinced us to replace the ballot box of old with the way of the future — computerized voting.

For years, election integrity advocates have compiled a mountain of evidence against the use of these machines to no avail. The voting machine corporations have spent large sums of money on lobbyists and marketing these machines and have far too much support from politicians, election officials, computer security experts and powerful interest groups intent on keeping these machines an integral part of our elections process. They are marketed as “faster, easier and more secure!” Is democracy preserved when voting is allowed to be marketed as “fast and easy” rather than “public and accurate”? Despite investigations that definitively uncovered the truth about the dangers these machines pose to election integrity, which were featured in the Emmy nominated HBO documentary film, Hacking Democracy, our government is determined to maintain the current status quo.

It is important to note that American election integrity advocates haven’t been the only ones protesting the use of electronic voting machines counting their votes in secret. Citizens of other democratic republics, such as, Ireland, The Netherlands and India, are but a few of the growing number of countries that have either banned e-voting or are presently fighting to ban them and demanding a return to hand counts and the kind of voting every citizen can oversee and understand. The most recent has been Germany.

In March 2009, Germany banned e-voting because two German citizens, Dr. Ulrich Wiesner and his father, Joachim Wiesner, filed a lawsuit declaring e-voting “unconstitutional” under the German Constitution (which, by the way, the final language put into their Constitution had to be approved by the U.S. after World War II). To further bolster their argument against e-voting, the Wiesners requested the help of a group of computer security experts, who were members of the Chaos Compute Club, to demonstrate for the Court technically how the voting system’s counting the votes was totally unobservable by the average citizen. In response to their lawsuit and the demonstration, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Wiesners. The Court even took it a step further. They also ruled that no amount of testing or government checks of any kind, such as post election audits or recounts, can substitute for public observation. Ultimately, they unanimously declared that e-voting was, indeed, unconstitutional because computerized, secret vote counting does not subscribe to the democratic standards of their country! All elections in Germany have now reverted back to the use of hand-counted paper ballots.

In direct contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s priorities, the German Court’s priorities were to guarantee a German citizen’s human right, which in this case is to be able to “see” their votes counted without the need for any specialized technical expertise in order to do so. They did so to protect “principles of transparency” and the “public nature of elections” as the priority in how elections in a democratic republic must be administered. It is a great example of the German judiciary using its power the way it was intended by protecting the best interests of its citizens in one of the most important processes – elections – available to them in a democratic republic. Despite the historic nature of this decision, our mainstream media chose not to cover this story. Why not? You would think that the “greatest democracy in the world” would consider this decision by the highest court in Germany a must read by the American people, as well as by our own high court justices and government officials.

Yet, here in America, over 95% of us are forced to have a computerized voting system count our ballots because our government officials unilaterally sanctioned the control of our elections to the voting machine corporations through the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 and have protected their software from public scrutiny by upholding trade secret laws. As a result, no one can guarantee even a single voter that his or her vote is being counted as cast.

What a disturbing and glaring difference between the German Federal Constitutional Court and our U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to asserting their power as intended — to protect a citizen’s rights above all others. The German Court banned secret vote counting in elections and the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations unchecked influence in our elections, in alliance with our government’s sanctioning of even further corporate control over our elections through the continued use of these voting machines. One Court protects the best interests of the citizens and the sanctity of their basic human rights in a democracy, the other protects the best interests of corporations.

Therefore, the most effective and pro-active action we, the People, can take in the wake of this horrendous decision by our U.S. Supreme Court is to immediately demand a return to publicly hand-counted paper ballots at the precinct level on election night and to posting the results at the precinct – before any ballots are moved – so the results can be publicly documented by citizens which will protect the integrity of the final tally at local, state and federal levels. When all is said and done, this is the only avenue left for citizens to be able to reclaim their rightful role in the election process. It will ensure that our vote – our voice – will be accurately heard as we bestow our consent to those we deem worthy of serving as the protectors of our rights and freedom. Our collective wisdom will see through the ruse of the corporation-backed candidates and elect those who will have the strength and courage to strike down this giant of corporatocracy and revive our quickly fading republic.

If the majority of American citizens can understand that free speech, as exemplified by the giving of financial support to candidates running for public office, should only be for people, not corporations, then it’s truly not a difficult leap for these very same Americans to understand that voting should only be “for the People, of the People and by the People” too. In fact, they go hand-in-hand. The very instant that the counting is hidden from view inside a machine, then voting ceases to be a public endeavor and becomes the domain of those with the financial resources and special expertise to create, program and run the counting devices means that “they” – not the People – will determine the election outcomes. This is not a prescription for democracy, but, rather, one for tyranny.

Demand hand-counted paper ballots now and we can defeat unlimited corporate money and influence, and the corporate machines that now control our elections. And so my fellow Americans, let’s say it together in one voice – ELECTIONS ARE FOR PEOPLE – NOT CORPORATIONS!

Contact: Kathleen Wynne (Founder HCPBnow.org and Former Associate Director of Black Box Voting.org) and Karen Renick (Founder VoteRescue.org) at: wynnekathleen@yahoo.com and karen@voterescue.org to learn more about hand counted paper ballots.

Thank you so much for sharing your perspective with us, Kathleen. Certainly food for thought, especially on the eve of Obama’s first State of the Union address.

Thoughts?