As noted in that post, one of the major investors into Solyndra, and a board member, is George Kaiser. Kaiser, as you may recall, was a mighty generous fellow to Obama back in 2008. Seems he gave the fledgling senator from IL a token of his esteem which totaled $53,500. Yes, that number is correct – $53,500. Those two zeros are supposed to be there.

But Kaiser was not the only one from Solyndra lining Obama’s coffers. According to this Daily Caller article, there were a few more:

[snip] Ben Bierman, executive vice president of operations donated $5,500 to Obama, and Karen Alter, senior vice president of marketing gave $23,000, just to name a few. [snip]

That is not where it ends, however. It seems that once Obama got into the White House, so did George Kaiser. And this is where the plot thickens:

[snip] According to White House visitor logs, between March 12, 2009, and April 14, 2011, Solyndra officials and investors made no fewer than 20 trips to the West Wing. In the week before the administration awarded Solyndra with the first-ever alternative energy loan guarantee on March 20, four separate visits were logged.

George Kaiser, who has in the past been labeled a major Solyndra investor as well as a Obama donor, made three visits to the White House on March 12, 2009, and one on March 13. Kaiser has denied any direct involvement in the Solyndra deal and through a statement from his foundation said he “did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan.”

But the countless meetings at the White House seem hardly coincidental. Kaiser, in fact, is responsible for 16 of the 20 meetings that showed up on the White House logs. [snip]

I believe I am seeing the origin of the fire here. It would seem it was coming from a big fat liar. Ahem. Let’s just take a little looksee with whom Kaiser (Liar) met:

In the meetings on March 12, Kaiser met with former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Austan Goolsbee at 11 a.m., Senior Advisor Pete Rouse at 3 p.m., and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council Heather Higginbottom at 6:30 p.m. On the 13th, Kaiser met with Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Jason Furman at 9 a.m.

Other Solyndra officials that made the trek over to the White House include Chairman and Founder Christian Gronet on September 22, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.; and Board Members Thomas Baruch and David Prend.

Baruch went to the White House May 7, 2010, and September 20, 2010, at 8:40 a.m. and 1 p.m., respectively. Prend visited on September 21, 2010, at 9:15 p.m.

Huh. I don’t know about you, but Kaiser’s denials are ringing a bit hollow for me at this point. This clinches it for me, though:

The visitor logs also show that a number of members of the administration a loan guarantee for Solyndra pressing enough to take meetings. Former Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Adviser Valerie Jarrett even took meetings with Kaiser. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yep, that makes it official – George Kaiser is lying his hind end off on this one. But hey, it got him over half a billion buckaroos, so I guess we know what the cost of his integrity was.

Now you know, I am not one skinny bit surprised that Obama promoted this company, gave them a huge amount of our money, and blew smoke up our collective rears on this. That is just another day in the White House for him. But if Kaiser has that kind of cash to throw around to the likes of Obama, you’d think he’d be smart enough to know this simple fact:

THEY KEEP LOGS OF VISITORS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

Just sayin’.

Instead of putting that money where it might actually have done some good, maybe a modern day WPA fixing roads and bridges, for example, which would have kept some folks actually working, Obama blows it on this clown. Heckuva job, Obie.

**UPDATE: Well, well, well – the FBI is paying Solyndra Headquarters a little visit. With warrants. Oopsy daisy.

And now the FBI is going to the homes of Solyndra’s CEO and Founder. That can’t be good.

Oh, but wait – there is even more! Now it is coming out that the Department of Energy sat in on meetings at Solyndra for MONTHS even as the company was going downhill.

I don’t know about you, but I cannot wait to see what the FBI turns up on this.

As for the DOE, they got some ‘splaining to do…

And that would be this Bloomberg article, Saudi Women Inspired by Fall of Mubarak Step Up Equality Demand. Wow, right? Honestly, I did not see this as a potential change, primarily because of the influx of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the very likely scenario that women who enjoyed more freedoms in Egypt, will soon be losing them (if they haven’t already). Sill, this is exciting:

Activists among Saudi Arabia’s women, who can’t drive or vote and need male approval to work and travel, are turning to the type of online organizing that helped topple Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to force change in a system they say treats them like children.

The “Baladi” or “My Country” campaign is focused on this year’s municipal elections, only the second nationwide ballot that the absolute monarchy has allowed. The election board yesterday said women will be excluded from the Sept. 22 vote. Another group, the Saudi Women’s Revolution, citing inspiration from the Arab activism that grew into revolts against Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, is pressing for equal treatment and urging international support.

The wave of anti-regime protests that spread from Tunisia and Egypt into some of Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf neighbors, such as Bahrain and Oman, hasn’t translated into mass street demonstrations in the kingdom that holds the world’s biggest oil reserves. Saudi rulers have taken steps to ensure it won’t, pledging almost $100 billion of spending on homes, jobs and benefits. They also deployed thousands of police in Riyadh on March 11, when a protest was planned by Internet organizers — a group that increasingly includes Saudi women.

“Women are raised to fear men and to fear speaking out,” said Mona al-Ahmed, a 25-year-old in the coastal city of Jeddah. She said she joined the Women’s Revolution campaign after her brother refused to let her take her dream job, as a biochemist, because it would involve working in a mixed-gender environment. “I opened my eyes one day and said, ‘This is not the life I want’,” al-Ahmed said in a phone interview.

Well, I suppose that is one way of keeping the people in place, right? Ahem.

But this is telling indeed of how women in Saudi Arabia, our ally, live. We may hear bits and pieces about it, but at this point, it seems we just take for granted women are treated like shit there.

Think I am being hyperbolic? Think again:

[snip] Like other opposition and protest groups in Saudi Arabia, the women’s movement faces a tough task. The kingdom ranked as the least democratic state in the Middle East, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2010 Democracy Index.

“Women will not participate in this session,” Abdul- Rahman al-Dahmash, director of the kingdom’s electoral commission, said at a press conference yesterday, referring to the municipal balloting. “There is a plan, though not with a definite time, to put in place a framework so that women can participate in upcoming elections.”

Baladi said on its Facebook page that Saudi women “are like other women in the world who have hopes and ambitions” and must be allowed to vote.

While Saudi Arabia was placed in the top one-third of nations in the United Nations 2010 Human Development Report — higher than European Union member Bulgaria — its score for gender equality was much lower. On that UN measure, which includes assessments of reproductive health and participation in politics and the labor market, the country ranked 128th of 138 nations, below Iran and Pakistan. [snip]

You know it is bad when you rank BELOW Iran and Pakistan on the treatment of women. Seriously. How bad must you be to be WORSE than Iran and Pakistan??

Let’s just pause for a moment and see how women are treated in Iran (I warn you, this is a difficult video to watch, contains violent images):

Women are worth half as much as men. They are culpable at the age of 9 for “crimes,” while boys aren’t until they are 16. Women cannot divorce their husbands. Men can have many wives. And that is but a minute amount of with what these women live.

Well, how about Pakistan, then? This video gives a good overview (again, difficult to watch):

“Considered to be the property of men.” Uh, yeah. Not allowed to leave the house. Infant girls killed. Slave girls trapped from other countries and sold every day. Education morally corrupts girls, thus they should not have it.

And Saudi Arabia is farther down the list than Pakistan in its treatment of women.

I’m sorry, I need a moment to compose myself.

Back to the reality facing women in Saudi Arabia:

[snip] Saudi Arabia enforces the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam and its clerics say that requires strict segregation of the sexes, including in government offices, workplaces and public spaces such as restaurants. Other areas of discontent highlighted by women writers and activists include family law. A Saudi man can end his marriage by telling his wife, “You are divorced,” while women must go to a court or an authorized cleric to get a dissolution. Custody of children above a certain age is usually granted to the father.

Saudi Arabia is also one of the few countries that has a high rate of executions for women, Amnesty International said in a 2008 report. (Emphasis mine.) Adultery is among the capital offenses.

[...]

Those are among the goals of the Women’s Revolution group, which began as an exchange of Twitter messages among likeminded women, and now has more than 2,000 Facebook supporters. “Women are treated like minors, except if they commit a crime,” the group said in a statement on Facebook. “Then they are equal.”

Alia al-Faqih, 19, said this year’s Arab revolts inspired her to join the group and demand change in her country.

“The protesters in Egypt and Tunisia did something that was almost impossible,” she said in a telephone interview from Jeddah. “If they could bring down two tough presidents, why can’t we demand our rights?”

Why, indeed? Women in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and many countries around the world must do just that – demand their rights. Though as noted above, with the increased presence of the Sharia Law-loving Muslim Brotherhood rising up in Egypt, simply getting a change at the top does not mean a change throughout the country. And in the case of Egypt, it is a change for the worse for women.

And speaking of change, there has been some lip service paid to changing the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, but it is largely window dressing:

[snip] Saudi Arabia’s ruler, King Abdullah, who turns 87 this year, has pledged to improve the status of women. He opened the kingdom’s first co-educational university in 2009, appointed its first female deputy minister, Nora bint Abdullah al-Fayez, the same year, and has promised steps to improve access to jobs for women, who make up about 15 percent of the workforce. That would help improve productivity in the kingdom’s oil-dominated economy, say analysts including John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi.

A change of policy in 2008 allowed women to stay in hotels without male guardians, and an amendment to the Labor Law allowed women to work in all fields “suitable to their nature.” Women can now study law at university, without being allowed to practice as lawyers in courts.

At some companies, such as billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Co. (KINGDOM), women are permitted to work alongside men. That isn’t typical, though. Most companies that hire women must provide a women-only section that is off- limits to the male staff.

Human Rights Watch concluded in January that “reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, superficial reforms at best in Saudi Arabia, not the systemic changes in attitude and treatment of women that need to change.

I know I have asked this before, but how, how, in the Twenty-first century, are women around the globe still being treated as less than human, as chattel, as property, as worthless, as animals, as dirt? How do we, as a nation, not demand that the countries with whom we do business treat women as full human beings?

Lest anyone think this is a problem “over there,” I assure you, what happens to women there affects women here. When an 11 year old girl can be gang raped, by adult men, numerous times, right here in Texas, as well as California, we must acknowledge that what happens to women and girls here, in Saudi Arabia, around the world, matters.

It matters a lot. Just after I finished writing this, I received an email from MADRE about the kidnapping and torture of a youth activist in Iraq. This kind of treatment of women is happening day in and day out, sadly.

And so, for those women in Saudi Arabia, may the ripples continue to widen. May they change the way women are treated, at home and abroad, may the treatment of women matter as much as the oil beneath the sands, and may women be treated as fully human around the globe. That is my prayer…

YES!!!! By a vote of 7-3, the Peace and Justice Commission of Berkeley passed a resolution claiming Manning should be freed, and is a hero. The resolution now goes to the City Council:

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed. [snip]

Oh, boy. But wait, it gets better:

“If he did what he’s accused of doing, he’s a patriot and should get a medal,” said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. “I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers.”

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps “unwanted intruders” in Berkeley in 2008. The council’s ensuing approval – and reversal – ignited some of the city’s most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

Now that should tell you all you need to know. I don’t know about you, but when my back is against the wall, if I had to choose between one of these yahoos and a Marine, I’d take a Marine any day of the week. But that’s just me.

Okay, now I know that there can be times when the release of sensitive information, whistle blowing, has resulted in positive changes. I get that. But to declare this soldier who stole classified information, information that is putting lives at stake (according to our Secretary of State, the director of the DOJ, and former President Clinton), does not a hero make. IMHO, that is.

So, how about those “no” votes? This is what one of them had to say:

[snip] Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three “no” votes.

“We’re just sitting here in Berkeley – we don’t know that Afghani informants aren’t being murdered because of these leaks,” she said. “Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I’m sorry, we really do have enemies, and it’s not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are.” [snip]

You’re damn skippy, Ms. Siegel. That’s my point. Not just for the Afghani informants, but for intelligence assets and US personnel around the globe.

In case you were wanted to know more about the resolution, it continues:

Berkeley’s proposed resolution thanks Manning “for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world.”

Army officials had no comment on Berkeley’s resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Ah, yes – “courage.” Is that what we are calling treason these days? Providing classified information to a foreign national? Give me a break already. Manning isn’t exactly Karen Silkwood. He stole classified information, is cocky as hell about it all, and does not appear to be doing it in a “whistle blowing” kind of way, but more of a, “hey, look what I did!” kind of way. Big, big difference.

Not too long after I picked my jaw up off the floor from reading this article, I received the following email from Voters for Peace, with this in the Subject line: “ON BEHALF OF JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS.” Wow. You know I had to open it. The email reads:

Challenging U.S. Empire and its illegal and unjust wars are at the heart of our work at VotersForPeace.US.

This mission calls us to the active defense of journalist Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.org and the courageous whisteblower(s) who are dealing the most powerful blow to U.S. Empire in recent memory with the continuous massive release of documents now rocking world capitals and dominating the global media.

In an attempt to intimidate and silence others, there is serious concern that the U.S. government will try to make Assange an example by manipulation of existing law or the creation of new laws retroactively applied charging him with crimes in the United States and pressuring other governments to extradite him to the USA.

We must create a culture where it is safe and supported to tell the truth about our government’s activities. We must encourage more people to have the courage to reveal what they know about the murder, torture and corruption committed in our name.

We must stand up to protect all whisteblowers and truth tellers in the face of a U.S. government which is increasingly unaccountable to citizens, to domestic or international laws, or to our Constitution.

Recall that The New York Times has admitted it checked every document it published with the government beforehand. We must say to the Empire, “We draw the line HERE. Step back. We will not sit silently while you make this journalist and good government activist into a criminal to drive fear into the hearts of any other who would oppose you. We will resist.”

Please consider signing this petition as an expression of your support for peace, justice, and democracy, www.WikileaksIsDemocracy.org.

Sincerely,

Linda Schade
Co-founder, Voters for Peace

WTH? The “U.S. Empire”?? Are these some of the same people involved in “Hacktivism,” trying to disrupt Visa, Mastercard, and the Palins own personal credit cards,a long with Palin’s PAC to support what they consider to be WikiLeaks free speech rights? (Ironically, they have a narrow view of free speech. It only applies to them, and not to those who, like Palin, oppose what Julian Assange has done. Perhaps they can look up the term “hypocrite” in Wikipedia to see if their picture appears there. Just a suggestion.)

Meanwhile, looks like the DOJ is finally getting its act together (seriously – how long have they had to look into possible wrong-doing?). According to the UK Independent, “Assange Could Face Espionage Trial In The U.S.” What a concept.

Now – about Bradley Manning – will he face additional charges? A court-martial, perhaps? Huh – I wonder what the people in Berkeley would do then? I shudder to think. How about you?

I must say, she does make some good points in this article:

[snip] After enjoying ephemeral highs and spending binges, you suffer crashes that culminate in brief, unsuccessful stints in rehab. This cycle repeats itself every five to 10 years, as the rest of the country looks on with a mixture of horror and amusement. We’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t constantly flip us the bird.

Instead, we’re making bets on how long it will be before your next meltdown. Oh, wait—you’re already melting down.

You’ve racked up nearly $70 billion in general obligation debt, and that doesn’t include your $500 billion unfunded pension liability. Your own analysts predict you’ll face a hole of at least $80 billion over the next four years. [snip]

This reminds me of something a friend of mine who lives in California told me. A family member of hers didn’t understand how a business person like Meg Whitman could possibly govern California. As in, what would she know about running a state?

Huh?

How is it that I know that California has one of the largest economies in the WORLD (8th, down from 6th), but someone who lives there doesn’t get that? Isn’t a business person EXACTLY who you would want to try and pull your state up out of its flirtation with bankruptcy?

To continue with Ms. Finley’s piece:

[snip]It’s not as if you don’t recognize that you’ve got problems. Roughly three-quarters of you say you’re headed in the wrong direction, according to a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. You’re even more depressed than Illinois and New York, and you’ve got sunshine 10 months of the year!

You appropriately give your government low marks—28% approval for outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 16% for the legislature—yet you continue to re-elect the politicians who got you into this mess. Not a single incumbent state legislator lost re-election this year, including one Democrat who died a month ago (no joke). What’s scarier is that you’ve just given almost all of the keys to statewide offices to Democrats.

Jerry Brown will be your new (old) governor. This is the man who acted as a gateway drug to your spending addiction three decades ago when he gave public-sector employees collective bargaining rights. Helping enforce your wacky laws will be Lt. Gov-elect Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor who flouted state law by allowing same-sex marriage. On the plus side, he has nice hair and loves you just the way you are…{snip]

Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome? I’m pretty sure it is. And no doubt, that is why Ms. Finley concluded her article with this:

[snip] We’ve tried to help you, California. Some spent millions on campaigns to entice you to change your reckless behavior. And you told them to kick rocks.

So here’s our final warning: When you inevitably crash and burn, don’t count on us to bail you out.(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Amen to that. Whatever happens to you next, California, you brought it squarely on yourself. Time to grow up, and take responsibility for your actions (same goes for Lindsey Lohan).

And while we are talking about insanity, how about Massachusetts re-electing Barney Frank? No, I am not just talking about his post-election rant, but how many of you knew that his partner was busted in 2007 for growing marijuana? Not just was his partner, James Ready busted for it, but Frank was PRESENT at the time of his arrest. Oh, but wait – it gets better. In Jonah Goldberg’s very good piece on Frank, Frank claimed that he “is not a great outdoorsman,” so you know he, um, didn’t recognize that the plants in front of him just happened to be pot ’cause he just doesn’t know about plants and stuff. Riiiiggghhhttttt.

But it gets even better (I tell you, this Goldberg article is a wealth of hilarious information about Barney Frank – that is, if you think an elected official breaking the law repeatedly is funny). Yes, this also has to do with one of Frank’s partners, and it’s a doozy:

[snip] Twenty years earlier, Mr. Frank endured another controversy when his one-time partner, personal aide and roommate was revealed to be running a prostitution service out of Mr. Frank’s home. The Massachusetts congressmen insisted he hadn’t noticed anything amiss until informed by his landlord. [snip]

Are you freaking kidding me?? And this guy is SILL in office? I’m sorry, but what the hell is wrong with the people in Massachusetts that this guy keeps getting elected?

I mean, personal stuff aside (and holy moley), even more than the above is his involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, about which I have written previously. Not for nothing, but helping to send our country down the tubes economically is no small thing:

[snip] And when Mr. Frank helped fuel a housing bubble that nearly crippled the economy for a generation, he again failed to notice anything was awry until it was obvious for all to see. [snip]

But here is the crux of the matter with Mr. Frank (and a few other elected officials, say Rangel, Waters, et al):

[snip] While lesser men, perhaps those not dubbed the “brainiest” man on Capitol Hill by congressional staffers, might worry about accountability, Mr. Frank considers it an affront, given his personal and professional record. In short, Mr. Frank has a very solid record of obliviousness, denial and entitlement.[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

I’ll say. The same can be said for “Call me SENATOR, General” Boxer, and a host of other folks sitting in Congress. I reckon we can add Nancy Pelosi to the “oblivious” team given her desire to run for the Minority Leader position after many Democrats lost their jobs as a result of her heavy-handed, tone-deaf leadership. Yikes. Clearly, she thinks the “shellacking” the Democrats received in the recent election had nothing to do with her.

Oh, wait – she’s from California. Yeah, okay – given the Lindsey Lohan-ness of that state, I guess this makes sense. It’s not her with the problem, it’s everyone else, I guess. Gotcha.

At some point, we have to stop the insanity. We have to stop keeping the same people in office who got us into the big mess in which we find ourselves. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi both have a great deal to answer for in terms of where we are economically, yet both will be returning to The Hill.

All I can say is, don’t come crying to the rest of us when things continue to go horribly wrong, especially you, California – you had your chance. And you blew it.

Except it hasn’t. Nope. Turns out that the unemployment number is more like 17%, particularly when one factors in the underemployed. Add to that people who have been on Unemployment for 99 weeks, much less those who have exceeded that time, and it paints a bleak picture indeed:

To hear these stories is just heartbreaking, isn’t it? Some states are suffering more than others. For instance, the state of California has an unemployment rate closer to 22%. One can understand, then, why Jerry Brown’s economic remedy is this (h/t to Gina):

“If we can find some more money, we can dish it out.”

Wow. And he’s currently leading Meg Whitman in CA? For real?? Holy moley. I am sure that is a comfort to those who are currently in need. Ahem. That is one heckuva plan there, Brownie.

And speaking of Jerry Brown, if I may digress for a moment, check out this little news clip (again, h/t to Gina):

“Yawn – I just can’t be bothered talking any more about my aide calling former CEO, and fellow gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman a whore. What’s the big deal, anyway?? Sheesh. Get off it already.”

Ah, yes – I can see why N.O.W. endorsed him over Whitman, can’t you? (That’s snark, btw…)

Back to the issue at hand. Not only is the actual number much higher than is generally claimed by this Administration, but many of these people currently unemployed have been out of work for over a year. Imagine that – out of work for over a YEAR. Even with unemployment compensation, that fundamentally changes how one lives. Some of you know all too well what that is like, how heartbreaking, frustrating, and demeaning that is, even when the loss of the job is not performance related (and in this economy, that is the case for most folks).

And why is the actual number being underreported? Why is Obama not focusing all of his attention on this issue, rather than, I dunno, claims that the Chamber of Commerce is trying to impact the midterm elections, and taking funds from foreign nations with ZERO proof. (Oh, and in an ironic twist of fate, guess who actually takes in more foreign money, twice as much, to be exact? You guessed it – the Democrats! Oopsie daisy.)

Let’s see. What else has Obama been focusing on rather than unemployment, and the economy in general? Oh, yes. His all-time favorite thing. Campaigning. Yep – he’s been traipsing all over this land of ours, from sea to shining sea, endorsing all manner of candidates with a “D” after their names (whether they want him to or not, I presume) in an attempt to stave off what is looking like a bad election for the Democrats.

Except for one. That would be Rhode Island Democratic candidate for Governor, Frank Capprio. Seems Obama has declined to endorse him because of his buddy, Lincoln Chafee, former Republican now Independent who endorsed Obama back in the day, who is also in the race. Oh, the White House will send out Vice President Joe Biden to assist whacky Alan Grayson down in Florida in his campaign, but not Capprio (you remember Grayson, right? He is the one who said Republicans’ health plan is for “sick people to die quickly.“). Well, Mr. Capprio isn’t taking this lying down. His response to Obama on his refusal to endorse him? “Shove it.” No, seriously – that’s what he said! “Shove it!”

I think “Shove It!” is what many Americans are going to be saying next Tuesday, too, those people who fall in the 17%, or even 22%, of the unemployed. Those who have lost their livelihoods, often their homes, and had their worlds turned upside down by this economy that Obama has been just too busy to address. No, he would rather tilt at windmills like the Chamber of Commerce boondoggle, or push his Obamacare on us, the issues involved with it coming to light every day (simply put, it’s gonna cost us a gazillion dollars), push his Cap and Trade (which will also cost us a gazillion dollars), or travel around the country on our dime to shore up (fading) support for the likes of Harry Reid, than deal with the real issues facing our country. Gee, can’t imagine why some folks might see this election as a referendum on Obama, can you?

People in this country are hurting, and hurting badly. Jobs are hard, if not impossible, to come by. Finally, at least one of the major network news sources is willing to acknowledge what some of the other stations (like Fox) have been reporting, and before an election, to boot. So, good for CBS for doing this (finally). Kinda makes you wonder just what else they are “under-reporting” or under-counting, doesn’t it? Sure does me. In this case, though, hopefully, something positive will happen in the upcoming election to help out the (almost) 1 out of 5 Americans. Better than hope, get out and vote.

My physical therapist doesn’t know that I dwell in the world of politics except when recovering from major surgery (and thanks, everyone, for your support and concern. More on that below…). At my last visit with him, he brought up politics. First, he bashed Fox News, and anyone who would watch “such trash”, claiming they make up news to suit their points, not report the news. I mentioned to him that Bret Baier routinely has someone from NPR on for the discussions at the end of his show (since he mentioned he likes NPR), and that Fox routinely has Democrats on. He said they were only the wimpy ones, though, not tough ones. Hmm. So, you know, they don’t count. Like the current head of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, I suppose. Okay. Whatever. Let’s find a way to not let facts influence our opinions. (I might add, before 2008, I had the same opinions about Fox, having never watched it. I believed the spiel from the DNC, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and others. But they (Fox) were the only ones who treated Hillary Clinton with a modicum of respect, especially Greta Van Susteran, so I started giving them a chance. Turns out, they are not as horrible as the Democrats made them out to be.)

Meanwhile, my PT thinks MSNBC is just fine, naturally, and really only operates to counteract the vileness that is Fox. You know, they are performing a service, see, lest people fall under the spell of that horrible Fox machine. Misogynistic rhetoric by Keith Olbermann directed at Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Campaign was not something my PT noticed, but if there was anything, he suggested that I probably just noticed it since I am a woman. He couldn’t think of any instances in which he heard anything misogynistic from Olbermann at all.

I am not kidding. He said all of this with nary a thought that he could be making an ass of himself, or that he was being just a tad sexist his own self by minimizing my saying something was sexist because I’m a woman. (I wonder if a person of color says something is racist, does his/her saying so automatically mean they are just being too sensitive? Or is this something left more for us little ladies when we cry foul on sexism?)

That set the tone for what came next. The PT insisted that I was completely, flat out, absolutely, completely, couldn’t possibly be right, wrong when I said that that Obama stated there are 57 states, or that he said the Great Lakes are in Oregon, or that his parents were inspired to have him because of the March On Selma, even though that event occurred 4 years AFTER his birth, unless this information came solely from Fox News. You know how we women folk don’t really know nothing and all. Well, I quickly found him an article from the LA Times, “Barack Obama Wants To Be President of These 57 United States,” and asked if THAT was sufficient for him, even reading him this quote:

At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he’d also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, “”I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh.” At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?)

I asked him if the LA Times would suffice. His response? He would have to look it up for himself. He is sitting there, seeing the LA Times masthead on my computer, but even that was not sufficient. Yeah, whatever, dude. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge any of the above instances of Obama misspeaking, but also blew off Obama’s claim that Hillary Clinton won Kentucky because it borders Arkansas, apparently, not understanding that Kentucky borders Illinois’ Southern border. His explanation? That for the people there, at least, it was a “psychological” closeness, so it made sense they would go for Hillary Clinton. Huh?? Wow. Oh, and I mentioned to him that the MSM did not do its job vetting Obama, that had Bush or ANYONE else, said these kinds of things, they would still be talking about them. Seems maybe MSNBC didn’t provide him with as much information as he thought it did (or Jon Stewart, whom he mentioned as one of the people from whom most young people get their news). Ahem.

And you know what his immediate response was to the litany of “mistakes” Obama made? One thing – Hillary and Bosnia. Right. Her exaggeration of one story is equivalent to all of the misstatements and flat out lies of Obama’s. Gotcha.

But here’s the thing – that example cam tripping right off his tongue, but he knew NOTHING about Obama’s gaffes and lies. That is telling in and of itself, isn’t it?

But that is just one guy. We know there are so many more who don’t notice the sexism because they are not women (according to my PT’s logic). For instance, how about California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown denying that a woman being called a whore is as bad as a racial slur? Not only did he deny it, he dismissed it out of hand. He sure does know how to win a woman over, doesn’t he?

I can make it a bit more local. Our SC Democratic nominee for the US Senate, Alvin Greene, was apparently just trying to flirt with a young woman when he showed her pornographic photos for which he has now been charged with a felony. At least that seems to be what his attorney was saying in this Washington Post article when the attorney said this:

“He was attempting to flirt with a young lady who had no interest in him,” Eleazer Carter told The Associated Press. “While the charges are very serious, I think it boils down to, when a lady turns you down, has it reached a criminal offense?”

That’s all it was, people – why is everyone making such a big deal out of it? Sheesh, c’mon, already – you little women need to stop being so sensitive.

Which is apparently what the California chapter of N.O.W. thinks in terms of calling women derogatory names. Yep – turns out they think it is A-Okay. You know what I mean – the Jerry Brown “hey, baby, being called a whore ain’t such a bad thing,” from the recent debate with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. WTH??? Add to that Alvin Greene’s “just flirting” assertion, and I just had to share this recent experience. Holy Moley.

And speaking of physical therapy. I am still pretty busy with my daily regimen of physical therapy and dealing with high levels of pain (so, um, that’s my excuse if there are any typos or anything. The PT did say this is what happens when your bone and muscle are cut. It hurts, like being hit with a police baton right on the tibia over and over 24/7 for 6 – 8 weeks. Yep, sounds about right.). I have missed our conversations, but also haven’t been in a place where I can give the time I would like to fully engage. So, thank you again, everyone, for your thoughts and prayers. It means a lot to me. I am working up to writing more regularly, I promise.

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…

You know, when I saw the CNN report, I just knew that CNN was under-reporting the numbers of those opposed to the mosque being built near Ground Zero. And CNN made it seem as if there were a couple hundred protesters on BOTH sides. I knew they were full of crap:

[snip] Hundreds of critics and supporters of the proposed center in New York showed up despite an overcast and drizzly sky to express their views amid the national debate over the facility.

Police estimated that supporters of the center numbered up to 250, and critics numbered about 450 during the demonstration. [snip]

Uh huh. Nothing like inflating the numbers on one side, and deflating them on the other. Oh, you just gotta love the LMSM (Lame Mainstream Media). Or not.

By the way, if you think for one second Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did not know that the landing gear from one of the planes flew into that building, and the relevance of it being so close to Ground Zero, you are sadly mistaken. That is why he picked that location, and why Muslims started coming to that building to pray. At least according to this December 8, 2009 NY Times article, “Muslim Prayers And Renewal Near Ground Zero“:

[snip]But for months now, out of the public eye, an iron gate rises every Friday afternoon, and with the outside rumblings of construction at ground zero as a backdrop, hundreds of Muslims crowd inside, facing Mecca in prayer and listening to their imam read in Arabic from the Koran.

The building has no sign that hints at its use as a Muslim prayer space, but these modest beginnings point to a far grander vision: an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Nope, that site was no accident. It was chosen PRECISELY because it is close to Ground Zero, and because part of the landing gear fell.

Again, to those who keep acting like this is just some random site and those opposed to it are off our rockers, here’s the proof. From Imam Rauf’s own mouth. Satisfied yet? Yeah, that’s about what I expected – no amount of facts will matter. Whatever.

And then there is this story. It is no secret that California has been struggling mightily with its budget and deficits. That makes the following story even more disturbing than it would be otherwise:

Have these people lost their minds? Marble? In a public high school? While they are having to cut back on Education? That is just nuts.

Okay, one more, if you can stand it. This is the former head of the DNC, failed presidential candidate, and former governor, Howard Dean, giving advice to the Obama camp. Wait until you hear it. There is a bonus discussion about an organization funding Republicans:

Oh. My. Gosh. A bit of advice, Governor Dean – put down the Hopium pipe. You have had way too much…

And George Soros doesn’t hide behind an organization? Really? Huh. Is there an organization he funds that supports Democrats that has his name in it? If so, lemme know.

There ya go – a few stories of the day. Feel free to talk about these, or any other, stories.

As she begins her general election race for South Carolina’s top statehouse job, Republican Nikki Haley is part of a group of candidates this year who are simultaneously pursuing another goal: to be their state’s first female governor.

Women are running to break the political glass ceiling in eight states that have never had a female governor, including California, New Mexico and Minnesota. Currently, six women  three Democrats and three Republicans  serve as governors.

In South Carolina, Haley beat four-term Rep. J. Gresham Barrett in a runoff election for the GOP nomination Tuesday. Haley will face Democratic state lawmaker Vincent Sheheen in November in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, who is term-limited.

“South Carolina just showed the rest of the country what we’re made of,” Haley said after her victory. “It’s a new day in our state, and I am very blessed to be a part of it.”

The prevalence of female candidates for statewide office has been a defining narrative of the 2010 election season, particularly for Republicans. There are 13 GOP and 10 Democratic women running for Senate, according to the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers.

“Part of it is timing and history,” said Meg Whitman, a Republican who is running to be California’s first female governor. “You’ve got a generation of women coming of age (who) are now engaging in the political process.”

Yes, like with so many things, it is all about timing, especially for so many women to be running at the same time:

Thirty-one women have served as governor in 23 states, according to CAWP. If at least three of them win in the November elections, a majority of states would either have a woman in the governor’s mansion or have had one in the past.

Debbie Walsh, the center’s director, cautioned against putting too much stock in such benchmarks, though. New female governors may be elected this year, but three are retiring or face term limits, including Jodi Rell, R-Conn.; Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii; and Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.

The percentage of women holding statewide executive offices has declined from 28.5% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2009, according to the center’s statistics.

Conservative Women Have Success

“Having so few at any one time is part of the challenge,” Walsh said, noting that statewide elected positions can serve as launching pads for presidential campaigns. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for president in 2008 as a Democratic senator from New York.

What’s significant about 2010, Walsh said, is that “we are seeing more Republican women stepping up and taking the risk.” In the past, she said, female GOP candidates have been more moderate than their male counterparts. This year, a fresh brand of female conservatives is having more success in primaries.

Several of those candidates, including Haley, have been endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

“Most of these women are not just Republicans, they are conservative Republicans,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports female politicians who oppose abortion rights. “This is the moment to seize because the environment is right,” she said.

Plenty of Democratic women also are taking a stab at being their state’s first female governor, including Florida’s chief financial officer, Alex Sink, and state lawmaker Elizabeth “Libby” Mitchell, who is running in Maine.

Diane Denish, who was elected New Mexico’s first female lieutenant governor in 2002, is now seeking the state’s top job. She said the number of women running nationwide “sends a great message to women and girls that anything is possible.”

Because her Republican opponent, Susana Martinez, is also a woman, the state is guaranteed to make history. In a statement, Martinez said she appreciates the “historic significance of this election, as well as the elections taking place in other states.”

That’s pretty cool, actually – no matter who wins, it will be historic. Huh – where have I heard that before? I know, before people started acting like only an Obama win would be historic. Ahem. Yes, history will be made with wins by a number of these women, but that’s not all there is to it:

Many of the female candidates, including Whitman and Martinez, have downplayed the gender issue in their own campaigns  arguing that it doesn’t matter whether a man or woman is victorious, as long as whoever takes the job gets results.

“That, to me, doesn’t matter as much,” said Sarah Franks, a 34-year-old teacher who voted for Haley, but not because she’s a woman. “I mean I think it’s neat, but that doesn’t matter as much as just getting some new blood in the system.”

True that. New blood cannot hurt considering where we are now. Still, I admit I am happy that women are rising to this level, and so many qualified women at that. But of course, we cannot deny that sexism is alive and well in this country as we all well know from the debacle of 2008. And I think most of us can agree that women still have to work harder than men to get to the same levels, and even then, as we know from the Obama v. Clinton debacle, that far more qualified and experienced women still do not beat out the younger, less-qualified men. So, yes, I am glad to see that so many qualified women are running, and in some cases, will definitely be making history. That’s just cool.

As noted above, many of the women running are politically and socially conservative. But, that does not necessarily mean they are not feminists, as I have said for some time, and as Kathleen Parker points out in this piece, True (or false) Feminism:

Proving one’s feminist bona fides has become the latest challenge for women aspiring to public office.

Is she a “real” feminist who walks in lockstep with traditional feminist orthodoxy? Or is she a faux feminist, i.e., a woman who has benefited from traditional feminism, become all that she could be, but, alas, thinks independently on certain sacred tenets of the sisterhood?

The latest debate emerged recently when pundits on both sides of the widening chasm weighed in on the number of pro-life (and pro-life-ish) Republican women running for public office. The back-and-forth seems to have begun when feminist Jessica Valenti criticized Sarah Palin in The Washington Post for declaring herself a feminist.

The implication: A pro-life woman can’t really be a feminist.

Soon thereafter, Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review senior editor and author of “The Party of Death,” declared in The New York Times that 2010 is the year of the pro-life woman, listing all those on today’s ballot who happen to be pro-life.

Among them: Sharron Angle in Nevada, who will oppose Harry Reid for the U.S. Senate; South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who won the Republican nomination in California for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Barbara Boxer; Susana Martinez, who became her party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico.

Seeing so many accomplished women reach the top of the political heap, not to mention their professions in some cases, should be cause for feminist celebration — except for that one thing. Thus, left-leaning feminists in the blogosphere have responded breathlessly, which I mention only to suggest passion rather than to imply debutante tendencies, though who can be sure?

Frankly, the absolute vitriol heaped on conservative women by so-called liberal women was startling (including the vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton, for that matter). As I have noted previously, when I was marching for Equal Rights For Women, I thought it meant ALL women, not just women who held the same liberal beliefs I did. I thought it was for all women to be self-actualized, not just ones like me. Parker continues:

This all would be tedious if it weren’t so entertaining. In fact, this is the crux of the crux in the arena of so-called women’s issues. Can one be a pro-life feminist, or is the question an oxymoron?

As a matter of orthodoxy, yes, but as a matter of reality, not really.

We’ve come a long way, baby, and there’s more than one type of woman roaming the vales and plains. But then, it was always so. There just weren’t many varieties of women in the public sphere, as Ponnuru points out.

Earlier feminists were almost universally pro-choice and have dominated political debate until now. Having access to abortion was viewed as the only way women could have full equality with men, who, until recently, couldn’t get pregnant.

OK, they still can’t, but we’ve now witnessed a bearded transgendering woman having babies — and fake wombs are inevitable — so anything’s possible, apparently. Good luck with all that.

Back to the point, we now see women who have managed to gain equality with men while also raising children, none more explicitly than Sarah Palin. At the risk of terminal heresy, I would suggest that behind almost every successful mother/politician/CEO is … a very good man.

Palin’s full house and career haven’t happened without the manly support of one Todd Palin. Real men don’t hold their wives back.

The reason Palin so upsets the pro-choice brigade is because she seems so content with her lot and her brood. One can find other reasons to think Palin shouldn’t be president, but being a pro-life woman shouldn’t be one of them.

Though this is ancient history for me and my generation, some of whom are now welcoming grandchildren into the world, some of the lessons we’ve learned bear repeating. Chief among them is that many women who have had babies find it harder, if not impossible, to see abortion as nothing more than a “choice” to eliminate an inconvenience.

I fall into this camp, though I’ve never been able to support reversing Roe v. Wade, which makes me unpopular with nearly everyone. Apart from legal arguments as to whether the Supreme Court ruling was constitutionally appropriate, I’m libertarian-leaning enough to insist that government should have no role in determining what anyone does with his or her body — as long as no one else is hurt.

Save your “ah-ha’s!” until the end, please. Obviously, the forming human life is destroyed, and thus I also can make a human-rights argument against abortion. I think we should.

That other women, such as Palin, want to reframe the abortion debate in new feminist terms, arguing that abortion hurts women and is, therefore, anti-woman, doesn’t bother me a bit. And it shouldn’t bother older-school feminists.

Equality, after all, means that every woman has a voice.

And that is the bottom line, is it not? For ALL women to have a voice. And this year, it may very well mean having more women’s voices in positions of power. That, to me, is exciting. How about you?

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?

Senator Lincoln is the one Democrat in this bunch, and I have to say, I am THRILLED she beat Halter. As you no doubt have heard, Halter was supported by MoveOn.org, and the big unions, which poured MILLIONS of dollars into Arkansas (around $10 million), so her win is a big push against the power of the unions, as well as the far left agenda. Here she is celebrating her win:

Lincoln isn’t done – she has a strong challenger in November, but beating the organized union and MoveOn.org backed candidate is huge, make no mistake. It can also be construed as a bit of a referendum on Bill Clinton v. Obama. Clinton endorsed Lincoln, and the Unions/MoveOn are Obama backers. Maybe the Old Dawg still has it…

Nikki Haley, with the backing of both Gov., Sarah Palin and First Lady (of SC) Jenny Sanford, won the vast majority of votes (49%) with her closest competitor, Gresham Barrett, at 22%. Here is Nikki Haley after the election:

Should Haley win come November, she will be the first woman governor in SC, and the second Indian American governor in the US (along with Bobby Jindal).

Meg Whitman talks about her win, and her upcoming race against Jerry Brown (or “Gov. Moonbeam,” as Karl Rove referred to him on “Fox & Friends Weds. morning). In her speech, Whitman gives a shout-out to Carly Fiorina on her win to face Barbara Boxer:

And speaking of Carly Fiorina, here she is in her speech following her win, a win which will pit her against long time senator, Barbara Boxer. She returns the favor to Whitman, with a “Holla” to her, too:

Sharron Angle, the Tea Party backed candidate, will be facing off again st Harry Reid in the Fall. Oh, I cannot begin to tell you how badly I want her to beat Reid. Even when I still considered myself a Democrat (before 5/31/08), I was not a fan of Reid’s, and my opinion of him has only gone down from there. Here’s Angle after her win:

Wow. Again, what a night. I might add, I have said a number of times, that after the Democratic Party eviscerated the best candidate they could have had to be the first woman president, I have no doubt that the first woman president will come from the Republican Party.

Honestly, it has been interesting to me to see how the Republican Party seems to support its women in positions of power far more than the Democrats do. You know, the party that claims to be the party for women. After the misogynistic treatment of Clinton by the DNC itself, compared to the treatment by the RNC with Palin, as well as other powerful women in the RNC, I just knew the Demos had blown their chance in a big, big, big way. Oh, sure, the Democrats have a few women senators and representatives, but none of them are on a par with Clinton. Hell, Obama is not on a par with Clinton, never will be (I think he knows that, too – that’s why he was always putting her down to try and build himself up).

When you look at a field like this, all of these powerful, successful women who are Republicans, you just know that our first woman president is going to come from this kind of group. That is assuming Hillary Clinton is telling the truth when she says she will not run for president again, though since Obama has made such a mess of things in such a short period of time, I am not sure she COULD win in this climate.

November will be must see with Boxer having a strong, accomplished woman like Fiorina facing her, Reid having Angle facing him, Whitman against “Gov. Moonbeam,” and Sheheen having the very popular Haley against him. Things don’t look great for Lincoln against her Republican opponent, though. Maybe Bill will show up for her again…

Stay tuned – November is not that far away!

UPDATE: Gov. Palin also endorsed Susanna Martinez (R) for Governor of New Mexico. Martinez also won big Tuesday night. Here is Gov. Palin talking with Megyn Kelly about the BP oil crisis, and near the end, she discusses the Primary results, especially the role her endorsements played:

In other words, Palin does not take credit for her endorsements making that much of a difference with the wins of the “Mama Grizzlies” – wow. What kind of politician is she, anyway? Ahem.

Anyway, the next few months should prove to be exciting. Can’t wait to see how all of this plays out!

UPDATE #2: And Libby Mitchell won in Maine to represent the Democratic Party(h/t to Yttik). From sea to shining sea, the women are on the rise. Wow!

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…

The SEIU also held California hostage when it was trying to reduce its payouts by bringing in their good buddy, Obama, to tell Ah-nold that he would get NO federal money if he touched the SEIU wages. Must be nice to have friends in high places, right? We are talking a union with only a little over 2 million members. That is some level of influence for so few people relatively speaking (the US has over 307 million people).

There is an even seedier side to SEIU, too. Who can forget this scene when a Tea Party member was assaulted by SEIU members:

That is but the tip of the iceberg. Here is another example of SEIU violence which, ironically, is directed toward people it wants as members:

If you go to YouTube, and do a search on “SEIU violence,” you will get more hits than most people have time to watch.

But as Erik Erickson pointed out at , what SEIU did over the weekend is taking their brand of intimidation to a whole new low. As he noted, had there not been a reporter (Nina Easton) living next door to the target house, chances are good we would not have known about their little weekend in Maryland.

What’s Really Behind SEIU’s Bank of America Protests?

(Photo by Nina Easton)

Every journalist loves a peaceful protest-whether it makes news, shakes up a political season, or holds out the possibility of altering history. Then there are the ones that show up on your curb–literally.

Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that — in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action — makes his family fair game.

Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

So these are the depths to which the SEIU, an incredibly powerful (thanks, Obama) union with very close ties to Barack Obama, has sunk. They went to someone’s HOUSE to protest, terrorizing – yes, terrorizing – a young teenager:

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly “outed” him, and slipped through his front door.

“Excuse me,” Baer told his accusers, “I need to get into the house. I have a child who is alone in there and frightened.”

When is a protest not a protest?

Now this event would accurately be called a “protest” if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be “mob.” Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might “incite” these trespassers.

Yes, “mob” is the perfect word for what the SEIU members did:

What’s interesting is that SEIU, the nation’s second largest union, craves respectability. Just-retired president Andy Stern is an Obama friend and regular White House visitor. He sits on the President’s Fiscal Responsibility Commission. He hobnobs with those greedy Wall Street CEOs — executives much higher-ranking than my neighbor Baer — at Davos. His union spent $70 million getting Democrats elected in 2008.

In the business community, though, SEIU has a reputation for strong-arm tactics against management, prompting some companies to file suit.

Now those strong-arm tactics, stirred by supposedly free-floating (as opposed to organized) populist rage, have come to the neighborhood curb. Last year it was AIG executives — with protestors met by security guard outside. Now it’s any executive — and they’re on the front stoop. After Baer’s house, the 14 buses left to descend on the nearby residence of Peter Scher, a government relations executive at JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500).

Targeting homes and families seems to put SEIU in the ranks of (now jailed) radical animal-rights activists and the Kansas anti-gay fundamentalists harassing the grieving parents of a dead 20-year-old soldier at his funeral (the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the latter). But that’s not a conversation that SEIU officials want to have.

When I asked Stephen Lerner, SEIU’s point-person on Wall Street reform, about these tactics, he accused me of getting “emotional.” Lerner was more comfortable sticking to his talking points: “Millions of people are losing their homes, and they have gone to the banks, which are turning a deaf ear.”

Okay, fine, then why not continue SEIU protests at bank offices and shareholder meetings-as the union has been doing for more than a year? Lerner insists, “People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing.”

Isn’t that just typical? Rather than actually addressing Ms. Easton’s concerns, she is dismissed as being “emotional.” So, let’s add “sexist” to the increasingly long list of things SEIU is, sadly too many of which are negative. But to Lerner’s accusations:

Bank of America officials dispute Lerner’s assertion about the “damage they are doing,” citing the success of workout programs to help distressed homeowners, praise received from community groups, the bank’s support of financial reform legislation, and the little-noticed fact that Bank of America exited the subprime lending business in 2001.

SEIU has said it wants to organize bank tellers and call centers — and its critics point out that a great way to worsen employee morale, thereby making workers more susceptible to union calls, is to batter a bank’s image through protest. (SEIU officials say their anti-Wall Street campaign has nothing to do with their organizing efforts.) Complicating this picture is the fact that BofA is the union’s lender of choice — and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans.

Banks: The new punching bag

But SEIU’s intentions, and BofA’s lender record, are ripe subjects to debate in Congress, on air, at shareholder hearings. Not in Greg Baer’s front yard.
Why the media wasn’t invited

Sunday’s onslaught wasn’t designed for mainstream media consumption. There were no reporters from organizations like the Washington Post, no local camera crews who might have aired criticism of this private-home invasion. With the media covering the conservative Tea Party protesters, the behavior of individual activists has drawn withering scrutiny.

Instead, a friendly Huffington Post blogger showed up, narrowcasting coverage to the union’s leftist base. The rest of the message these protesters brought was personal-aimed at frightening Baer and his family, not influencing a broader public.

Of course, HuffPost readers responding to the coverage assumed that Baer was an evil former Bush official. He’s not. A lifelong Democrat, Baer worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, and his wife, Shirley Sagawa, author of the book The American Way to Change and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, is a prominent national service advocate.

In the 1990s, the Baers’ former bosses, Bill and Hillary Clinton, denounced the “politics of personal destruction.” Today politicians and their voters of all stripes grieve the ugly bitterness that permeates our policy debates. Now, with populist rage providing a useful cover, it appears we’ve crossed into a new era: The politics of personal intimidation.

To say this “politics of personal intimidation” is unacceptable is a gross understatement. But it seems to be the MO of far too many Obama supporters (e.g., New Black Panthers in Philly, intimidation and machinations of caucuses in Texas, and on it goes). Where does it stop with these people?

Going to someone’s house, in 14 buses, no less, on a weekend, with no permit to protest, and a DC police escort to this home in Maryland, terrorizing a 14 year old boy, takes this to a whole new level, or new depth, however you want to spell it. I spell it, “D-E-S-P-I-C-A-B-L-E.”

UPDATE: Now the DC Metro Police claim they contacted Montgomery County Police, and broke away at the border. The Chief said one police officer accidentally crossed over. A Montgomery Police Captain claimed since the SEIU dispersed peacefully from the front STOOP of the house, there were no arrests. Thanks to ~~JustMe~~ for the link to the video of the SEIU members. I will keep an eye out for the video of the two police officers making their claims regarding the Metro PD, and the Montgomery PD. Currently, there is a major contradiction between what Captain Paul Stark is saying, and the statement issued by Cpl Daniel Friz who said there was NO courtesy call that a protest was heading toward Montgomery County, and that the DC police were ON SITE in MD. Someone ain’t telling the truth here. Wonder why??

FINALLY, here are the two police officers giving their side. Bear in mind that AFTER this interview, the underling in Montgomery County contends there were NO phone calls from Metro DC police:

Okay, here goes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.