OK, so its Bill.

Now what? The Obama administration wants us to let it rest at this: "the Obama administration has investigated possible malfeasance by the Obama administration ... and found nothing." Not even Nixon would have tried to pull that with a straight face.

The real rub is this ... Bill Clinton was the chosen conduit for Sestak, from Rahm Emanuel -- who is conveniently out of the country in Israel at the moment. Ah, hah. Sure.   Bill ... why Bill? Well, for one, he is a big wheel in the DNC and this shows how closely the Obama folks were watching this. This means that Rahm (read Barack) felt that the Specter deal was VERY important and that they needed to wheel out the Pope of American left wing thought.  Bill is no fool: he took explicit instructions and he did not expect to be rumbled by Sestak.

So what is Bill's move now? Could Bill have deliberately screwed this up? And why? 

How about this: Hillary quits her position in October .. precisely when it will do Obama the most harm and then moves to the center to become the de facto Independent candidate. Bill becomes the future Secretary of State under Hillary and moves back into the East Wing. Win-win. Bill won't do time because he was not able to offer anything, just pass it on: he is a mere actor in the big drama. Slap on the wrist at most and nothing to prevent him from later occupying a senior post.

Think I am crazy? If so, you don't know the Clintons. They will not forget and will not forgive Obama. 2008 was Hillary's show and he stole it with lies and promises.  And certainly nobody could claim that Hillary does not have the experience now.

Told you so....

POTUS aka the "Saviour" is not going to lay any wreaths at Arlington National Cemetery this Memorial Day. Our commander in chief (no caps, he does not deserve them) cannot do the right thing for the tens of thousands of service families in our country. Shame.

Instead, he is going home to Chicago for a little vacation, but first, he is swinging by the Gulf to do a stop-over -- the first one in the 37 days of crisis. James Carville, the political strategist that put Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton into the White House has something to say about this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P693DaOeQL8

And Carville knows his politics -- he is as firmly leftwing as anyone. He called this "political stupidity."I don't even like Carville, but he is clear as to what a decent POTUS should be doing and why. So instead of comforting the families of 11 dead rig workers, and the thousands of families whose livelihoods will be destroyed by the fishing disaster ... he was whooping it up with the Duke hoops team in D.C. Shows where the priorities are. 

But now at his press conference today -- the first in over 300 days -- he claimed that the Government was now in charge. BP has to clear everything with the Bureau of Minerals, etc. and hence Obama. Great. How about some ideas, oh omnipotent one? Obama blamed practices of the previous administration for the poor regulation, citing a "cozy and sometimes corrupt relationship" between oil companies and regulators.  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar instituted changes in the agency after taking over, the president said, but the "culture had not fully changed" at the agency's Minerals Management Service by the time of the spill.  Dandy, Mr. Obama .. but it was YOUR administration that rubber stamped that rig and gave expedited authority to drill without supervision or extra safety requirements. THIS Charlie Foxtrot is YOURS.

AND NOW for my told-you-so spot of the week: a 22 mile long, 6 mile wide and 3000 foot deep oil plume has been "detected" emanating from the well head.  You see, the Obama administration didn't want you to think it was as bad as it was. MY sources, however (read oil engineers and fishermen posting to the net) stated right from the start that the surface oil was just the marker.  So the "official" tally is now something like two to three times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. 

Oh, horror ...  well it is a lot worse than the Exxon Valdez: sure that was into "pristine" Alaskan waters ... yada, yada, yada. THIS one is NOT contained. THIS one is let loose without the ability to place booms, sweep from contained shores, generally clean up after it. Clear thinkers are stating that oil will substantially contaminate the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico, and eventually wind up in the Gulf Stream headed North past Florida .... You know the rest.  And it is still not blocked.

And in the category of George Bush's "go shop at the Malls", Obama showed how desperately out of touch he and his administration actually are.  At a White House news conference Thursday, Obama said while three beaches in Louisiana have been fouled by oil, the rest of the region's beaches are clean and safe. He says Gulf state governors have asked him "to remind everybody" the beaches are open.

Seriously ... he is the President of the United States. You can't make this up.

Media Malpractice -- again.

Not enough that the media has given Obama a free ride on the "What Me Worry?" express with respect to the BP leak (and just about every other piece of idiocy), there is conspicuous silence about Representative Sestak.

Rep. Who ... I hear you asking?  Sestak. As in the guy that unseated Arlen Specter in the Dem primary in PA, that despicable gas bag who changed parties because he though that he would have an easier time being reelected given the Obama sweep in '08.

You see, Sestak was and is ambitious ... he challenged Specter who expected his own free ride back to the Senate for his 6th term (or something like that). What is it about long-time Senators that gives them this arrogance? But here is the catch -- and this is important -- if Sestak is to be believed, someone in the senior level of the Obama administration offered Sestak a high-level government job if he would back off and not run against Specter.

THAT, my friends is a high crime and misdemeanor, and if made with Presidential involvement, is an impeachable offense. Since a senior level appointment can only be made by Rahm Emanuel -- at least his ass should be in the frying pan: "18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act. [Furthermore:] 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value," according to Karl Rove ... and he should know those statutes inside out.

"18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. ... 'If you'll get out, we'll appoint you to a federal office,' – that's a violation of the law."Rove explains that these are jail-time offenses -- tickets to the Federal Penitentiary of your choice.

Let's look at source material:

The Section 600 statute states:

"Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

There is clear and convincing evidence that the Obama administration is getting involved on a micro level in local politics, Chicago-style. Don't forget the tampering with the Colorado elections -- Romoff was clearly offered a high level position by White House fixer Jim Messina (Dpty Chief of Staff) if he backed off of challeging Sen. Bennett.  This was confirmed by the Denver Post. It is also highly illegal. And it completely negates the touchy-feely Obama-campaign transparency promises. In fact, it is dirtier and more sinister than anything since Nixon. Somehow the press let that one go too -- the offer was only mooted in the Whitehouse and not made to Romoff. Given a leak, what is the distinction?

So where is the press? If this was a Republican president possibly on the hook, this would be front page news in every Liberal-rag in the country. Instead, the press seems to take the official Obama administration fob-off that there is nothing there.  Some politicos claims that this happened all the time, that this was "business as usual." But Obama's White House cannot use that "out": they came to power on the promise that it would not be business as usual, that they would operate to a higher standard. Instead, they seem to be lower and more prone to backroom deals than any recent President or administration.

Rep Issa (R-CA) asked the Justice Dept. to investigate with Special Counsel ... Justice merely said no Special Counsel was needed -- nor are any investigations taking place. Obama promised us accountability ... where is it? We know who Justice reports to.

Sestak for his part, now refuses to name names. There could be a variety of reasons: maybe he lied in the first place (though he was adamant and clear about the accusations in the run-up to the primary) and of course, he may feel that if he shuts up and minds his business, he might get to be Senator with the backing of his party. However, if he brings down Rahm or even Obama ... he is the greatest Dem-traitor in history and that means no more feeding at the government tit ... ever. He becomes like Lewinsky's dress.  The trouble is this, he publicly accused the White House of impeachable offenses, or at least Federal crimes. That needs to be investigated for the good of the country.

Which brings me full circle .. .where is the media? WHERE ARE THEY? SESTAK MAY BE CRAZY, BUT YOU NEED TO FIND OUT.

Get this! I just love this one.

NBC morning show's news anchor gave the commencement speech at super-liberal Wheaton College in Massachusetts. Great, right? Except that she did her speech and research for it based on another Wheaton College -- in Illinois.  That one is the alma matter of Billy Graham, Wes Craven, Todd Beamer. So she sort of mixed up signals ... congratulating the College that had in fact produced Christie Todd Whitman, Lesley Stahl and others....

Talk about foot-in-mouth.

Speaking about obnoxious disease, Obama just sent -- according to the wire services -- 1200 troops to the border. Why? I mean, why bother? Are they going to be able to shoot anyone? The Feds (ICE) in Arizona have already told the local police not to send them any illegals because they will not do anything about them.  One sheriff was told that if they want to bring them to the Federal Building on Saturday, they would see if there was anyone to take them.

So what is the point of 1200 troops? Given that the border is some 3000 miles, that is less than one soldier per 2 miles of line. The point? To show that he is listening and getting tough. The polls must have shown that the American people are demanding action, so "fake action Jackson" to the rescue. But not that he is actually ready to enforce our immigration laws.

Fake Action Jackson also put his foot down on the oil companies to do something about the well ... today... day 36. Who the hell does this guy think he is kidding?

Obama's Katrina

Within a week of that damn well exploding, I prophesied that this disaster would become Obama's Katrina. Look it up ... blogged for all to view. The trouble is, why isn't the media following up on this administration's complete bungling of this catastrophe? Katrina was an instant disaster for Bush, and everyone saw footage of irresponsible people in New Orleans looting and running amok ... all blamed on Bush by a compliant and hostile media, even though the Democratic Governor and Mayor told the feds to stay away for a week until the disaster was complete.

Here it is THIRTY-FIVE DAYS LATER and Salazar says that unless BP do something quick, that the Fed will be forced to move them aside to do something. WHAT THE F**K ARE THEY WAITING FOR IF THEY CAN DO BETTER?

You see, the amount of oil released every day is far larger than most of the press report. By some reports, there are VAST underwater slicks of the stuff miles long and thousands of feet thick and even if not, globs are washing up all over the Gulf, effectively rendering the whole ecosystem toxic. So what are they waiting for, if they can do better? Are they hoping for environmental meltdown so that they can advance their goals of a non-fossil fuel economy?

Can they -- the Feds -- do better?  Fox News (OK, not so reliable, but easily as much as the Leftist Clinton News Network -- currently in the O-tank) reports that the Navy possess the technical ability to shut this thing down. No doubt if true a development of a military strategic technology -- but who cares? This is killing the Gulf environment.  Maybe they can use the Russian nuke technique -- reports are that the Russians used a nuke a couple of decades ago to stop a massive natural gas fire.

So far the Fed have just sat on their asses waiting for BP to come up with a solution. Obama's stance being let the responsible companies sort it out. But this stance is COMPLETELY out of synch with his "regulate and control everything that moves" stance otherwise. So IS Obama in the oil companies' pocket? Possibly. But I'd rather think that they just don't know what the hell to do, and are afraid of doing something that might not work, so better to let BP take the rap. But after 35 days, it is a crisis of national leadership and this spill effects ALL of us: this is not the time to suddenly adopt a laisser faire attitude. Vastly hypocritical, vastly cynical ... we are all be hurt by the incompetence once again shown by the chosen one.

By the way, that butthole DooFus Patrick of the Commonwealth of Liberal Morons exclaimed that criticism of Obama was getting "dangerously close to sedition." Huh? Did anyone read the papers for 8 years of the Bush administration? Or listen to talk show hosts publicly wishing Bush was dead? Wishing for an accident to befall him? Remember when Hillary (shrieked) that it was the right and duty of every American to protest their government's misdeeds and failures?

Laughably, Patrick is "taking his gloves off, no Mister Nice Guy" in his campaign? He wants to run on his achievements. Lord please spare us the spectacle of Loyal Liberal Toadies sucking up to one of the most ineffectual governors ever foisted on a state.

A last thought ... what if they simply can't shut this sucker down? Wouldn't mean an environmental disaster ... that would lead to the necessity of shutting down offshore rigs until a solution can be found? You can't let another one happen ... with the result that a huge part of the U.S. domestic oil production will be shut down, raising oil and gas prices dramatically, exposing the U.S. to economic sabotage from the Middle East (Iran) ... and totally screwing the "economic recovery?"  Which in turn only strengthens the hand of Tea Partiers and Republicans in the coming elections? Is this a case of don't look behind the curtain?

How deliciously ironic: man of the environment, saviour of mankind, is caught by the political need to "make this go away"but is simply running out of time? No fairy godmother/knight, no magic carpet ... and possibly only a nuke to save him? So he crosses his fingers to wait?

The view from France

I am sitting here using WiFi to try and transact business because ... ATandfrikkinT have decided to unilaterally disable the international functions of my phone. Here's some irony: on the website they have an international helpline for you to call ... if you are having trouble with international roaming. You are locked outside but have to use a key to get inside to get the spare key. You have to send an e-mail to request help for internet connectivity problems.

This sort of logic seems similar to something that the IRS might use. Or Obama.

LA is big on the Arizona boycott ... but an Arizona power commissioner said that he'd be willing to pull the plug on L.A., since Arizona provides L.A. with 25% of its power.  You see, the boycott is limited to LA reviewing which contracts they'd jettison -- sort of having their political cake and eating it. Except that Wicked Witch Arizona just might refuse to play by LA's rules.  Now consider how stupid LA will look with power blackouts entering the hot summer and those considerate Liberals in Hollywood can't switch on the A/C in those 10,000+ sq. ft. houses? I just love the concept, but it does give one pause to think of States engaged in economic warfare with each other. Not good precedent, but there is no question that Arizona did not start it. They have the right to manage their own internal affairs as they want, irrespective of how fundamentally fruitless it might be.

It starting to smell like bad fish

You know that old saying about guests staying too long?  Well it applies to Politicians too, as Arlen Specter found out last night. Arlen? Good riddance you miserable, traitorous cretin.  You swapped parties so that "you could be reelected" your own words, you scum.  Well it didn't work out that way, did it. You signed on to the Obama wagon ... and I am VERY happy to inform you that Obama is about to inflict the greatest single electoral defeat ever seen on the Democratic Party. 

Why do I think this? Obama just stood in front of the world on the White House with the Mexican President and functionally told all of us that he is going to kiss Mexican ass. Perhaps he missed the primary results last night ... he claimed "not to be following them closely." If he wasn't, I guarantee that there was a war-room for policy makers up late in the White House last night ... doing precisely that.

What does this mean for us? It means that Obama will push like a maniac for amnesty between now and November to bring illegal votes in for the Democrats. And every incumbent Democrat will support this because they know that if they don't, their gig is up.  And let me tell you: even if the Congress is able to stuff amnesty through -- it will mean civil unrest on a titanic scale.  None of this is good. It is really, really bad.

Auntie Should Go Home

As we all know by know, Obama's Auntie Zeituni was granted asylum. The White House says that they had nothing to do with it. I say ... bullshit.

Let's consider a Federal Judge, busily engaged in letting crimigrants stay and kicking Aussies, Kiwis and Europeans (like my mother) -- taxpayers and not on welfare or public assistance housing -- out of the country for overstaying their visas.   Then along comes this case.... A woman from Kenya with absolutely nothing going for her to help our society, and receiving public assistance ... she has already ignored one deportation order from 2004.  What do you do? What do you do when that woman is also the President's illegal, crminigrant relative?

That depends ... do you want your next posting to be the ICE office in Thule Greenland, or perhaps the newly-formed-special-for-you office and hearing chambers on Diego Garcia? 

Of course Obama did not "interfere" ... he didn't have to. But had he decided to do the right thing and enforce our laws, he would have told the relevant powers to send her home.

Let's look at a statistic. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts estimates that there is about 220,000 illegal immigrants living in the state. Of that, we are sure that 25% are receiving welfare and housing assistance ... we know, because we pay the direct bills for that.  That means at least 55,000 receive direct aid, not to mention screwing up our emergency rooms and stuffing our schools with kids that no tax dollars from parents have supported.  Each of those 55,000 receives at least $1,000 per month ... that is an absolute baseline, reflecting artificially low housing costs, food stamps and other welfare benefits.  That is a cool $55,000,000 per month, or $660,000,000 per year and that is only for the crimigrants "on the books."  In no way shape or form can these people be said to be a "benefit" to the people of Massachusetts. And we are a small state. Consider what the real number is, when you look at the costs of food, schooling and medical care for the whole "enchillada".... Just that 25% would eliminate a majority of our budget gap. No need for new taxes.

In fact, I don't understand why I should pay taxes for Auntie Zeituni at all. Let Obama cover her costs.

More on Kagan

Elena Kagan, Goldman Sachs flunky, O-bot and Liberal Academic ... are we ready for that? Yesterday, I mentioned that the Court no longer represents Americans in terms of religion -- I am not sure if you can hit all the gongs of perfect diversity.  But I have real concerns about the type of people on the Court.

The Brethren -- the 9 Supremes -- are all from someplace that does not reflect our society. In education, Ginburg, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy all went to Harvard. Sotomayor, Thomas and Alito went to Yale. Stevens went to Northwestern.  Breyer and O'Connor went to Stanford.... Assuming Kagan gets in, that would mean that 5 of the 9 were clerks for Circuit Court of Appeals judges or Justices of the Supreme Court. Precious few of them have EVER run a company, had to make a payroll, worried about the bottom line and felt the yolk of government regulation on their company.

Of course, that makes Obama's administration such a good fit: he has the lowest number of cabinet members and advisors having private sector experience of any American President. FAR lower than even Clinton and Kennedy.  I recall that the number, in percentage terms, is less than 10% -- the next lowest in the 25% range (Kennedy).

One last little nugget: since Kagan is also reputed to be lesbian (closeted, but her partner relatively well known in the Harvard community) -- does this mean that she more likely to be willing to tamper with the Constitution to provide extra protection? It certainly explains a (well deserved) interest in "hate speech" and "diversity" and a loathing of "don't ask, don't tell."  Fine on all that ... but I don't really see how the Constitution is defective in these regards: enforcement is. You cannot legislate morality, just as you cannot legislate thought, sexuality and belief.  The risk here is that Kagan shows signs of being someone who might want to try. If she is "elevated," will she have to recuse herself from cases where sexuality and LGBT rights are impacted -- or even center stage?

I am perfectly OK with the sexual orientation of anyone on the Court ... Souter ... c'mon!  I really don't think that it has any bearing as a jurist, unless the candidate themselves might decide to make it such.  I'd prefer that Kagan "out" herself -- or refute it -- and take on bigots head-on.  You see, for so long as Kagan remains closeted or refutes it, the longer Wingnut Rightwingers can use her as a lever: she only voted that way because she is "secretly...." And that brings the Court and our system into disrepute. If you choose to make yourself a public figure -- accept a Supreme Court nomination -- you don't get to hold your beliefs private:  and that is precisely what Kagan herself wrote about Bork.


Still, I'd like to see DOMA shot down in flames ... and I am clearly conservative ... because it is about fundamental freedom and liberty.

Kagan

Kagan. It could be worse ... Obama could have nominated some crazy from the 9th Circuit.  In case you don't know what that means, the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which contains California, is populated by hyper-liberal crazies, and of the last 16 cases granted certiorari from that Circuit by the Supreme Court, 14 have been reversed.

But she is no bargain either.

Elena Kagan was an aide to Joe Biden in the Bork hearings -- which she cited and lauded at the time and later as the ideal model for future confirmation hearing: Senators pressing nominees on what and how they will decide on issues likely to come before them.  She also served in the Clinton White House as an assistant counsel and then as a Deputy Policy Advisor.

Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School in 2003-2005 and presided over the whitewash of plagiarism proved and admitted by two liberal professors (one being Larry Tribe). Essentially, Kagan and Larry Summers found no malfeasance for conduct that would have at least suspended any undergrad and did result the failure to graduate of two recent law school students. A third had their degree revoked. Boosters call her someone that hired conservatives ... someone who brought sides together, a consensus builder. But the same talking heads have been telling us the same thing about Obama.

Kagan is Solicitor General ... essentially she represents the Government before the Supreme Court defending government actions as constitutional. She has been doing this for one year. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the court experience she has. She has never been a judge. She has never had to defend her interpretations of the law before judges. She is a theoretician. An academic. 

Kagan is yet another Eastern Liberal who is going to tell us what is good for us and trample the constitution in the process. Another Harvard blowhard out of Obama's bag of Harvard blowhards (or Goldman Sachs personnel).  Kagan, as a academic has but 5 published articles ... a truly paltry number for someone in the "publish or die" business of tenure, etc.  But since her boss, POTUS has never published anything and yet worked as a Constitutional Law professor (and got it wrong in the State of the Union Address), we should not be too surprised.

What do we know about her, apart from a lack of substantive experience and a taste for grandstanding while eviscerating potential conservative nominees?

We know that she is a supporter of the Federal Government's regulatory powers, she is no fan of State's rights. She is a supporter of increased reach of "hate speech" laws and as a consequence, likely not a fan of the 1st Amendment.  How do we know? Of the few things she has published, one was entitled "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V." She also wrote a law review article; "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine."

She is an ardent advocate of anti-discrimination laws ... even where they may have a disproportionate and reverse discriminatory effect. Examples? As Dean of Harvard Law School, she support Harvard's long-standing ban on ROTC and military recruiting on campus because of Clinton's "dont' ask, don't tell" policy: she felt that it discriminated against lesbians and gays. (Campus Progess). When she was faced with judicial decisions that might support the Federal Government withholding funding, she allowed the recruiters back on campus but at the same time exhorted the students to protest and demonstrate against "don't ask, don't tell." She wrote, "it causes me deep distress."

At Princeton, for her senior thesis, she wrote about the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th Century.  Hang on, doesn't this start to sound similar to Obama antecedents? Go back to my post reflecting on Obama's past influences.  Her clerkship upon graduating Harvard Law School ... Justice Thurgood Marshall. So she does have some idea how the Supremes work, no fooling, and working with a singular Liberal genius. As an aside, nothing but respect for Justice Marshall, he WAS the man.

AND GET THIS ... too funny if it was not true: from 2005 through 2008, Kagan was (wait for it ...) a member of the Research Advisory Council of the GOLDMAN SACHS Global Market Institute. All f-ing roads lead back to Goldman Sachs. Every stinking one of them.

Plus side? She appears to support the notion that during wartime POTUS may detain enemy terrorists indefinitely without trial, or at least dispense with the niceties of civil prosecution. But what constitutes "wartime" is not clear, and might make the foregoing moot. She appears to be to the right of departing Justice Stevens (Ford was a complete sphincter in appointing him), but that is really not saying much.

A last reflection: as Stevens leaves, the Supreme Court will be made up of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. Yet, Protestants remain the most numerous denomination in the U.S.  In fact, add the rest together, and you don't reach Protestant numbers. In a Court and society so desperate for diversity and representation, it strikes me that this apparently does not matter.  Or?

The notion being put about by O-bots like the Huffington Post, Salon and NY Times that "Liberals are afraid that Kagan might move the Court to the Right, perhaps substantially..." is part of the smoke screen being laid down to mislead the American public. If lots of media start stating that this is a "risk," the thought is that perhaps some Republican Senators can be snookered into supporting her as a back-door victory over Obama. Don't be fooled. She is a genuine Liberal Looney Lefty, an O-bot of the highest grade and pedigree.

If seated, she will be around for a LONG time ... she is only 50 years old.

The media is not being honest ... sorry for being obvious.

About a week ago, now, the National Enquirer said that it had the goods on Obama. Taking down John Edwards is one thing, bringing down the Messiah ... is, well, Pilotesque.  But they would not go to press unless they had something more than a mere rumor, after all, it is the President of the United States we are talking about.

But have you seen one "peep" from main stream media? Remember in the Edwards scandal, they had to all but show the video of the deeds to get the media to follow on the story. And Edwards is a scab compared to the shining host of POTUS Barack.  

Being a confirmed conspiracy theorist, I imagine that every possible Federal Agency has its best men out trying to ferret the story sources and buying off any possible witnesses -- and I would not hesitate for a moment to imagine that the Liberal machine would make such witnesses disappear. Remember Hillary's lawyer friend Vince? Or Ron Brown? Or about 20 Arkansas State Troopers?  And in Chicago they don't mess around by comparison.

Also obvious by the sheer lack of reporting are the violent demonstrations on May Day. Not a peep from ABC / CBS / NBC / MSNBC or any of the leftist America-haters like Olderman and Maddow. But violent the demonstrators were and nobody seems to give a shit. By contrast, had a Tea Party demonstration descended into similar violence, Janet Napolitano would have sent in the National Guard to arrest these foes of democracy.

Instead, the media puts on Antonio Villraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles. Rather than labor (much) at showing why I am disgusted, I will post a few choice statements by the Mayor:

We have every right to secure our borders in a post September 11 world. But, we need to do so in a rational way, in a way that respects the human rights and the democratic rights of the people in this country, whether they're legal or not. Hmmm do illegals get "democratic rights?"

Look, what we've said is tht a federal responsibility under our U.S. Constitution. It should remain solely within the responsibility and the jurisdiction of the federal government to fix our borders. Yes, but our President doesn't seem to care.
 

[T]he estimates are that it would cost the United States of America more than $280 billion to deport 12 million people.Why? Does that include First Class airfare?


Blasting Arizona's tough new immigration law as "unpatriotic and unconstitutional," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Thursday backed a boycott of the state .... An internal U.S. boycott of a State by another? Is he serious?

And then we get the news that the Boston City Council that today decided to boycott Arizona. Who the hell are these guys, anyway? Does Arizona care? More importantly, why should an Eastern Liberal City -- which has declared itself to be an "open city" to all illegals -- have any "say" as to what the citizens of another state choose to do?  And of which 70% support the legislation. New honcho -- Councilor Felix Arroyo -- asks that Boston cancel all contracts with Arizona companies and that no Boston personnel travel to Arizona. Why would Boston personnel travel Arizona when the City is almost destitute? And who says that contracts with Arizona firms are anything to do with people who support that law?  My guess is that Arizona buys and trades more with Boston than the other way around. If not, who cares?

How about all people that respect comity of laws and minding their own damn business boycott Boston? Actually, boycott Federal taxes until Obama chooses to enforce the laws of our land and get some real bipartisan reform enacted?

But then again, who are we kidding: reform will consist of immigration disaster. What a mess.

Cinco de What?

Just a little disclaimer to start: I was born in Los Angeles, CA.  I learned about the Spanish missions along the Coast and California's proud Spanish/Mexican heritage. My first real friend was from a Mexican-American family -- in fact, the Chavez's had been in California since the early 1800's, they regarded us (and the illegals) as unwelcome newcomers. I regard Mexican food as the food that I grew up with. But I am an American, not a Californian, not "English" or "German."

"ILLEGAL is a legal status, not a race, nationality or ethnicity." American citizens, whether of Mexican, German, Italian, Japanese (etc.) origin ... are  AMERICAN and not "Mexican", "German", "Italian", "Japanese," etc. That is absolutely implicit in citizenship. Once you take the oath of citizenship, or are born here ... you become AMERICAN. And your AMERICAN citizenship trumps everything else. Your loyalty is first and foremost to the United States of America -- where you take that oath, it should be clear.  If you decide not to be American citizen, or have not yet had the opportunity to take the oath, then you remain in the United States at the sufferance of the citizens of this country, a guest.

Being an American citizen is a great gift and honor. Nowhere on this beautiful green and blue planet have people so desperately sought to come to live. It is the land of hope and opportunity --  and laws -- and we need to cherish and support all three to remain remain precisely that. And only by being Americans, all of us, from whatever creed or color or ethnic background can we preserve and achieve our American destiny.  That means, we are not first Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Irish, African, Mexican or Asian -- we are Americans and our backgrounds are only relevant as a personal reflection on our heritage.  This almost sounds Communist!!!

BUT if, as a citizen or guest, that offends you or does not meet your criteria, then you should leave. You have that right. And do me a favor ... make it soon.

Why the speech? An absurdity that took place in California yesterday.

Cinco de Mayo is NOT a big deal holiday in Mexico. It is not the most patriotic day in Mexico -- that would be their independence day.... So what is it? It celebrates a defeat of the French army by the Mexican army. That's it. It is celebrated in the state of Puebla, and almost nowhere else within Mexico. Here in the U.S., it has come to be thought of as Mexico's 4th of July. It is not. Not even close ... it has been boosted by savvy restauranteurs and beer brewers as a "Mexican Celebration Day," commercialized in a way similar to Mother's Day being a creation of a little-known Methodist Minister and Hallmark.

Wikipedia wants us to believe that it is a day of celebration of Mexican heritage and ancestry for Mexican-Americans, analogous to St. Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, Chinese New Years.  Hmmm.. Well those days happen to be real big-deals in their home countries, completely non-political, not remotely related to military actions, and those celebrations were imported along with the immigrants that came from those countries. The purpose is not national pride. The purpose is to get hammered. Those are not recent confections, and are of limited significance.

Which brings me to the point of this posting: 5 children were sent home from school in the San Francisco Bay area yesterday for wearing the American FLAG on their clothing. Mexican-Americans in their school thought that this was disrespectful "we wouldn't wear the Mexican Flag on the 4th of July" was the statement of a Mexican-American teen at that school. I should frikkin well hope not, unless it was represented in tandem with the flag of THIS country, celebrating our independence from the tyranny of Britain!

Let's get a few things clear here: (1) WE ARE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and not Mexico; (2) IT IS NEVER DISRESPECTFUL TO WEAR THE FLAG OF YOUR COUNTRY WITHIN YOUR COUNTRY NO MATTER THE DAY; (3) TO WEAR THE MEXICAN FLAG ON THE 4TH OF JULY WOULD BE DISRESPECTFUL WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES -- ESPECIALLY IF MEANT IN PROTEST AND WHILE RECEIVING THE BENEFITS AND PROTECTIONS OF THE TAXPAYERS OF THE UNITED STATES; (4) Other ethnic groups also celebrate their heritage with the American flag intertwined with a flag representing their origins, PROUD to be Americans.

Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the Arizona law and the sheer numbers of economic migrants: prior to the Latin-American invasion, (largely legal) immigrants to this country took pride to become citizens, learn the language, and re-invest their lives and families in the United States of America. Even illegal immigrants sought to invest in the American Dream, learn the language ... become Americans. They did not come to make money and go home. They did not come to work to send money home. They came -- mostly out of dire necessity (and in that nothing has changed) to take part in the American miracle.

Italian and German immigrants forbade the use of their mother tongue at home with their children -- so that their children became American in thought, word and deed.  Yes, it was the melting pot -- but unified in the sense that immigrants sought to bring their gifts to the unified table of American identity, citizenship and the English language ... language being the glue that allows the whole to hold together.

Economic migrants -- whatever their status, legal or not -- are here at the sufferance of the United States and its citizens. They do not and should not have ANY say in our political or other affairs. They should not be free to insult us and our institutions. If they decide they like the place and want to become citizens, then we should afford them the opportunity to become Americans, learning our history, culture and language.

I invite anyone to watch the swearing-in ceremony of any new group of citizens and challenge them to come away unmoved. The sheer pride and achievement on the faces of the newly minted AMERICANS is proof enough that the vision of our forefathers was just and true.  We cannot let "political correctness" and the complete lack of courage in Washington deface over 200 years of the American Miracle.

And the school district in California owes every American citizen an apology.

Deafening Silence

Obama's administration has distinguished itself yet again in failing to address what are clearly some of the most pressing issues in the country: a certain oil slick and immigration reform.

Let's first look at that nasty accident in the Gulf ... Obama's comment was that "not all offshore drilling has accidents" (or close enough to that). He is right, but that is not what the country really wants to hear right now. Rather, he would have better had come out and proposed massive Federal intervention, getting out the Navy and whatever other resources we may have up our sleeves to contain what may very well turn out to be the largest environmental crisis we have seen since the Exxon Valdez -- or worse.

I need to be clear about this: I am a supporter of offshore drilling, but the disaster has seriously given me pause to think more about this and to consider demanding more than we already have in terms of safety mechanisms and emergency containment methods. I am sure that modern technology is capable of it, but oil companies are rational entities: they will do whatever they need to, but little more.

Obama suddenly found the "drill baby drill" religion and is thoroughly hoisted on the petard of his about face on environmentalism. Of course the POTUS had to support drilling -- we desperately need the energy and it is the only logical way to bridge the gap. But Obama committed the fatal sin of waiting for someone else to do something: this disaster is turning out to be his very own Katrina. This "wait and see" policy is precisely what has doomed some of the most reviled presidents of recent history: Carter and Bush #2. To a certain extent, the things that Clinton is most unfavorably remembered for are the times he failed to act.

The unmitigated disaster that now looms for the whole of the Gulf has no parallel in modern history. One tanker is a limited event, no matter how awful the initial impact. This sucker continues to spew oil into the environment and we are not doing all we can to prevent it from fouling wetlands, fishing and industry over thousands of miles of pristine shoreline. Just imagine if the Gulf had serious tides or currents!??  An environmentally aware PRESIDENT of the United States would have the Navy out there with every ship it could muster, and even consider martial law along the regional seizing control of all available shipping and supplies to get this fixed. This is an national emergency.

As of last night, Obama stated he had no intent to visit the Gulf region. Early this morning, some news services report that Obama is considering an emergency visit to the area. To do what, Mr. President, give a speech showing how all of this was Bush's fault?  Bush was told by the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans that Federal help was not needed. It was, but the Liberal press blames Bush for listening to those on the ground and waiting until help was requested. Even though Bush should have just moved in, it was consistent with State's rights and not offending local power structures.

In this case Obama has no need of fear of offending anyone: it is a multistate disaster, in international and Federal waters and a risk to the populations along the affected shores. There is NO STATE response possible. And yet, he gives speeches in the MidWest and screws up immigration reform.

Time for errands -- I will finish this later.