Amid crisis and turmoil, our president goes a-campaignin’

When you can’t be constructive and effective, campaign…

From CNN:

President Barack Obama warned Republicans on Monday that he is back in campaign mode.

In a fundraising speech in Austin, Texas, Obama complained that while his administration has been governing the country since January 2009, Republicans have been trying to obstruct progress.

“There has been a fundamental lack of seriousness on the other side,” Obama said. “We’ve spent the last 20 months governing; they have spent the last 20 months politicking.”

In reference to the upcoming November congressional elections, Obama said: “Well, we can politick for three months. They forgot I’m pretty good at politicking.”

The speech repeated the main campaign themes Obama has mentioned in recent months, particularly his assessment of GOP proposals as a repeat of failed policies from the previous administration.

Republicans are counting on voter “amnesia,” the president said.

He framed the choice for voters as a decision on whether to return to policies that brought the recession or continue with policies that are “getting us out of this mess.”

You know, I was hoping I would be wrong when I claimed all voters would get was a snake-oil salesman.  When Obama made all of his lofty claims that he would be for “change” in DC, I hoped that my instinct to get the shovel was wrong.  For the person claiming that he would be a post-partisan president, I think he knowingly sold the The People a bridge.  For people who expected a president that would focus on solving problems, they’ve got to have a pit in the stomach for the Constant Campaigner.

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve doled out my happy little ‘I told you so’s to.  But if you’re over your snake-oil stupor, make sure you vote out anyone associated with this guy in November, so he stops ramming damage down our throats.  And in 2012, make sure the check mark is anywhere ELSE but beside his name.

Federal Judge: F.U. Arizona! We won’t enforce the law, but we’ll sue you for enforcing it (defending) yourself.

A federal judge has spoken:  Arizona can not help the federal government in enforcing laws that it does not enforce well.  Or at least this is the message that we can pull from the arguments (from the Associated Press article).

“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status  of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,”

So does this mean if I’m pulled over for speeding, MY liberties are being restricted while my legal driving and registration status is checked?  Newsflash for the judge:  The law requires someone to be arrested for another reason, and if the officer feels that the person might be here illegally, they then check for identification of this.  Just so we are clear, no rounding up people to check ID, just checking once they’ve been caught for something.  Courts go based on precedence, and this sets a bad one in Arizona, and across the nation, that a minor inconvenience is more important than sovereignty and national security.

“I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right,” said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. “It’s the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us.”

Aren’t you so glad that someone who came here under the disguise of a tourist, and that has remained here for the next 20 years illegaly is relieved?  I know I am.  This is a perfect example of someone who premeditated a crime, acted upon it, and now has one more defense to stay here.  Does anyone else see a problem here?

Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

What?  WHAT?  WHAT?!  We are worried that other countries who make zero effort to work with us on reducing the flow of illegals to our country, are not going to like us as much for having laws that are still not as harsh as theirs?  We’re worried that Mexico might be angry with us?  What are they going to do?  Build a wall so none of their people can come here illegally?

Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.

What I want to know is before all of these “policies” what disrupted them?  And how do they understand Arizonan’s frustration?  Are they paying Arizona for the costs of the illegal aliens?  Are they dealing with the traffic on a daily basis?  Right… “understands”.  Until they empathize, I don’t think they will every really understand.

“Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost,” Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. “It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona’s image and economy.”

This is great!  The Arizona AG, from a different party (Democrat) than the governor doesn’t like election year grandstanding.  What the article fails to point out, as well as the irony of this is Terry Goddard is running for governor.  And what did he do?  Weighed in on this issue that his side has made a race-issue, and therefore ingratiated himself through his own grandstanding to a perceived segment of the population.  Can you say hypocrite?  But this is just what we have seen all along – In a mid-term election year, they vehemently oppose a law that only adds more enforcement to an existing law on the books, but is heavily opposed by one demographic which happens to be populous in certain areas.  All Arizona is trying to do is stop the bleeding… or at least close the sucking chest wound.  The best the president and his party can do is talk about “comprehensive reform” and do nothing about it, while suing a state that just wants to protect itself from people who have no legal reason to be there.

Buyer’s Remorse Yet?

According to a CNN article analyzing an ABC News/Washington Post poll, Obama’s approval numbers are tanking in almost every area.  Apparently we in America are slow-learners.  I likened Obama to a snake-oil salesman prior to the election as he seemed so keen to say everything right without regard to reality.  This seemed to woo the masses and carried him to an easy victory over an aged and pandering opponent.  America wanted that mystery cure-all so badly, they didn’t think through what the consequences were – the economy, national status, security, liberty, etc.  They just wanted somebody that wasn’t George Bush, and that sounded good being it.

Well here you go, you genius 53% segment of the active voting public that elected him.  How are “words” doing for you?  How is that unimportant missing track record?  How are grand theories and Ivy League educations treating you?  Unless you’re politically connected to the “in” party, probably not-so-well.  Some of you have displayed buyer’s remorse.  Those of you that had half a brain anyways…

So remember this in November 2010 and 2012:  Lofty words mean nothing.  A candidate whose stance changes like a chameleon’s colors is not to be trusted.  If it sounds like honey coming from a politician it’s crap.  And finally, the blame game means that you’ve got no plan.  Vote this guy and his party out in their respective elections, and then target the GOP as they’ve proven little better…

I couldn’t have said it better.

I’d say this Diversity Lane cartoon says it all.

Bravo Governor Patrick, Bravo

Excerpts from the Boston Globe:

In an election year where he is tracking at just north of 1/3 of likely voters in some polls(in a very Democratic state), Deval Patrick took the high road, and avoided weighing in on Arizona’s new immigration law (smell the sarcasm?).

“Let me be clear: As long as I have anything to say about it, there’s not going to be an Arizona law in Massachusetts,’’ he said. “I can’t see such a thing passing our Legislature. But if it did, I would veto it.’’

Great, so even though his legislature would never have the guts to propose a bill that would enforce a federal law, he would veto it.  Brass ones, Governor, brass ones…

The governor also sharply questioned the motives of those pushing a separate measure that nearly passed the Massachusetts House last month, which would have barred public benefits for illegal immigrants. Patrick said residents are “justifiably concerned’’ about illegal immigrants receiving benefits, but said Massachusetts already has a “whole host of screens’’ to ensure services are given only to those who are eligible.

“It makes me question what is motivating some of the proposals right now,’’ Patrick said. “And I don’t think those motivations are entirely above board. I think they’re about stirring up fear. I think they’re about demonizing people and trying to invent a villain for political purposes, and I don’t think that’s the way you govern.’’

Let me get this straight:  Aren’t villains people who break the law?  Wouldn’t an illegal immigrant be an immigrant who broke the law to get into the country or stay there?  So how is this inventing?  How is that political?  Other than to say “Don’t worry if you are harboring illegals, vote for me and I’ll make sure you don’t get punished!”.

Pointing out that two of his opponents in the governor’s race — independent Timothy P. Cahill and Republican Charles D. Baker — supported the House bill, the governor said, “Some of the ideas, I think, are really more about grandstanding and not about how we show humanity.’’

Grandstanding?  Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle, black?

Patrick has supported granting in-state tuition rates to graduates of Massachusetts high schools who are in the country illegally and granting driver’s licenses to all adults who pass the tests, regardless of their immigration status.

Atta boy Deval.  Way to support and enforce the law!  Wait, isn’t one form of voter identification a license?  Hmm…

Now, many feel people in Massachusetts are out of touch with the illegal immigration problem, and they’re probably right.  Most people in Massachusetts probably don’t think their state has an illegal immigration problem (like their governor).  However with the Worcester County jail having 10% of their inmates (110 out of 1100) here illegally, I’d say these cities and towns, as well as the governor of that state should look to fixing their own problems, and not wasting one second on the matters of another state on the other side of the country.

I’m sorry… WHAT?!

What is wrong with this administration?  Well, OK, that’s way too broad, and a can of worms that is difficult to close.  Let’s narrow it down a bit.  Only a few days ago, the governor of Arizona was meeting with the president.  That might have a been a good time to let her know of your intentions.  Which intentions?  To use the US public’s (yeah, the same public that supports Arizona’s law with almost 70% agreeing with it) money to sue the state for enforcing federal laws that the US government neglects to enforce. Instead of this “common sense approach”, they opt to have Secretary of State Clinton announce to the Ecuadorian people that the federal government will be “bringing a suit” against one of its own states.

This just made my jaw drop.  I mean you can’t tell a governor to her face about this?  OK, forget that part.  You have to announce this to the people of a foreign country, not the US public?  Wait, forget that.  You are suing a state that is the victim of the federal governments negligence in border security for upholding federal laws already on the books?

Where do you begin with the arrogance, and ineptitude of this move?  What precedence do you set when you blatantly disregard the very laws you are sworn to uphold?  What message does this send when you can’t even announce this to your own people who will have to pay for this legal battle?

When will this administration think about long-term consequence and fundamentals of logic before speaking?