See you Tuesday

I should have posted this yesterday, but I am taking off until Tuesday. Hope you all have a great Memorial Day.

Oil Springs eternal

the news about the oil gusher under the Gulf does not look that encouraging today. while it is too soon to tell, it is disheartening that the BP engineers have moved from the mud shot to the junk shot. The mud and concrete first used did not stop the oil so they have moved on to pumpin golf balls and pieces of tires into the pipes.

Let's hope that we get good news soon. Meanwhile, maybe President Obama who claims to be in charge could tell us what did and what did not work. wouldn't it be nice if instead of pointing fingers at everyone else, he actually got the clean up going faster. Indeed, it might be nice if governor Jindal could finally get the permit he needs to build the berms off shore to stop the oil. My guess, however, is that the approval will be held up until the entire coast is fouled. Then, once it is too late approval will be given but the feds will say "see, it did not work".

Obama should get a title like "Mr. Incompetent". for the good of the country, he has to go!

Clinton swimming in the Ses-pool

As more and more has been said about the job offer made to Congressman Joe Sestak to leave the Pennsylvania primary for the Senate seat, I have begun to believe it less and less. Did the White House really use Bill Clinton to deliver this message? Remember, Clinton was called a racist by the Obamacrats about a year before this job offer was supposedly made. Obama had displaced Hillary and the Clinton apparatus from control of the Democrats. Even with Hilary as Secretary of State, there could not have been any love lost between Bill and Obama. By the time the offer was supposedly made, it was already clear that although Hillary was Secretary of State, all of the important diplomatic work would be done by special envoys directly from the President. Hillary had given up her senate seat for a second rate and demeaning experience at Foggy Bottom. I find it unbelievable that the White House would use Bill Clinton for sensitive political dealings.

So how did Bill get into the mix? I bet he offered his services. After all, if this is not a true story, Bill now has it in his power to bring down the administration. Indeed, I have been looking in vain for a story in which clinton is interviewed about his involvement and have not found it. After the Clinton story is cemented into the record, will we start to see leaks about how Clinton was actually not involved. Will this be the slow drip, drip, drip of damaging news that could undermine whatever is left of the administration's credibility?

I have to say that I am surprised that Obama would allow the fate of his administration to rest on the shoulders of Bill Clinton. After all, Clinton has no trouble shading the truth (or for that matter blotting it out altogether.) Will he be a loyal soldier for Obama? Or will he use this opportunity to make Obama a one term president so as to give Hillary another shot.

I realize that this may all be just another crazy theory, and I have to say that I have no proof that anything like this is happening. But I have to add this: it sure sounds right to me.

Immigration dispute reaches critical Mass

In an amazing turn of events, the State Senate in massachusetts voted for a strict enforcement law with regard to illegal aliens in the state. The law would bar the state from doing business with companies that hire illegals; it would ban illegals from getting in state tuition breaks at state universities; and it would take other actions with regard to enforcement of immigration laws. Only a few days ago, the Senate Democrats had voted down a much weaker measure that had been supported by the Republicans. Now, however, shortly after a new poll showed 84 percent of the liberal-leaning state’s voters supported tough immigration rules barring state services to illegal immigrants, even the Democrats got on board with enforcement. It is about time.

I still do not understand why the media and most Democratic politicians are surprised that the American people actually expect that the laws of the country will be enforced and not ignored.

The Sespool gets deeper -- part 2

Well now a bit more is dribbling out from the White House. Supposedly, the job offered to Sestak was a position on the presidents foreign policy advisory board. This is an unpaid position and the White House seems to be pointing towards the unpaid nature of the post as a defense in any criminal investigation. But there is still a problem here. The United States Code (18 USC 595) makes it a crime to offer someone a job to drop out of a primary for a senate seat. It does not matter that the job is unpaid. That code section provides that any government employee who "uses his official authority for the purpose of ... affecting, the nomination ...of any candidate for the office of ... Member of the Senate... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Simply put, appointing someone to a federal job (paid or unpaid) is certainly using ones official authority. Making such appointment in order to determine the outcome of a primary is a federal crime. I thought the White House lawyers would be better. I guess I was wrong.

Still, we will have to see what gets said once the full report is released. I bet that the details a somewhat different from the leak and less favorable to the White House. Otherwise, there is no reason for the leak.

the Ses-pool gets deeper

The wires services are reporting this morning that Rahm Emmanuel had former president Bill Clinton approach Joe Sestak about getting out of the primary race against Arlen Specter. According to the report from the AP, "A White House official familiar with the matter says Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used Clinton as a go-between to ask Sestak to drop out of the race against Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter. The official said Clinton discussed some type of executive branch service for Sestak that would allow him to continue serving in the House."

If this is correct, then it seems to me to be an admission that a crime was committed -- not by Clinton (although he may be covered as well), but by Emmanuel. As a government employee, Emmanuel is not allowed to use the prospect of a government job to affect participation in a primary or a general election. Using Clinton as an intermediary may muddy the water, but it is no defense. If Clinton was making the offer on behalf of Emmanuel, Rahm's acts were criminal. Indeed, if Rahm acted on the orders of the president, then Obama has committed a crime as well.

I have to say that I am surprised that this news has come out today when Emmanuel is out of the country. We may be seeing the beginning of a move to dump Rahm out of the White House. Alternatively, we may be seeing someone trying to undermine emmanueal's position in the administration wholly apart from anything that Obama wants.

There has been a lot of losse talk about impeaching Obama as a result of criminal acts with Sestak. Nothing will come of that, but there is a certain irony that Clinton may yet again be involved with the impeachment of a president. If I were Obama, I would worry that Bill might try to undermine Obama so that Hillary will get another shot in 2012.

This really is a Ses-pool.

Gulf Oil

With the non-stop coverage of the oil spill in the gulf, it is time to consider something that gets little coverage these days: other sources of oil in locations less harsh than the deep sea bed. According to all estimates there are well over ten billion barrels of oil in the Alaskan reserve called ANWAR. This is located on the North Slope in an area that is frozen most of the year. It is not far from Prudhoe Bay, the main field of the North Slope area. Unfortunately, it is a political football. Democrats are generally against drilling there; so are some Republicans. The problem is that Obama has now stopped all drilling on the continental shelf and has done nothing to replace those supplies. That means that in a few months, we will see a declining suply of oil and a rising price. that will be a severe blow to the economy at a time when it cannot deal well with such a problem. Simply put, other than finding another source for oil, the only short term choice left for the US is higher prices and a return to economic decline. All but the most irrational environmentalists will understand the imperative to find such other sources. Obama could show real leadership by opening up ANWAR today with stringent environmental controls to offset the off shore losses.

Worth repeating

I could not see the Obama press conference live today but I have read the transcript. My first reaction was that Obama's claim to have been on top of the gulf problem since day one was a howler he would live to regret. then I read the take of Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics. His view: "stepping up to the teleprompter 38 days after the initial spill, with all the intervening time and press coverage of the event, and asserting that he's (Obama) been on top of it like white on rice since Day One comes across very much like historical revisionism from the department of C.Y.A."

A second point about the press conference. In the final quesiton, Obama was asked about the Sestak job mess (Ses-pool). He replied that the administration would give out a full report on this shortly. A friend of mine, Steve Brill,reported to me that the response reminded him of what Mike McCurry said during the Lewinski matter, Namely: If we had a simple explanation for this, we would have released it long ago.

So once again, Obama thinks that, despite the truth, if he says something about the Gulf, it will fly. And with regard to Ses-pool, he cannot even think of what to say. There will probably be some statement released Friday of Memorial Day weekend at 10 pm.

Everybody into the pool

It will be very interesting to hear what Obama says at his news conference today about the Joe Sestak job offer -- or as I like to call it Ses-pool. Will any of the media even ask about it? If asked, will Obama stop stonewalling and give details? We shall soon see.

Driving folks to Connecticut

Today's news brings tidings that New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is pushing a New York State Millionaires tax that would raise the rate for the wealthiest people in New York to 13%. This is very good news for Connecticut. If Connecticut can hold the line on income tax rates, there will be a substantial tax gap between the two states. Over the last few decades, Stamford and Greenwich have become financial centers with both large numbers of hedge funds and separate trading floors for UBS and RBS which have headquarters here. Given the use of electronic trading, there is no need for trading floors to be close to Wall Street anymore. the tax gap alone ought to be enough to push additional Wall Street companies out to the Connecticut suburbs. Indeed, there is enough office space under construction in Stamford right now to house a large number of new financial firms fleeing New York and its high taxes.

The Democrats in new York are crazy if they think that they can just raise taxes and no one will leave. If they pass this tax increase, they will be in the process of destroying one of the mainstays of the new York economy. I think that the New York Democrats new slogan should be "We never met an economy that we did not destroy."

I just hope that when the companies leave New York, they make a short move to Connecticut rather than the longer one to Texas or Florida where taxes are still much lower than Connecticut.

Here's Another One

Kirsten Powers is the latest Democrat to criticize the unbelievably poor action (or more precisely lack of action) by the White House in dealing with the Gulf oil spill. She puts it succinctly: "If he promised us anything, Obama promised us competence. Instead, we've gotten the Keystone Cops."

Right on Kirsten. Obama has got to go!

Has Obama Awoken -- part II

Earlier this week I wrote about the decision by President Obama to deploy 1200 National Guard troops along the border. It seemed that the President might actually be realizing the problem presented by the tidal wave of illegal immigration crossing into the USA from Mexico. Although I thought that the troop levels were to low, I also thought that Obama deserved credit for recognizing a dire situation.

I take back any credit that I gave him. State Department P. Crowley announced today that none of the troops would be involved in any way in stopping or dealing with illegal immigrants. Mexican president calderon protested to the White House the use of troop to deal with the immigrants and the state department has assured Mexico that nothing like that will happen.

How bad are things when the United States backs down on controling its own borders. Let me be blunt: Who gives a damn what Calderon says? It is the border of the United States and we have every right to control it. Obama cannot ignore his duty to enforce the laws of the USA. More states need to pass Arizona type laws. And Obama??? --- He has to go!

China and North Korea

According to the latest dispatches, the Chinese are aiming for a UN resolution to end the tension arising from the sinking by North Korea of a South Korean navy ship. the Chinese want a resolution that condemns the sinking but does not mention that it was North Korea that was responsible.

I hope that no one accepts this ridiculous resolution. Basically, China wants the rest of the world to give North Korea a pass for what it did. Why not? Just because the North Koreans committed a savage act of war and killed over 40 innocent South Korean sailors is no reason to sanction them. Next we will hear that sanctions against the North Koreans would be akin to war crimes. it is all just more BS.

The time has come for the USA to get together with Japan and South Korea and announce that there will be no commerce of any sort with the North Koreans. Indeed, there should be sanctions put in place that bar any company that trades with the North Koreans from doing business with the USA, Japan or South Korea. It would be nice if the European Union would join in this effort, but the three countries acting alone would be sufficient. Such a move would put China in the awkward position of either having its companies cut off from three of their four biggest foreign markets or else having to cut off trade with the North Koreans.

My guess is that the threat of such sanctions alone would be sufficient to get the Chinese on board to curtail North Korean aggression. Of course, given President Obama's view of the world, any strong action by the USA is out of the question. Most likely we will apologize for to the North Koreans for ever suspecting that they had a part in the sinking and maybe we will send them reparations as well. Obama has got to go.

Ses-pool?

The disputes surrounding the claimed offer of a job by the Obama administration to Joe Sestak to drop out of the primary in Pennsylvania in favor of Arlen Specter keep growing. Sestak keeps repeating that he received such an offer, but he will supply no details. The White House will also give no details but says it did nothing wrong. Usually, these things get names that end in "gate" like Watergate, climategate, and all the others. Given Sestak's name, however, I think this should be called "Ses-pool".

Aside from the name, there is a real problem here. The United States Code (18 USC 595) makes it a crime to offer someone a job to drop out of a primary for a senate seat. That section provides that any government employee who "uses his official authority for the purpose of ... affecting, the nomination ...of any candidate for the office of ... Member of the Senate... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Simply put, appointing someone to a federal job is certainly using ones official authority. Making such appointment in order to determine the outcome of a primary is a federal crime. so, if Sestak is telling the truth with regard to Ses-pool, he is alleging that a crime was committed by someone in the White House.

I doubt that this issue is going to go away any time soon. Sestak is either going to have to tell the world who said what and when, or he will be dogged by this until November. Indeed, If the GOP wins control of either the House or the Senate, Sestak can be guaranteed that he will be brought before the appropriate committee to testify under oath about what happened here. I am quite surprised that Sestak has not spilled the beans yet.

There is the possibility that Sestak is waiting for Saturday of Memorial Day Weekend to give out the details of Ses-pool. We will see soon enough.

Statistics, more statistics and damn lies

One of my readers sent me the link to yesterday's column in the New York Post by John Crudele. (the link to the article is the title to this post) the point of Crudele's piece is that the census bureau is playing games iwth its employees in order to help with job creation numbers. We all remember the ballyhoo in recent weeks about how the economy is finally starting to create jobs again. Well now we hear that the Census bureau (which accounted for a big chunck of the new jobs) is hiring and then firing and then rehiring workers over and over again. Each new hire counts as a job created even if the person was just fired from a job that was already counted. In other words, Obama's census bureau is able to hype the numbers of new jobs created substantially just through manipulation.

So far, the evidence of manipulation is anecdotal. There is, however, too much anecdotal evidence for there to be nothing to the story. We just do not know how widespread the fraud is yet.

Thanks to Hotpanera for the article.

How low will it go?

Today's Rasmussen tracking poll on Obama's job performance has a number in it that must truly scare the White House. For the first time fully 45% out of the 1500 likely voters who were polled say that they "strongly disapprove" of Obama's performance as president. This is the all time high for this statistic.

Most polls regarding job approval list those who approve and those who disapprove. Each group includes those whose views shift back and forth depending on the news cycle. Strong approval and strong disapproval tends to be more sticky. Those in the "strong" group tend to have fixed views which are much more difficult to change. In addition, those with strong opinions are much more likely to actually vote, especially in off year elections like 2010. So here we are just over five months ahead of the midterm elections and the margin of those who strongly disapprove over those who strongly approve is 45% to 23%. This bodes very poorly for the Obamacrats in November. Unless Obama somehow manages to change perceptions of his competence (or lack thereof) in the next few months, millions of unhappy voters will come out to punish Obama's party. The danger for the Dems is quite clear.

the R word -- Recession or Reality

This morning Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson writes a piece lamenting the shortsightedness of thos who want to cut the deficit sinced they seem to forget that we are mired in a great recession. (the column can be reached by clicking on the title to this piece)

Meyerson thinks that so called deficit hawks are forgetting that cutting spending will keep the US from recovery. He ignores all the happy time talk from the Obamacrats that the recession is over -- at least to that extent he can recognize reality. But then, Mayerson goes on to talk about the need for more stimulus.

After reading this column, I sent Mr. Meyerson the following e-mail:

Dear Mr. Meyerson

In your piece about the failure of deficit hawks to mention the recession, you provide the answer to why that is the case. You state: “The Obama stimulus Congress passed last winter saved or created what most economists estimate to be roughly 2 million jobs. For that matter, every major nation enacted a Keynesian stimulus last year, preventing a return to the agony of the 1930s.”

The simple point is that no one believes that. Obama billed the stimulus as an emergency measure that would cap unemployment at 8%. He was not even close. Instead, for just under a trillion dollars, we got 10% unemployment and a U6 above 17%. We also got a package that had as its main component giving money to states and local governments so that they could delay for a year making the cuts necessary to deal with declining revenues. The extra health insurance for teachers or pay raises for street cleaners is a onetime things. It did not boost the economy the way a true investment would. The so-called shovel ready jobs were only ready for shovels if those shovels were to move the BS that was pushed out there by the administration about them. In my town in Connecticut, we finally started our first shovel ready job in the last month. So it only took 16 months for the money to actually hit the street (literally – the job was repaving six different sections of street). Even in the thirties, the government jobs were, for the most part, permanent improvements – post offices, bridges, other infrastructure improvements. Obama’s shovel ready jobs are – for the most part – subsidies to local government maintenance requirements. These have no long lasting effect on production or consumption.

I will not take the time to discuss items like funding various ridiculous studies (salamander migration and the like). You can determine the lasting economic effect of them yourself.

In short, I think you have been listening to the words of the administration rather than looking at the reality. The Obama administration is very good at saying one thing while something else is happening. (e.g. Obamacare will cut the deficit –at least until the bill was passed and signed. Now it will cost 151 billion in the first ten years – and counting.) You need to look at the reality.

There is a strong movement to cut the deficit since that is something that cannot be talked away. We and our descendants will be paying for it well into the future. And you have not given any indication that you have even a clue how to deal with it.

Sincerely,

Has Obama awoken?

Today brings news that President Obama is sending 1200 troops to the border in Arizona and will seek an additional 500 million dollars for border security measures. Could it be that Obama has awoken to the dismal state of border security? One would hope so. But if that is the case, one would expect that Obama would also apologize to the people of Arizona and tell them that he will now do his job and seal the border. Indeed, he might use that promise as an excuse to call for the repeal of the Arizona immigration law. Such a result would protect the border and get rid of the law Obama dislikes. Don't hold your breath. Obama acts only for political gain rather than for the good of the country. he has to go!

The Real World

Wow! I just finished reading a piece by David Gergen, on CNN, in which Gergen attacks Obama for not showing leadership in dealing with the oil spill and the European financial crisis. Can it be? Can David Gergen actually be seeing therealities of the situation rather than projecting his own hopes onto a bleak reality/

Gergen points out that an effective government would have done the following:

"• Brought in the CEOs of all the major oil companies and charged them with the duty of an all-hands collaborative effort to stop the spill and help ward off the damage.

• Brought in the best minds in the country, from universities and technology, for emergency efforts to find solutions.

• Moved quickly to mobilize the National Guard and other military forces, if necessary, ensuring that they received the resources needed to protect our beaches.

• Made a clear call to citizen volunteers to help where necessary.

• Given Cabinet officers an ultimatum: Get this under control in the next 30 days, or else.

There will be ample time after this disaster for finger-pointing and blame-laying. The key now is to get this spill under control before it does far more damage."

Strangely, it looks like Gergen has been reading this blog. Almost since the spill began, I have been lamenting the lack of leadership coming from the White House. All we got was talk, but no action. Nothing was done to attempt to remedy this disaster. Of course, the big difference here is that I am a conservative and was never a fan of Obama. Gergen, however, is a liberal Washington insider. For him to criticize Obama like this is big news -- it means that reality is actually piercing the haze of fantasy that has been hanging over liberal Washington. It is about time.

I have come to realize that the big O that was on all of the campaign posters for Obama was really a ZERO. And boy were they right! Obama has got to go!

The guns of May

Babara Tuchman's history "The Guns of August", in which she discusses the origins of World War I, makes the case that the conflict resulted from the advesaries taking steps like mobilization which the other side misunderstood. The escalation and further escalation led inevitably to war.

Today, North Korea has cut all ties to South Korea in response to the South Korean measures in response to the sinking of a South Korean navy ship by a North Korean submarine. the question presented is whether or not one side to the conflict will stop the escalation before more shots are fired. Indeed, the more accurate question is whether or not the NK's will stop escalating before they fire any more shots -- the likelihood of the south commencing a war is quite limited.

War on the Korean peninsula would be terrible. The NK's have nukes and there are American troops in the south who would become targets upon the commencement of hostilities. A war here would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like side shows. there are over two million men in the opposing armies and both sides have technologically advance weapons. The NK's also have an ally in China. Will the Chinese again take part in a renewed Korean War? If so, a total World War could be at hand.

Personally, I think the possibility of a new World War started in Korea is remote. The Chinese know that any such war would result in the total destruction of China (and the rest of the world). Nevertheless, the Chinese may calculate that Obama will not take any actions against them if they give aid to the NK's They see the example of Iran which arms insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan without any US countermeasures. In fact, Iranian troops have fought as irregulars in Iraq with no apparent consequences. A chinese miscalculation and a weak and disrespected US president could be the recipe for disaster.

Let's hope that calmer heads prevail.

Sticks??

Writing today, former Mayor of New York Ed Koch announced: "Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. President Obama speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all. No wonder North Korea torpedoed that South Korean warship, something they would not have done in all probability if China had not quietly approved. No wonder Brazil and Turkey thumb their noses at us. We have become a laughingstock."

Koch is pointing out the true harvest of the foreign policy sown by Obama. Outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, our enemies have suffered no cost for the moves they have made against the US. Indeed, all costs seem to have been inflicted on our allies. Obama believes that everything can be resolved by talking, and he has run US foreign policy accordingly. Why take action against the Iranian nuclear threat? Let's just talk about it and threaten sanctions. Why take action against North Korean agression? Let's just talk about it and threaten sanctions. Why help the people of the Falklands when they are threatened by Argentina? Why support constitutional democracy in Honduras when we could support the Chavez clone who is trying to overthrow that country's constitution? Why support Israel against terror coming from hamas and Hezbollah when we can blame the problem on the victim, the Israelis.

The truth is that this is a very dangerous time. the world knows that the USA is not going to take any actions even in the face of severe provocation. This gives most of our adversaries a free pass to do anything that they would like to without fear of consequences. Obama does not perceive reality. Unfortunately for the USA, our adversaries do.

Too Too funny

Don't miss this! click on the title to this entry and watch the video. It is only a minute long and says more in that minute about Obama and the Obamacrats than one could imagine possible.

Where do they find these people -- update

I just heard from the reporter who wrote the story in the L A Times about hte Supreme Court decision. He claims that his original story led with the issue about whether or not the claim was timely, but the editors thought that the story would be stronger if they changed it. Accordingly, they dropped out the main point of the story. That may be true, but I, for one, find it hard to believe.

Where do they find these people?

This morning the Supreme court issued a ruling In Lewis v Chicago in which it held that claims of discrimination filed by black firefighters in Chicago were timely. I read three separate articles about the decision as well as reading the decision. What I found was amazing. The Washington Post article accurately described the decision. The article in the Los Angeles Times seemed to be about a completely different decision; it went on at great length about hte substance of the claim -- even though that was not the issue before the court. Indeed, the LA Times did not even discuss the timelines issue. the third article was just a general wire service mish mash that was far from clear about what had been decided.

In our society, too many people get defective news from media that should know better. How can they assign someone to write about a decision of the Supreme Court who obviously does not even know how to read a decision?

Where do they find these people?

Obamacare -- the patient is dead

According to Drudge this morning, the latest poll on repeal of Obamacare shows that fully 63% of Americans want that monstrosity repealed. That number is substantially higher than it was just after the bill was signed into law. At this rate, by November we may see full two thirds of the public in favor of repeal.

It is hard for the Democrats to imagine that the public is so strongly against their signature accomplishment (and I use that term loosely) of this session of Congress. Pelosi told us that we would need to pass the bill to learn what was in it. Well it passed and now, as we learn what is in it, more and more people are turning against it.

In 1994, not passing healthcare was given by Democrats as the reason they got routed in the elections. In 2010, passing healthcare may be the reason for the upcoming rout.

Just as you would expect

This morning I did an unscientific experiment to test my views on the mainstream media. All last weekend, I repeatedly saw stories about the slow or non-existent federal response to the gulf oil spill. These culminated when Sarah Palin criticized the Obama administration for its pathetic response to the spill on Sunday. I decided to see what CBS News covered in it main morning radio news show on Monday morning. Sure enough, there was no mention of the criticism, but the announcer told us how the feds were aptly enough fed up with the slow actions of BP. Secretary Salazar is making another trip to the gulf to see for himself what is going on. Then we heard about action. Both Jefferson Parrish and the State of Louisiana are taking over portions of the cleanup in an effort to try to keep the oil from fouling fishing beds. No action by the feds, of course.

So what did I learn from my experiment? CBS covered the story without mentioning criticism of Obama for the federal inaction, but even CBS could not come up with any story showing the feds actually doing rather than talking. Indeed, the oil leak shows that the Obamacrats really believe that talking is better than doing. Only the state and local governments actually tried to help. They were not spinning; they were doing. Congratulations to Governor Jindal of Louisiana and to the local government in Jefferson Parrish for doing what the voters elected them to do.

As for CBS, all I can say is this: why not try non-biased reporting? Fifty years ago when CBS was the gold standard of news, you were non-biased. Who knows, if you try just telling people the news rather than slanting it to fit your biases, you might actually get an audience again.

Remember the Geneva convention

Frequently we hear cries of "War Crimes!" leveled at US or Israeli forces from the left or from the jihadists in the Islamic world. Indeed, each time a woman or child dies (or even an unarmed man) it is described as a violation of the Geneva convention. To make matters worse, if there are no such casualties, the terrorists and their supporters have no problem making up stories about supposed atrocities to feed to the cooperating world press.

Now, however, Al Qaeda has released a video that should be seen and discussed by everyone who hears one of these atrocity stories. According to cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, under Islamic law (at least as he sees it), anyone who is a combatant is a proper target in a war. He then goes on to state that every American is a combatant because we all selected the government that is carrying out the war. Thus, killing any American, even a woman or child, is proper and required for a true Jihadist.

OK, so let's carry this argument to its logical end. If every American is a proper target since we have an elected government, then every person who gives aid or comfort to the enemy is a proper target for the US. People in towns occupied by the Taliban (who supply the Taliban with food or weapons) are proper targets under the reasoning of the Jihadists themselves. People in Gaza or the West Bank are proper targets since they selected Hamas in the last election. anyone want to bet if we ever hear the left admit this?

stock of the month -- an update

May's choice for stock of the month is Shamir Optical, an israeli company that makes progressive lenses as its principal product. so far the choice has been less than great; the stock is down. In fairness, however, the pick was a long term selection. It is one which ought to rise in tandem with the aging of the population that might wear these lenses.

there is, however, an explanation in part for the decline of the stock. The Israeli economy is being reclassified so that it is moving from the developing world into the the group that is already developed. As a result, all of those funds which invest in developing economies have been selling Israeli stock and will continue to do so until may 26th at which point they have to be out of the Israeli market. Commencing may 26, all those global funds which invest in developed markets will have to buy into the Israeli economy. The net result of all this is that there has been substantial selling presure on Israeli stocks which will continue for a few more days. Starting on the 26th, however, there will be even larger buying of the Israeli market. This explains the decline of certain bellweathers of the Israeli market like Teva and Partner and Celcom Israel. It also explains the weakness in Shamir. Indeed, Monday and Tuesday of this upcoming week is a very good time to buy Shamir in my opinion.

disclosure: I am long Shamir and have recently added to my positions.

What a dolt!

I just saw the comments made by Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC about Rand Paul and his comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have been a supporter of Steele for a long time. I helped in his campaign for governor of Maryland and I supported his election as chair of the RNC, but this is just the last straw as far as I am concerned. Steele is a dolt!

There have been a number of things done by the RNC under Steele's leadership that have been, shall we say, deficient. Steele always seems to have something to say or do that embarrasses the party. To be fair, the media is waiting constantly to point out anything bad that Steele does. After all, it ruins the media narrative to have a black Republican, so they clearly want to destory him. Unfortunately, Steel is cooperating all too well in this effort.

Steele's comments criticizing Rand Paul for his views about the civil rights act are another foot in mouth exercise by Steele. Paul engaged in a philosophical discussion about the underpinnings of part of the civil rights act and expressed the libertarian viewpoint that the government needs to stay out of individual decisions. When the media portrayed that as Paul being in favor of repealing the civil rights act, he corrected this and made clear that he was not in favor of repeal. Still, the media danced a jig of glee because they now had a candidate supported by the tea party who was a "racist" since he wanted to repeal the civil rights act. The truth made no difference; the liberal blogosphere went crazy and the media went along with it.

So what does Steele do? Instead of saying just that Paul has made clear that he does not support repeal of the civil rights act and leaving it at that, Steele first has to criticize Paul for the initial comment and then point out the correction. Sadly, Steele still has not learned that his job is not meant to make himself look good. His job is to elect Republicans. So, for Steele to jump on the ambush bandwagon to try to get Paul is idiotic in the extreme. He ought to be removed from his office in my opinion. the upcoming elections are too important for the RNC to be led by someone like Steele.

Hawaii 1 and Pennsylvania 12

This is not a baseball score. Rather, these are the two congressional districts that had special elections in the last week. Democrats won in Pennsylvania and Republicans in Hawaii. Much has been made about the fact that the Hawaii district is the one where President Obama is from. To me that is not a big deal. what is a big deal, however, is this. the republican vote in both districts is substantially higher than it has been in the past. Burns in Pa got 45% of the vote, a level no Republican has reached for decades in a congressional vot. Djou in Hawaii got 40% of the vote (which gave him a plurality), again a level no republican has achieve for a long long time in the district.

Many of the pundits are quick to point out that Djou is unlikely to win again in November when there will be only 1 Democrat on the ballot to oppose him. Strangely, these are mostly the same pundits who say that Burns will never win in November because the Democrat will have the advantages of incumbency. wouldn't it be nice if there were more pundits who were truly non-partisan?

To me, the true meaning of these two special elections is more than the identity of the winners. These two guys will be in congress for a few months and that will look good on their resumes. the realimportance is what the results indicate as to the nature of the current electorate and how this will impact November. Here there is no surprise. Republican votes were higher than normal and Democrats lower. this was the case even with the two major primariesin Pennsylvania that drew out thousands of extra democrats to vote. All in all, it is a good sign for the GOP for November in my opinion.

Kim the Konqueror

Word is out today that the attack on the South Korean navy ship by the NOrth Koreans was almost certainly approved in advance by North Korean "fearless leader" Kim (no not Kardashian). Speculation is that Kim is trying to cement his position of strength after his stroke a few years back so that he can be sure to name his son as his successor. How medieval! In the 13th century, Kim would simply claim the divine right to name his successor, but that is a hard argument to make in a communist atheistic society.

This news of high government authorization, while not surprising, presents yet another conundrum for the policy makers in Washington who need to decide how to deal with this crisis. If there is no response to the NK's, they will be emboldened. we will hear more of the old USA is a paper tiget meme. On the other hand with a nut job like Kim, there is no telling how he will react to any counteractions.

The likely response from Obama and the Obamacrats is to do nothing but to say a lot. That would fit right in with their belief that what gets said is more important than what gets done. After all, they probably think that a speech by Obama castigating the NK's will lower Kim's favorables in the next gallup poll in North Korea.

In the world of nondelusional grownups, however, talk alone is not enough. something concrete is required. Best of all worlds would be an action combined with Chinese support. China is North Korea's only ally and friend. chine hsa the power to bring the entire country to its knees simply by cutting off trade. Such a move by China is highly doubtful. China does not want NK refugees crossing its border. Nor does it want to have US troops on the Chinese border (which there probably would be if NK we to fold and the two Koreas reunited as a democracy. China also knows taht the Obamacrats will never be serious if they threaten harsh action against the NK's. So, the most likely chinese course is to tell the US in private that they just cannot do anything.

On the other hand, if the Chinese thought that the US had leadership that might actually take some unilateral steps to rein in the NK's, the Chinese might be more likely to act. They would try to temper US anger and this could lead to real curbs on North Korea. There is a price to be paid for having a president who talks the talk but never walks the walk.

One wonders what would happen were a North Korean ship to suddenly be sunk somewhere in the Pacific? Would Kim connect the dots? Sure! Would the NK's strike back? Yes, for sure, if they felt there would be no further consequences. But suppose that the NK's got the word that any action taken against the South would result in a five fold response? Would Fearless Leader step back and slow down? Would he release Boris and Natasha to carry out sabotage? Could Moose and Squirrel stop them? Tune in next time to see what happens.

Breaking News!

UPI reported this morning the following which I find amazing:

"With pending legislation in Congress to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran unless it stops the development of nuclear weapons, the White House today announced that it opposed any legislation that singled out Iranians for punishment as this amounted to racial and religious profiling. President Obama pointed out that a sanctions law might be applied by the US authorities in a manner that could lead to bigotry against Iranians and others (mostly from the Middle East) who aid them in their quest for nuclear weapons. The President was asked about the language in the senate bill that specifically prohibited the use of national origin or religion as a consideration in determining whether or not to apply sanctions, and, in response, he admitted that he had not read the bill, but he repeated that racial and religious profiling would not be tolerated.

About an hour later, a high ranking State Department official announced that Secretary Clinton had directed all US ambassadors in Islamic countries to meet with the foreign ministries of those countries and apologize for the pending bill since it might lead to racial and religious profiling. Specifically the ambassadors have been instructed to tell their counterparts that America can and will do better in the fight against bias against Iranians.

When asked about the resolution that has been introduced in the security council at the UN, the State Department official said that he had been informed that in the event that the resolution is passed, both President Obama and Secretary Clinton were planning to go to New York and chain themselves to the fence outside UN headquarters for at least ten minutes. In addition, Obama will bring the chorus of the United States Naval Academy to sing "We Shall Overcome" in a message of solidarity with the Iraninan people who may possibly be racially profiled under the terms of the UN resolution.

When asked to explain how the UN resolution could be known to use racial profiling when it has not yet been written, the state department official declined comment."

Iran -- Obama moving backwards

This morning the associated press is reporting the following:

"The Obama administration on Friday removed sanctions against three Russian organizations the US had previously accused of assisting Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Penalties against a fourth Russian entity previously accused of illicit arms sales to Syria were also lifted.

The timing of the decisions, published in Friday's Federal Register but not otherwise announced by the State Department, suggested the possibility of a link to US efforts to win Russian support for a new UN Security Council resolution expanding sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

The State Department on Friday did not immediately respond to questions about lifting the sanctions."

So there you have it. Obama and the Obamacrats are making noise about achieving the impositions of sanctions against Iran to slow its nuclear arms development, but at the same time their actions -- as opposed to what they say -- reveal that the USA is actually lifting sanctions against those who have been helping the Iranians to get nuclear arms. And before you decide that this is just Obama undoing some wrong that was imposed by George Bush, you should know that the sanctions against these entities were imposed in 1999 by the Clinton administration.

Obama and the Obamacrats are still operating on the theory that words are more important than actions. In any situation this is a delusional point of view. In today's world, it is a view that threatens both the USA and the world with permanent harm. Obama really has to go -- really! (apologies to Frank Luntz)

More lies but who cares

The New York Post is reporting today on yet another instance where Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal claimed to have served in Vietnam. This time it is a speech in Milford in 2007. Blumenthal, however, was officially chosen by the Democrats yesterday as their nominee for the senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd (who is under a cloud due to his constant acceptance sweetheart deals). Either the Democrats at the state convention buy Blumenthal's excuse that he "misplaced" some words, or, more likely, they do not care if he lied about his military service. After all, it is about something that happened 40 years ago and it was only in Vietnam.

Two things are clear from these latest developments. First, Blumenthal did not mispeak when he claimed to have served in Vietnam. That could have been the case if it happened only once (although with Blumenthal that is unlikely). We are now up to five separate documented occasions where Blumenthal claimed to have served in the Marines in Vietnam. The clear truth is that Blumenthal was lying about his service. Second, the Democrats politicos in Connecticut see nothing wrong with a candidate who lies. Indeed, there was no substantial support for anyone other than Blumenthal at the convention. As a result, I expect that we will soon see a very negative campaign unfurl. Blumenthal will be pilloried as the liar that he unquestionably is. The Democrats will undoubtedly fire back at Linda McMahon will whatever ammo they can come up with. While I would prefer a campaign fought on the issues, I truly cannot conceive of that happening given the damaged nature of the Democratic candidate. Blumenthal will have to drag the campaign into the mud in order to try to bring the Republican down to his own level. Still, in that kind of campaign I have to believe that McMahon will have years of experience from her wrestling business to fall back on. She may well pull this election out and win.

No one knows the truth yet

Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs announced today in response to a question that the White House was firmly behind the candidacy of richard Blumenthal for the senate in Connecticut. In view of Gibb's record, Blumenthal had better start worrying. Of course, since none of the senate candidates that Obama supported have won, Blumenthal may not want Obama's support.

I look forward to the followup when Obama decides he backs someone other than Blumenthal. Can you say "Bring Back Chris Dodd?"

All of these folks have to go!

Even Chris Matthews is worried.

The Obama administration is so incompetent that even a super liberal apologist like Chris Matthews is worried. Today's Huffington Post reports: "Chris Matthews has come a long way since the infamous thrill up his leg. The MSNBC anchor, once so enamored with Barack Obama that he admitted a campaign speech sent a thrill up his leg, has now told Jay Leno that Obama scares him. "The President scares me," Matthews said of Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill disaster. "He's been acting a little like a Vatican Observer here. When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It's in our interest."

Things have to be really bad in Obamaland for Chris Matthews to criticize his idol Obama. But Matthews is correct in this instance. The country is not served by a president who just talks about things but does not take responsibility for anything or actually accomplish something. The oil spill was the subject of repeated claims by the Obamacrats that they were there from day one. Now, three weeks later, the federal government still is not doing anything. The Arizona immigration law is castigated by the Obamacrats, but the idea of passing legislation in congress to deal with the immigration problems is just tabled by the Obamacrats who see no need to do anything so long as they talk about doing something. Iran is moving towards having a nuclear weapon. Obama is talking a lot about it but he is doing nothing. Even on issues that are near and dear to Obama, nothing gets done. thus, Obama announced the closure of gitmo by the end of 2009; of course, Gitmo remains open today with no prospect of closure.

Obama has got to go!

Nobody could make this stuff up!

Here is the latest outrage reported by Fox News: "A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports....

Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."


So let's translate this into English. the federal government is not going to cooperate with Arizona as that state attempts to solve the crime wave from illegal immigrants which is overwhelming Phoenix, Tucson and other cities in Arizona. The Obama administration is not going to enforce the federal immigration laws even if Arizona catches the illegals that the feds refuse to stop.

150 years ago we fought a civil war in which one of the big issues was whether or not a state could nullify a federal law. Now the feds want to nullify a state law. And to make it worse, the state law does exactly what the federal law already does. So, the administration wants to nullify a valid federal law in order to create racial tension and get more votes from Hispanics in November. Even for Obama, this is dangerous ground.

Obama has got to go!

Race baiting fails for the democrats in Arizona

A new poll out today says that the number of folks in Arizona who support the new immigration law has risen since the last poll ten days ago. The polling for Arizona Governor Brewer has improved markedly during this time as well.

Over the last ten days, Arizona has been the victim of phony race-baiting attaacks from Obama and the Obamacrats across the country. "Arizona is racist", they scream. Supposedly the law encourages racial profiling.

The poll numbers, however, reveal that the truth has managed to get out in Arizona. Indeed, the attacks on the state by the Obamacrats seem to have backfired within Arizona at least. If they keep this up, the Obamacrats may be able to undermine the elction chances of every democrat running in Arizona.

OK, so Arizona gets it, but what about the rest of the country. Cities like Los Angeles are threatening to boycontt Arizona. what does the public think. According to a poll released today by Rasmussen, the American public opposes any boycott of Arizona by a margin of about 5 to 1. Indeed, almost half of the respondents to the poll said that they would boycott any city or state that undertook to boycott Arizona. So it seems that the public also understnads that the law is fair and fine.

I believe that if the Obamacrats do not back off of their constant charges of racism against their opponents, there will be a backlash of monumental proportions. Most Americans do not take kindly to being called racists. Racism is too terrible a problem and it was too hard to stamp out for most Americans to be able to shrug off phony charges of racism. After all, if the Obamacrats continue to cry wolf about the Arizona law, it will get much harder to get people to act if there ever really is a threat of racist behavior which needs to be stopped.

Watching both the administration and the Dems in Congress condemn the Arizona law as racist, (especially when they then admit that they have not even bothered to read the law) I am struck with the thought of people jumping off a cliff. They are in the process of falling to the rocks below, but, as in the old joke, when asked about their present condition they think "so far, so good."

Time names fool of the year

Time Magazine pundit Joe Klein has an amazing piece out on the triumph of diplomacy in connection with Iran. After reading the article, I started wondering if Klein could actually believe what he says. According to Klein, it is a good development that Turkey and Brazil cooperated with Iran in reaching an agreement whereby Iran send some enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for uranium for medical use. The agreement also does nothing to stop Iran from continuing to enrich the main part of its uranium up to weapons grade. The only purpose of the agreement is to muddy the waters, buy Iran time and stop any meaningful sanctions from being adopted. Klein seems to miss this. I guess since the deal is titled "agreement", Klein thinks it must be good.

Klein also crows about how Russia and China are signing on to the US led effort for sanctions on Iran. Hooray!!!!! Just imagine! Russia and China are now agreeing to vote for sanctions without bite. These "sanctions" will not hurt Iran nor stop it from continuing down the road to becoming a nuclear power. Indeed, these so-called sanctions will only provide the Obama administration with the untrue appearance that it has accomplished something.

When will fools like Klein realize the truth? Only after the first nuke explodes in an Iranian test range? Maybe it will have to wait until the first Iranian bomb smuggled in by the terrorists explodes in the US or Israel. Of course, it will then be too late.

It's the whole party

Earlier today I wrote about the race baiting conduct of the Democrats. I just now saw the video of the speech before Congress by Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico. Calderon announced that he strongly disagreed with the Arizona law since it involved racial discrimination and racial profiling. This statement is completely inaccurate. Actually, why understate it; Calderon's statement is a blatant lie. Everyone in the Congress knows this by now. Nevertheless, the entire group of Democrats jumped to their feet and gave Calderon an ovation for his race baiting remarks. It is as if the world has gone mad. Imagine watching the blank smile of Nancy Pelosi as she applauds the condemnation of the racist Arizona law even though she knows that the law is not racist and that her true purpose is to incite racial hatred in order for the Democrats to get more votes! How can the USA have come to this? Are there no patriots in the Democratic party prepared to put the good of the country ahead of their own personal power? Can it be that they are prepared to elevate a lie to such a high position only to inject hatred and distruct throughout the nation?

Come November, the Democrats have to go. We cannot go back into the dark days of racial hatred. In the 1960's it was Democrats who fought against the civil rights laws. Democrats like George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Orval Faubus were prime purveyors of racial discord. Now we have Obama, Pelosi and Reid who push phony racial problems in order to divide the people and gain support for their party. It stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Racism in the USA

Things have changed in the US. My father told me that when he was growing up in Pennsylvania, there were separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. Neighborhoods were totally segregated as well. This was not the South, but racism was rampant. When I was in school, there was little integration since the neighborhoods were still very segregated. My daughters graduated from a high school in an upscale suburb that is about 20% minority students. Both had many friends of different races and religions. Other than handwringing about racism elsewhere, there is little consideration of racism in my town in Connecticut, not because no one cares, but rather because there is no racism apparent in the town.

Despite the dramatic decline and near disappearance of racism in America, there is a simultaneous explosion of charges of racism. Some people (like Al sharpton) make their living from leveling such charges. Others gain political power from the constant drone of such claims. Indeed, there is such an effort to make charges of racism that many Democrats believe that America is a racist society.

In the 1980's, the Communist government of Poland conducted a campaign of anti-semitism even though there were essentially no Jews left in Poland. It was called Anti-semitism without Jews. Now the left wing of the Democrats and other leftists are conducting a campaign of purported anti-racisim without racists.

The sad thing is that there are many in our society who cannot discern the level of racism or compare it to the past. Thus, when the race baiters from the left start leveling their charges, these folks believe what they are hearing. America is racist. All problems of the minority communities are due to racism. Reparations are needed for the slavery practiced by people 150 years ago, even though most of the people in the US are not even descendants of slave owners.

Things have now gotten out of hand in my opinion. So long as the race baiting industry was limited to people like Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright, the hurtful and harmful message stayed on the periphery of society. Now, however, the race baiters have take over in the government. Thus, an Arizona law which does no more than to give state police the same ability to stop illegal aliens that the federal officials already have is denounced as racist. People in the government who do not even bother to find out what the law says are prepared to solemnly announce that racism has taken hold in Arizona. Indeed, even the Attorney General of the US, a man who should know that laws are judged by what they say, finds no problem in condemning the law as racist without even reading it. Does the AG also condemn the actions of the INS in dealing with aliens (since they do essentially the same thing)? We do not know because the complicit and complacent media does not bother to ask. Indeed, even when questions like that do get asked, the government officials just sidestep them and go on claiming racism.

Today, we hit a new low when Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico announced in front of president Obama that the Arizona law was racist and discriminatory and obama just smiled and nodded his agreement. President Obama certainly knows better; yet, Obama is prepared to castigate our country as racist on the world stage just so that he can stir up Hispanic voters to come to the polls in November. Shame!!

During the Nazi era, their propaganda minister developed the technique of the big lie. One could take any position, but so long as it was repeated often and loudly enough by people in authority, it would be believed. It seems to me that this is the plan of the Obamacrats. Their plan is simply to repeat over and over again that the Arizona law is racist even though it is not. If they can get Arizona to roll back the law, the Obamacrats will succeed in cementing the loyalties of Hispanics, the poor victims of discrimination, for decades.

It is imperative that all Americans stand up for the truth. This is not a racist country. That is not to say that there are no racists left; there are and they should not be tolerated. The principal group generating racial hatred in America today, however, are President Obama and his party. It is hard to imagine that a man billed as the first "post racial" president is instead the "most racial" president in a century. Unless Obama and the Obamacrats are stopped, the cause of racial tolerance and harmony will be set back in this country for a generation. Unfortunately, that seems to be the goal of Obama and his minions, since such divisions will allow the Democrats to continue to hold the unquestioned allegiance of their minority supporters.

More crony capitalism

Fox business is reporting that Shore Bank in Chicago is getting bailed out by the infusion of millions of dollars from a number of large banking institutions and the federal government. Shore Bank is failing and normally would be closed and taken over by the FDIC; however, Shore Bank has something that all the other failing banks do not have -- a friend in the White House. Valerie Jarrett is a former director of the bank. Obama himself has singled the bank out for praise on many occassions -- they made loans he wanted while he was still in the senate. The investments from Citibank (a government controlled entity), Goldman Sachs (under investigation by the government, and others were made -- according to the investors -- under pressure from the White House to put in the cash. So there you have it: a failing bank gets a bail out just because it is a friend of Obama's. The government is again picking winners and losers. That is crony capitalism at its worst. Why should Shore bank in Chicago get saved -- thereby helping its owners, the friends of Obama -- while many other banks that are similarly failing just go under? The clear answer is that this should not be happening. It is corruption and it should not be allowed.

Obama has got to go!

Don't they understand anything

This morning the AP is reporting that North Korea has threatened all out war if the south Koreans retaliate in any way for the sinking of the south Korean naval vessel by the North Koreans (which they, of course, deny). In true AP fashion, the report says that South Korea cannot retaliate because of the truce entered into in 1953. sound pretty dumb to me. The reporters actually believe that a truce agreement with North Korea will prevent the south from any retailiation. I guess they think that the agreement allowed open season by the North on the South and barred retaliation. This is a dumb position even for the AP. Then they came up with this howler: North Korea's "large but decrepit military would be no match for U.S. and Korean forces." Are they idiots? The North Koreans have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver these weapons at least upon Seoul whose metro area has tens of millions of residents. One strike there would be a calamity of unimaginable proportions. Even if the North did not use nuclear weapons (or their chmical stocks either), North Korean artillery is already easily in range of Seoul and could essentiall level the South Korean capital in a day of shelling. Without the use of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans, only tens or hundreds of thousands would die. In addition, nearly 30,000 US troops arestationed along the border and they would be sitting ducks for the initial NK attack.

The North Koreans are sufficiently wacko that an attack like this is possible. It is not likely, but it is certainly possible. Indeed, the NK's might come to the conclusion that president Obama would not want to fight in another war and would sue for peace were they to attack. I doubt that would be his reaction, but given his conduct in other areas of the world, the NK crazies might decide the other way. there is a reason for a foreign policy of strength rather than apology. Hopefully, the North Koreans will not give us a lesson in that reason right now.

What more does one need to know?

According to the Jerusalem Post, "President Shimon Peres (of Israel) sent a message to Syria, offering to return the Golan Heights in exchange for a promise that Damascus would sever its ties with Iran and various terrorist groups, Syrian President Bashar Assad told the Lebanese As-Safir paper in an interview published Tuesday." Assad also said that he turned down the offer.

So what does this mean. According to the president of Syria, he refused an offer to get back all Syrian territory in Israeli hands in exchange for severing Syrian ties to Iran and terrorist groups, but the offer was rejected. The Israelis said taht they made no such offer, but still, Syria is making clear that they will not even partially settle their disputes with Israel for all the territory they have lost.

Next time some genius tells you that the Israelis are blocking the peace process in the Middle East, get out this quote and tell them about it. According to Syria's own president, Syria was offered everything it could possibly want other than the destruction of Israel and it said no. So who is blocking peace? Are the Israelis supposed to agree to dismantle their country and leave? Not even the crazies on the left would expect that (well not most of them anyway).

The wishful thinking and garbage from the state department that passes for intellectual thought on the middle east peace process these days is just plain nonsense. Unfortunately, we have another 2 and a half years of Obama and the Obamacrats to push the nonsense and do damage to the US and our allies in the meantime. Obama has to go!

Good for Them

A member of the Arizona Utilities Commission has informed the Los Angeles City Council that he would be in favor of Arizona utilities stopping the sale of power to California if Los Angeles goes ahead with its planned boycott of Arizona. Good for him. Maybe the race-baiting idiots in Los Angeles should learn that they cannot simply stir up racial hatred with boycotts based upon phony claims of discrimination and see no consequences from such moves. I doubt that Arizona will ever shut off the poser, but it is nice to know that 25% of all power in LA comes from Arizona. Just imagine the chaos if the utilities shut down the power flow for even one day.

The simple fact is that the Arizona law does no more than allow the state police to do exactly what the INS already is supposed to do. There are specific safeguards against racial profiling in the law. Those who have bothered to read the law (and that included very few liberals -- see Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and -- I bet -- Barack Obama) realize that it is fair and non-discriminatory. The truth, however, conflicts with the Liberal narrative that all conservatives who would enforce the border are racists. The truth also does not stir up racial hatred that the left can use to get Hispanics to the polls in November. the dishonest, race-baiting form the left really gets me angry.

Let's stop the spin

I have been interested to see the spin placed on the Critz victory over Burns in PA -12. While I would have liked to see Burns win, his showing of 45% is extremely good. There is a two to one registration edge in that district and it has not gone Republican since forever. More important, the hotly contested gubernatorial race among Democrats was won by the Allegheny County executive. Since Allegheny County is Pittsburgh and PA-12 is basically the southern suburbs and exurbs of Pittsburgh, there was more interest in voting among Democrats than among Republicans who had no real other races. When you add the Specter - Sestak race to the mix, there were likely many more Democrats drawn to the polls than Republicans. It will be interesting to see what happens in November when Burns and Critz meet again and there is no special draw to bring the Democrats to the polls.

In other words, a Burns victory in the face of the special draw for Democrats would have been a major portent of Republican success in the fall. A Critz victory with only 52% of the vote is a Democrat win, but it tells us little about what the fall will bring.

The spin in the media, however, is just the opposite. Chuck Todd on NBC said that the Republican had "the wind at his back" and still lost. This was typical of the commentary on most media. I wonder if these folks even know that they are wrong. Did they do any research or did they just take the DNC talking points and go from there? No one could ever say that Burns had the wind at his back. While it is true that McCain carried this district by a few hundred votes, that was a vote against Obama's liberalism. Critz ran against nearly all of Obama's policies. He was anti healthcare reform, anti cap and trade, anti bailout, anti stimulus, pro gun and pro life. No one seems to mention this. Oh well, what else can one expect?

Bye bye Bysiewicz

With all of today's political news, I overlooked a real shocker. The Connecticut Supreme court held unanimously that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is not qualified to hold the office of Attorney General. The state constitution requires that the AG must have practiced law in connecticut for at least 10 years as a qualification to hold the office. Bysiewicz claimed that she was qualified, but she counted her term as Secretary of State as part of the ten years. The Supreme Court has now reached the obvious decision that practising law does not include holding political office.

This decision further upsets the Democrat ticket for state offices this year. Bysiewicz seemed to be a front runner in the race for the governors office until she dropped out to run for AG many months ago. since the nominating conventions are this weekend, the Democrats will have to scramble to find a candidate for AG. Of course, at the same convention the Democrats will have to deal with the fall out from the disclosure of the current AG Richard Blumenthal and his lies about his military record. Excuse me -- his misplaced words on numerous occasions.

It is quate a ticket that the Dems have assembled. For governor we will probably see Dan Malloy who has consistently lost in statewide races. For senator we will see Blumenthal. For AG we got Bysiewicz.

I have a slogan for the Dems: " A Loser, A Liar and an Unqualified Hack" That should win over many votes!!!

Bye Bye Arlen

Well it has been called in Pennsylvania for Sestak. I am glad to see Specter go. It sure was time. I have been listening to election returns featuring Specter since he ran for Philadelphia District Attorney in 1965. In 1967 when I was still in school and too young to vote, I helped in Specter's campaign for mayor of Philadelphia when he ran against James Tate. After that, I moved out of Pennsylvania, but I kept watching as Specter ran and ran and ran. he also moved left and left and left. The truth, however, is that Specter lost not because of his political philosophy but rather because of his lack of principles. For years he was a loyal Republican and then suddenly when he realized that he could not win renomination he became a Democrat strictly for his own benefit. He did not even try to mask the change as being on a principled basis. No, he said it was just so he could get re-elected. People could understand his selfish motivation and it did not play well. His loss is a benefit for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the people of America.

Another Specter Sestak angle

In the contentions blog of Commentary magazine, Jonathan Tobin writes of the very different records of Specter and SEstak when it comes to support for Israel. According to Tobin:

"Despite his many other failings as a veteran political weather vane devoid of an ounce of principle, Pennsylvania’s senior senator has been a fairly reliable supporter of the Jewish state during his three decades in office. As such, he has been able to command the support of the mainstream pro-Israel community, in all of his re-election battles. Indeed, in 1992, when, in the aftermath of his tough questioning of Anita Hill, Specter had his toughest general-election challenge, his victory over Democrat Lynn Yeakel could well be credited to the Israel factor. Yeakel, a liberal Democrat whose prime motivation for running was to get revenge for Specter’s rough cross-examination of Clarence Thomas’s accuser, was defeated in no small measure because of her membership in a Presbyterian church that was a hotbed of anti-Israel incitement. Yeakel refused to disavow her pastor or the church (a lesson that Barack Obama might well have profited from when he eventually disavowed Jeremiah Wright), and Specter, with the active assistance of local pro-Israel activists, clobbered her for it and was returned to Washington.
...
Specter also could count on his Democratic challenger Joe Sestak’s far from sterling record on Israel. In 2007, Sestak spoke at a fundraiser for CAIR – the pro-Hamas front group that was implicated in the Holy Land Foundation federal terror prosecution. And he has signed on to congressional letters criticizing Israel’s measures of self-defense against terrorists and refused to back those bipartisan letters backing the Jewish state on the issue of Jerusalem. Though his stands on other foreign-policy issues, such as continuing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, are better than those of Specter (who tried to curry favor with the left by backing a policy of cutting and running in Afghanistan), Sestak seems to be J Street’s idea of a model congressman."

To me the point is that neither Arlen Specter nor Joe Sestak should be in the senate.

What a poorly kept secret

Well the word is out! On Thursday, the South Koreans will release a report that makes clear that the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel was the result of a torpedo fired from a North Korean submarine. This is certainly no surprise since the word has been out on this mess for many weeks. Still, it will be interesting to see the reaction of OBama and the Obamacrats. My guess is that we will soon be apologizing to the North Koreans. Who knows, Obama may also demand that the South Koreans stop building homes within 10 miles of the border.

Wait, this just in! Richard Blumenthal now claims that he also served in Korea during the Korean war.

It looked nice, but somehow it did not ring true.

Richard Blumenthal had a press conference this afternoon to deal with his lying about his military record. The setting was very nice; blumenthal surrounded himself with veterans of all sorts. The stage had a flag and looked very patriotic. Unfortunately for Blumenthal, he opened his mouth and spoke. Blumenthal's defense is that "on a few occasions" he misspoke about having served in Vietnam. Also, he claimed that the reporting on his record by the press which picked up his statements that he had served in Vietnam were an error by the press and not his fault.

Let's analyze this. Blumenthal admits he did not make this mistake once. anyone could have a slip of the tongue and say the wrong thing. No Blumenthal did this repeatedly. Surely, he knew that he never served in (or visited) Vietnam. To claim such service is just an out and out lie. Beyond the lie, to blame the press for what they report when Blumenthal himself is the source is beyond belief.

This guy is a liar. He has no honor. He does not even have the decency to admit that he lied and withdraw from the race. Too bad.

It is only ten pages long

Well add another Obama official to the list of those who criticize the Arizona immigration law as racist but who have never read the law. First we saw Attorney General Eric Holder unashamedly reveal that he had not bothered to read the law even though he criticized it harshly and pronounced it racist. Then we next heard former Arizona governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano do the same thing. Now, the State Department spokesman P J Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State went on Fox News to defend the crazy act Undersecretary Posner who apologized to the Chinese government for the racist nature of the Arizona immigration statute in a meeting to discuss human rights issues. Crowley went on at length to explain the racist dangers presented by the law. When the host quoted certain language to Crowley from the law and asked about whether or not that insulated the Arizona law from charges of racism, Crowley just sidestepped the question. finally, Greg Jarrett, the host asked if Crowley had read the law. Crowley matter of factly said that he had not. Jarrett then asked a question that by now all Americans would like answered. He asked why first Holder then Napolitano and now Crowley had, as high officials of the administration, called the law racist only to admit that none of them had read the law. As Jarrett said, "What is going on here?" Crowley did not respond to the question and tried to change the subject.

Jarrett's question is perfect. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?????????

It is hard to accept that Obama and the Obamacrats are just race baiting for political profit -- they hope to energize the Hispanic community to turn out for the Democrats in November. If America is ever to get beyond racial politics, however, we all need to condemn this racist gambit from the Obamacrats. They should be ashamed.

let's go to the videotape

Well we now have a full reaction from Richard Blumenthal to the story revealing that he has lied about his military service in Vietnam. According to Breitbart, "his campaign called the report an 'outrageous distortion' of his record." Blumenthal is holding a news conference at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post this afternoon to discuss the matter further.

Somebody better warn Blumenthal that there is videotape of him claiming to have served in Vietnam. It is posted all over the web and some of it actually ran with the story in the Times. It is also posted on web sites for the Greenwich Time, Stamford Advocate, Connecticut Post and other new organizations. There is no way to dany the lies. An apology is Blumenthal's only avenue. Indeed, it is offensive that Blumenthal is actually using a VFW to make the statements when he is NOT a veteran of foreign wars.

Maybe he will tell the press about how it was that he even got into the reserves. At the time that he "enlisted" there were enormous waiting lists to get into the reserves; there is no way that he just walked in and enlisted. My guess is that Blumenthal either used political pull to jump ahead of the others on the list or he paid someone off. He should not be a senator.

Obama and Specter

Arlen Specter's political future is on the line today in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Interestingly, that race also presents another issue: the veracity of Barack Obama. As you may recall, President Obama heartily endorsed Arlen Specter when Specter switched from the Republicans to the Democrats. Obama endorsed him for re-election and said that he would do what it took to get Specter re-elected. We know from Specter's challenger Sestak, that this Obama promise led to Sestak being offered a job by the White House if he would drop his primary race against Specter. That job offer was a federal crime, but Sestak still says that the offer was made (although he no longer talks about it).

Now that polls show that Specter may lose, the strength of Obama's promise is being put to the test. Specter asked for an appearance by Obama in Pennsylvania over the weekend, but he got turned down by the White House. Strike one! Reporters asked Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, about the Pennsylvania primary and they were told that the president is not watching that race too closely, effectively moving Obama away from Specter. Strike two! The best that the White House has said recently about Specter is that the President has supported all incumbent senators and representatives. That was about as weak an endorsement as Obama could possibly give. He did not even mention Specter by name. Strike three!

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from Obama's "support" of Specter: a promise from Obama means nothing. Obama just does what he thinks is good for Obama -- honesty and truth mean nothing to him. He has to go!

Blumenthal -- another liar

There has been cause for celebration in Connecticut since we finally rid ourselves of Chriss Dodd as a senator. Dodd, after all, was the recipient of a series of sweet heart deals from people who had business before the senate banking committee of which he is chairman. Dodd got below market rate mortgages, special deals on an huge seaside estate in Ireland, and a series of little work, big pay jobs for his wife. Dodd decided not to run for re-election when the polls showed he would lose badly. In his place, the Democrats annointed Richard Blumenthal, the state Attorney General, as their candidate. Now, Blumenthal has been revealed to be a chronic liar by the New York Times of all papers.

In an article this morning, the Times revealed that Blumenthal has lied for his whole public life about his military service. He is not a veteran who served in Vietnam as he claimed. Rather, Blumenthal received a series of deferments to aboid the military and then he "secured" a place in the reserves and was never on active duty in Vietnam or anywhere else. His most hazardous activity was to organize a "toys for tots" program in DC where his unit was located. (And before you ask, he did not win a purple heart for the paper cut he received wrapping presents.)

How can we have yet another senator who cannot tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Blumenthal now says he "misspoke". I wonder if Blumenthal ever let off a defendant who committed fraud because his later defense was that he misspoke. I doubt it. Blumenthal is known for his sanctimonious pronouncements on all sorts of matters. He is certainly not qualified to be a senator. How could we ever trust him?

One last point: congratulations to the New York Times. That paper showed that it was willing to uncover corruption among Democrats who are the chosen ones in that papers ideology. It also shows that this is not a politically motivated hit on Blumenthal -- no right wing conspiracy.

Must politics triumph over morality and truth?

In a piece on Salon, Joe Conason uses an article by Peter Beinart to comment on the relationship between the mainstream Jewish organizations in the USA and the Israeli government. According to Conason, the jewish organizations act as apologists for an extreme right-wing Israeli government led by Netanyahu. Just imagine, some Israelis in the government do not want to give rights to the palestinians in the West Bank. Of course, conason carefully glosses over the fact that those same Palestinians do not want to allow the Israelis to remain alive. According to Conason it is worse for Israelis to deprive Palestinians of rights (like the right to travel freely in Israel) than for Palestinians to kill Israelis. Conason also laments polling that shows that many Israelis see the future as one in which the two groups (Jews and Arabs) must be physically separated from one another in order to maintain the peace. why is conason surprised by this. Imagine how Americans would feel if there had been a 60 year campaign by mexicans to kill those in the USA. Would it surprise anyone that the Americans might begin to think that it would be good policy to eject those who were trying to kill them?

Strangely, no other country is ever held to the standard that the left demands of Israel. It cannot defend itself without cries of war crimes. Missiles from Gaza can kill repeatedly without a whimper from the left, but let one Palestinian get injured in a repraisal and suddenly all hell breaks loose.

The truth is that the left's political narrative needs defines the Palestinians as opressed and the Israelis as the oppressor, no matter what the actual facts are. In many ways, this reaction is much like the reaction of the Obamacrats to the Arizona immigration statute: they havenot bothered to read it, but they know it is bad. Or, as the old t-shirt used to say: "My mind is made up -- don't bother me with the facts".

The sad thing is that we now have a government that falls victim to the mindless dogma of the left. The greatest terror threat comes from the right. All conservatives are racist homophobes (like those in Arizona). National healthcare is a good thing even if it cuts down the likelihood of care for people and costs more than the current system. Taxes on the rich are too low even if raising them means that economic growth will slow dramaticly and millions more will lose their jobs.
It is too bad that morality and truth hav been eclispsed by political posturing from the left. We need a healthy dose of reality and less posturing and spinning.

Absolutely

Arizona governor Brewer gave a speech yesterday about the reaction of the Obama administration to the new Arizona immigration law. Here is the key sentence: "Our nation's government is broken, our border is being erased and the president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience."

Congratulations to the governor for honestly describing the situation and for calling Obama on his race baiting tactics. As I said yesterday, the man sold to the country as the first post racial president had turned out to be the most racist president since Woodrow Wilson. It is a disgrace to see Obama splitting Hispanics from the rest of the country by lying about the nature of teh Arizona law. Obama should be ashamed, but it is en emotion that I doubt he has ever experienced.

Not so Supreme

Today, the supreme court issued two decisions which must fairly be described as not so supreme. In the first case, the court held that juveniles may not be sentenced to life without chance of parole for crimes other than murder. In the second case, the court held constitutional the law allowing "sexually dangerous" sex offenders to be kept in prison after the end of their prison terms. So, to simplify, a state cannot put a minor in jail for life without parole if he rapes someone, but the federal government can keep him there for life if it believes him to be sexually dangerous.

The decision regarding keeping sexually dangerous inmates incarcerated is perhaps the more troubling of the two. If Congress can do that, can it also decide that criminals who have not manifested sufficient recovery from their criminal rendencies may also be kept in jail? If the answer to that question is yes, where does the power end? the court's decision undercuts our whole criminal justice system in my opinion.

Don't Trust but Verify

Ronald Reagan usde to like to quote an old russian proverb that said "Trust but Verify." The deal announced today bu Iran and Turkey under which Iran will send lightly enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for more highly enriched uranium to be used in a medical facility requires the modification of that old slogan. Right now, the only sane response to this deal is "Don't Trust, but Verify". There is no reason to believe that Iran is sending all of its enriched uranium out of the country. Nor is there any reason to believe that Iran is ending its quest for nuclear weapons. Indeed, there is not even any reason to believe that the Islamicist head of the Turkish government is not just covering for the Iranians. There has to be verification that the "deal" actually removes all of the Iranian uranium that has been partially prepared for bomb making. Without such verification, this deal is nothing more than a stunt designed to slow the process towards sanctions (as if that could get any slower).

I hope that Obama, Clinton and the Obamacrats do not support this deal even tentatively. there needs to be an immediate and persistant demand for verification. Otherwise we will all wake up in one or two years to the news that Iran has the bomb. That will change the world.

Roman Polanski deserves justice

At the Cannes Film Festival there is apparently a widespread movement demanding “justice” for Roman Polanski. According to the latest reports, many of the glitterati like Woody Allen have signed a petition in support of Polanski who pled guilty in 1978 to raping a 13 year old girl and then fled to Europe to escape punishment. After all, Polanski is an artist and this all took place over 30 years ago. Who knows, maybe we will next hear that he was upset because he was losing his house to foreclosure.
The truth is that Polanski does deserve justice. He deserves to be brought back to the USA to be sentenced and to serve that sentence with no special rights just because he is known to the Hollywood elites. It is not a small matter to rape a thirteen year old, even if you are a great director. Nor does it matter if you get the support of another director like Woody Allen who ran off with his step daughter who, at least, was not a minor (just by a little bit).
Sometimes, doing the wrong thing carries with it a penalty even if you have talent.

Elitism on the Court

In a column in the Washington Post, Christopher Edley, the dean of the law school at UC Berkeley argues that elites should be chosen to sit on the supreme court. The ostensible reason for the piece is that if Elena Kagan is confirmed, all of the justices will be graduates of either Harvard Law School or Yale Law School. Edley’s column is so bizarre as to be funny.
Before I discuss Edley, let me first say that I think that Harvard and Yale law graduates are first rate. After all, I graduated from Harvard Law School after an undergraduate career at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, I think it is a bad thing for all of the justices to have come from Harvard and Yale (especially Yale).
I know from personal experience that there are certain institutional biases that are imparted to students at Harvard. Indeed, my contracts professor used to mock his students as “the most select group in all of Christendom” although I doubt that they make many mentions of Christianity at Harvard these days. The point, however, was that we were taught that we were and would remain the elite of the legal profession. We would be governors, senators, presidents and, yes, justices of the Supreme Court. If the leaders of the British empire were educated on the playing fields at Eton, the leaders of the US government and legal system were educated at Harvard. I am sure that the atmosphere was and is the same at Yale.
The most important point about this elitism is not whether or not the justices will understand the needs of people who are not of the elites. Hopefully, the Justices will operate so as to interpret the constitution and the laws without regard to how sympathetic the plaintiffs or the defendants are. Justice is supposed to be blind. What is important, however, is that justices who have been taught for decades that they are the elite, the chosen ones, the geniuses, will be hard pressed to admit that maybe they have made mistakes. Were the gods on Olympus ever wrong?
Hopefully, there will be a wider net spread to gather in future justices. Surely, this will not come from Obama since his elitism is well known. Indeed, Obama thinks that he is always right, a hubris which may cause frightful damage to the USA. Once Obama has been bounced from office in 2012, however, it would be a good thing to get other points of view on the court. Indeed, it might be nice to get a white protestant male justice. Such folks represent over 25% of the US population, but they have no representation on the court. Under the standard liberal reasoning, this makes the Court’s membership suspect and probably selected in a racist manner. While this is nonsense, it would serve the court and the country well to get a justice who does not share the Harvard/Yale Northeast biases of the others.

Is this really true?

Breitbart is carrying a story quoting a number of people saying that the Pakistanis have captured Mullah Omar and that he is being held under house arrest. Can this really be true? Mullah Omar is the head of the Afghan Taliban, and he is the most important person in the war in Afghanistan. I wonder if there is any truth to this story at all.

A new Front?

Just when the number of problems confronting the world seems to be high enough, we get action on yet another. About ten hours ago, the South Korean navy fired warning shots to push back two North Korean naval vessels that had crossed into South Korean waters. This occured in the same spot where the North sank a South Korean patrol boat two months ago. (Of course, in main stream media speak, a South Korean patro vessel was sunk by a torpedo at that time which may indicate that it was a North Korean attack. who else was it? Angry dolphins?)

It will be interesting to see if there is a further reaction by the North Koreans to this latest event. It would not take much to restart fighting in Korea, particularly since the North Korean government is headed by the world's looniest leader (maybe second looniest after Iran). Imagine what would happen if the NK's decide to teach the South a lesson. The result is too horrible to consider since the NK's are now a nuclear power.

The message is getting through

Earlier today I wrote about the bogus and race-baiting attack on the Arizona immigration law as racist and unconstitutional. The Obamacrats are doing all they can to stir up racial animosity o the subject to try to get their voters to the polls in November. It seems, however, that the attempt is failing. This morning Rasmussen released a poll of votes in Pennsylvania who favor adoption by their state of an immigration enforcement law like that in Arizona by a margin of 58% to 32%. for a blue state like Pennsylvania, this is a tidal wave of support. It means that the Obamacrat attempt to stir up race hatred is failing. It also means that the people are able to see through nonsense like Holder's statements about a law which he admits he has not even read. Imagine, a 10 page law he did not read! this poll bodes well for racial calm in the USA. Hopefully, the word will continue to spread and Obama and the Obamcrats will cease their hypocritical and false attacks which so damage the fabric of our society.

Unconstitutional and Racist

Yesterday evening during a commercial in the baseball game, I happened to flip past Fox News and I saw snippet of a "debate" between Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas about the Arizona immigration law. To say the least, neither Beckel or Thomas seems to have read the law, which puts them in the company of Attorney General Eric Holder. that did not stop Beckel from denouncing the law as both racist and unconstitutional -- pretty much what Holder has said. It seems to me that this nonsense is making its way through the country and that informed people ought to know the truth (as opposed to the talking points of the Obamacrats). Accordingly, here are the correct points that need to be made about the Arizona law:

First, the law itself is not racist. It does not allow racial profiling. Indeed, it specifically prohibits it. No one can be stopped by the police because he or she is Hispanic. The law only allows police to check on the immigration status of an individual if that individual is validly stopped for other reasons. So what does that mean? If someone is pulled over for speeding, the police are allowed to ask for identification -- hardly racist. If someone is stopped in the middle of a robbery, the police are allowed to ask for identification -- again hardly racist. In short, those who say the law is racist do not know what they are talking about.

Second, the opponents claim that the law could be applied in a racist manner. that is true, but it is also true of any other law. If the police in Arizona are racist, they could stop Hispanics for speeding even if the driver was going within the speed limit. They could arrest Hispanics for disturbing the peace even if they were not. In short, if the police are racist, they do not need this new law to use against Hispanics. And since there is no proof that the Arizona State Police are racist, the law will not be applied in a racist manner. Indeed, the Arizona policemen deserve an apology from those who blindly accuse them of racism without any knowledge of the facts. If Eric Holder actually believes that the Arizona police are racist, then it is his lefal duty under the civil rights laws to use the Justice Department to stop it. We all know that Holder has taken no such action because there is no claim that the Arizona police are racist.

Third, the law is not unconstitutional. There are two main reasons given by opponents to claim the law unconstitutional. The main claim is that the law denies Hispanics equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is nonsense. Here, the key is that the Arizona police have been given no authorization to anything that the federal authorities cannot. Indeed, the feds from the INS can go further in enforcing the immigration laws than the Arizona police. No one can or has argued that the federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. If it is illegal to enter the country without proper authorization, then it is perfectly ok to enforce that law.

The other claim of unconstitutionality is that immigration is the sole province of the federal government and states cannot take part in the enforcement. This claim is also bogus. The federal government could take over exclusive enforcement of immigration matters, but to do so, it would have to make clear that it has done so. Otherwise, a state can act as well so long as it does not take action which conflicts with the federal statute. There is no federal statute that bars states from acting on immigration matters, and the Arizona law mirrors the federal law and does not conflict in any way with federal law. So, there is nothing unconstitutional about the law.

These points are enough to win any argument about the new law. Of course, that assumes that the person screaming racism cares about the truth rather than about stirring up racial hatred. Right now, it seems clear that the main goal of the Obamacrats is to do just that; by stirring up racial hatred in the Hispanic community, Obama and his minions hope to bring those voters to the polls in November. Instead of the first post racial president, we got the most racist president of modern times, sort of like the twenty first century's version of Woodrow Wilson.