Barack Obama promised a new era of post-partisanship. In office, he’s played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines.

By PATRICK H. CADDELL AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN

During the election campaign, Barack Obama sought to appeal to the best instincts of the electorate, to a post-partisan sentiment that he said would reinvigorate our democracy. He ran on a platform of reconciliation—of getting beyond “old labels” of right and left, red and blue states, and forging compromises based on shared values.

President Obama’s Inaugural was a hopeful day, with an estimated 1.8 million people on the National Mall celebrating the election of America’s first African-American president. The level of enthusiasm, the anticipation and the promise of something better could not have been more palpable.

And yet, it has not been realized. Not at all.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.

The first hint that as president Mr. Obama would be willing to interject race into the political dialogue came last July, when he jumped to conclusions about the confrontation between Harvard Prof. Henry Louis “Skip” Gates and the Cambridge police.

During a press conference, the president said that the “Cambridge police acted stupidly,” and he went on to link the arrest with the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

In truth, the Gates incident appears to have had nothing to do with race—a Cambridge review committee that investigated the incident ruled on June 30 that there was fault on both sides.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) has said the president told him in a closed-door meeting that he would not move to secure the border with Mexico unless and until Congress reached a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform. That’s another indication Mr. Obama is willing to continue to play politics with hot-button issues.

Add in the lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law and it’s clear the Obama administration is willing to run the risk of dividing the American people along racial and ethnic lines to mobilize its supporters—particularly Hispanic voters, whose backing it needs in the fall midterm elections and beyond.

As the Washington Post reported last week, two top White House strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, have indicated that “the White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012.”

On an issue that has gotten much less attention, but is potentially just as divisive, the Justice Department has pointedly refused to prosecute three members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls on Election Day 2008.

It is the job of the Department of Justice to protect all American voters from voter discrimination and voter intimidation—whether committed by the far right, the far left, or the New Black Panthers. It is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to continue to stonewall on this issue.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama’s campaign emphasized repeatedly that his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was being unfairly stereotyped because of racially incendiary sound bites that allegedly did not reflect the totality of his views. In the Gates incident and others, Mr. Obama has resorted to similar forms of stereotyping.

Even the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry, acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention away from other issues, saying: “the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. . . . Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.

also:

Charlie’s Very Very Bad Day!

From Gateway Pundit

Charlie Rangel is an American Politician. He has been a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1971, representing the 15th Congressional District of New York, and is the most senior member of that state’s congressional delegation. He is a founding member of the Congressional Black Congress.

With his gravelly voice, cheery bonhomie and 40 years in the House, New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel is one of the best known and best liked members of Congress. But after the House ethics committee finally brought charges against him Thursday, Rangel risks being remembered in the twilight of his career as just another crooked pol who thought the rules didn’t apply to him.

Panel hits Rangel with 13 ethics charges

The deal between the lawyers will have little meaning if the committee members don’t approve it, and Republicans said at the proceeding they were insisting on going forward with a trial. The panel is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

“Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter. Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial phase,” said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, the senior Republican on the ethics panel

Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., has made clear that she wants the committee to be unanimous — leaving little chance for agreement without Rangel capitulating on virtually all counts.

In the frantic hours leading up to the meeting, Rangel’s lawyer, Leslie Kiernan, talked to attorneys for the panel about how to avoid a trial for the 40-year veteran.

Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the panel that will try Rangel, said that the Democrat had been “given the opportunity to negotiate a settlement during the investigation phase.”

However, he said, that phase is now over. “We are now in the trial phase,” he said.

A congressional trial could be avoided only if Rangel admitted to substantial violations, or resigned.

Punishment could range from a report criticizing his conduct to a reprimand or censure by the House, or a vote to expel him — which is highly unlikely. Any agreement would have to be approved by Rangel and ethics committee members.

“Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I haven’t had a bad day since,” Rangel told reporters earlier Thursday. “But today I have to reassess that statement.”

Remember this:

Tax cheat Rangel caught on tape: “Why don’t you mind your g**damned business?”

Sorry, Charlie. I guess it is our g**damned business!

also:

USCIS Draft Memo Leaked Discussing Ways to ByPass Congress on Amnesty

According to an Article in National Review ,an internal draft memo has been leaked from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) discussing ways to do an end run around Congress on Amnesty.

The Article Reads:

“the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress. “This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.

Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

Journolist just keeps getting better and better. This time there is evidence that members pushed others to advocate for one party….again. Before the Obama/McCain debates:

The single biggest thing journolist can do is to lay the analytical framework within the media elite necessary for an actual Obama debate win to be viewed as such by a sufficient proportion of media elites that voters know it was a win.

Of course, this only works if Obama does as we expect (and McCain is a terrible debater, btw).

But even Gore’s uneven Debate 1 performance in 2000 was deemed a win initially by a viewership that was demographically to the right of the electorate (lower minority viewership in 2000 of debates, more male, more GOP, etc…)… but Bush was winning on several media narratives and thus got the benefit from the intense 72 hours of post-debate coverage.

~~~

In the conversation that followed Hauser’s post, not one Journolister expressed surprise or disapproval. No one rebuked Hauser for telling journalists how to carry water for a politician. Despite the group’s supposedly “very strict” ban on political operatives and explicit partisan coordination, Hauser remained a member of Journolist for almost two more years.

Hell, one staffer of Obama’s sent a message to the list telling them all to be more loyal to The One: (more…)

From Powerline

This is a sickening news story: “Spanish Court Seeks Arrest of U.S. Soldiers in Hotel Attack.” The National Court of Spain has issued an “international arrest warrant” for American soldiers who were involved in the Palestine Hotel incident in Baghdad in 2003:

On the morning of July 29, Spain’s National Court announced that it has re-issued an international arrest warrant against three U.S. soldiers it implicates in an attack on Baghdad’s Hotel Palestine, where Rodriguez and Couso, along with dozens of other journalists, were based during the Iraq war.

On April 8, 2003, one day before U.S. troops officially captured Baghdad, a U.S. tank fired a single incendiary shell on the hotel, killing Couso, a cameraman for Spain’s Telecinco television station, and Reuters journalist Taras Protsyuk.

The Army investigated the incident and concluded that the soldiers had acted properly. Nevertheless, twice in the last seven years, Spain’s Supreme Court has overruled the National Court’s decision to drop the matter, and has ordered the National Court to pursue Sgt. Thomas Gibson, the tank sergeant who fired the shell, Captain Philip Wolford, who ordered the attack, and commanding officer Colonel Philip deCamp. What does Spain have to do with the 2003 incident? Absolutely nothing, but that country has assumed authority to pursue politically-motivated persecutions of anyone, anywhere in the world.

The killing of the two journalists in 2003 was accidental. But, for what it’s worth, there actually was an incident in 2005 involving the U.S. Army in which a deliberate attack was launched against the Palestine Hotel. Our friend Major Eric Egland told the story here:

Army Sergeant Darrell Green … is a soldier from the Third Infantry Division who was holding a security overwatch position at the Palestine Hotel the other day when the terrorists attacked with multiple vehicle bombs–including a cement truck packed with explosives. As the smoke cleared from the first car bomb detonation, which caused a breach in the security wall, SGT Green saw a cement truck driving through the opening in the wall–heading directly toward the hotel.

Had the truck reached the hotel, there likely would have been significantly more destruction. The only thing that stopped the cement truck from reaching its target was SGT Green’s decision and ability to engage the driver’s compartment with automatic weapons fire. …

Since a common enemy tactic is to follow a barrier breaching blast with another blast aimed at the actual target, the first blast probably caused SGT Green to know that another blast could be coming at any moment. But rather than run for cover, he exposed himself to the effect from a second blast he must have known was probably coming, thereby putting himself at risk to defend the hotel and the journalists staying there.

Needless to say, Spain’s Supreme Court has no interest in that attack and no intention of issuing arrest warrants for its perpetrators or any other terrorists.

also:

NEA Removes Post Encouraging Teachers To Celebrate Chinese Communist Revolution
Posted by Guest Contributor on Thursday, July 29, 2010, 4:37 PM

After I posted the Article this morning about the National Education Association (NEA) and their recommendation that their members read Saul Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals”, I decided to do a little digging.

It would appear that Alinsky is not the only Communist the NEA seems to hold in high regard.

According to an Article in the World Net Daily (WND), the NEA is partial to the Communist leader Chairman Mao.

On the NEA website, in the Diversity calendar, there was a posting on October 1st that read this:

“OCT 1

Communist China Established

In Tiananmen Square in 1949, Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Communist Party of China, proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Saying that the “Chinese People have stood up!”

(more…)

also:

Liberal Lawyers again getting Innocents Killed

The Gratuitous, Vicious Murder of Stephen Pitcairn as a Reflection of Baltimore and Maryland’s Failed Criminal Justice System

–Richard E. Vatz at RedMAryland

By now virtually everyone in Maryland knows that a wonderful young man, Stephen Pitcairn, was killed on July 25, as described in The Baltimore Sun, while walking on St. Paul Street after having left a Bolt Bus at Penn Station. He was talking to his mother on his cell phone, a loving parent who suggested that Mr. Pitcairn take a cab home. He was accosted by malevolent criminals, who murdered him despite his apparently complying with their demands that he give up his money and wallet.

John Alexander Wagner and Lavelva Merritt are charged with his murder, first-degree murder, and the evidence of their guilt leaves little room for doubt, except regarding relative responsibility between the two miscreants. The evil nature of the accused can be inferred from the facts of the crime and the additional datum that, as the Sun reported from “court records,” they bragged after the slaying that they had been “hunting to rob someone” and that “they had robbed and ‘hurt’ a ‘white boy…’ ”

The question almost immediately came up: why were these homicidal criminals free to roam the streets? As The Washington Post wrote in their barebones coverage: “Thirty-four-year-old John Wagner has a long criminal record but has served little prison time.”

The Sun sums up as follows the difficulties of those in this case who sincerely want to aggressively pursue the incarceration of violent criminals as well as some of the outcomes perpetrated by irresponsible and apparently unaccountable principals:

•Wagner pleaded guilty to a vicious assault on his then-girlfriend in 2008 and received eight years in prison, but the entire sentence was suspended. He was charged with violating his probation on four occasions, but each time a city judge ordered that the terms of his supervision remain unchanged.
(more…)

By Barry Rubin*

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s July 27 speech in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.

It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.

Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here’s what I can do for you, here’s what I’d like you to do for me. And here’s what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.

Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.

Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help.

What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?
(more…)

From Redstate

Hot Air has the story about Jennifer Keeton. Keeton, trying to graduate from Augusta State University in Augusta, Georgia, has been told she cannot get certification in counseling unless she abandons orthodox teachings of her Christian faith.

You guessed it — Keeton, a Christian, is not supportive of “gay rights”.

CNN has an interesting roundtable on the case of Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school. The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.

Christians should be more than a little troubled by the University’s bias.

I hope Georgia’s legislators are paying attention. Augusta State’s position seems to be that a bias against Christians is preferable to Christians holding on to orthodox teachings of their faith.

You can call President Bloodworth over at August State at 706-737-1440 and let him know what you think.

also:

Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality
(more…)

From Gateway Pundit

The details are still to come but it looks like Judge Susan Bolton will rule on parts of the law instead of rejecting it in it’s entirety.

(ABC News) The U.S. Justice Department had asked Federal Judge Susan Bolton to issue an injunction against the law, known as SB 1070, during a hearing last week. Attorneys representing Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer asked that the entire case be dismissed.

Bolton did not indicate when she will issue her decision, but did say that she could rule on parts of the law instead of rejecting or affirming it in its entirety. A group of civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations have also filed suits against the law.

*Update*

Politico is reporting that Bolton will block a requirement that police have to check the immigration status of detainees they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally, and also will block part of the law that makes it a crime for immigrants to be in the state illegally.

(Washington Times) @KerryPicket: No matter what the outcome. This is likely going to SCOTUS

@Ben_Howe: Breaking: Rule of law unconstitutional.

Rush Limbaugh: “It is no longer illegal to be illegal, but it is illegal to ask someone about their immigration status. “

@bccohan: Breaking: Judge bans police from asking shoplifters about massive amounts of clothing w/tags on hanging out of their purse.

@ExJon: I love how the press reports a law with 70% approval “controversial”

*Update*
Brewer Vows to “Battle All the Way to the Supreme Court”

also:

Teachers Union, The NEA, Recommends it’s Members Read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”

By The P/Oed Patriot

You send your kids to Public School everyday trusting that those who influence them for more hours a day than you do, are honest, trust worthy and are only interested in teaching the ABC’s and 123′s.

Well for most teachers I believe that is the case, but for those in the NEA who are involved in “Grass Roots” organizing, they may have been influenced by a little more than reading, writing and arithmetic.

According to the NEA website, the Radical Communist Saul Alinsky’s Book, “Rules for Radicals” is recommended reading to all of their members :

” of our Association who are involved in grassroots organizing, especially Association Representatives (ARs) — also known as building reps or shop stewards — and leaders at local affiliates”

The NEA describes Saul Alinsky as :

“the father of, and pre-imminent expert in, grassroots organizing”

But according to Discover the networks.org, he was a revolutionary who believed in a gradual “Change” of society:

“Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform.”

So Alinksy’s concept of radically changing society was not to have a Revolution overnight but to infiltrate the “Institutions” such as Unions.. Like the NEA. So that from these areas of influence they may introduce “changes” to Society. Or in the NEA’s case, possible influence over future generations.
(more…)

From Atlas Shrugs

As I have often said, truth is the new hate speech. And so Germany takes a giant step backwards into their darkest period, of the mid-twentieth century.

Berlin politician gets flak from Eurodhimmis for inviting Geert Wilders Jihadwatch

I had the great pleasure of meeting Rene Stadtkewitz when I spoke for Pax Europa in Berlin last year. He is a measured, intelligent, well-spoken politician who is deeply aware of the nature of Sharia and the threat of the global jihad. But when he has tried to raise awareness of those things among his fellow citizens by bringing in Wilders to speak, he has been targeted by the slaves who are choosing slavery. “Berlin Politician in Trouble for Inviting Dutch Populist Wilders,” from Spiegel, July 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

CDU politician Rene Stadtkewitz is in trouble with his party for a provocative invitation.

A local Berlin politician from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives is under fire for inviting Dutch populist Geert Wilders to a meeting on Islam on October 2. Rene Stadtkewitz, who is known for his anti-Islamic views, has refused to cancel the invitation, and now faces eviction from his party’s parliamentary group in the city assembly.

A local Berlin politician is in trouble for inviting Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders, who is known for his provocative positions on Islam and immigration, to a political event in Berlin.

Rene Stadtkewitz, 45, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), looks set to be excluded from the CDU’s parliamentary group in the Berlin city assembly after inviting Wilders to Berlin on October 2 to discuss integration and Islam. He had also discussed founding a branch of Wilders’ Freedom Party in Germany.

Frank Henkel, the CDU’s regional parliamentary group leader, gave Stadtkewitz an ultimatum: Withdraw the invitation by July 26 or face the consequences.

Stadtkewitz refused in an open letter in which he also suggested that the CDU should be doing more to combat Islam politically. Up until now, public debate about the Islamic faith had been “too timid” in Germany, Stadtkewitz wrote. He added that the debate should focus on the defense of freedom and of Christian values, including concerns about “countless young women, who are forced into arranged marriages, enslaved and who sometimes become victims of so-called honor killings.”
(more…)

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department’s position, but against the president’s political interest.

Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama’s opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the president is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won’t.

The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority — close to two-thirds of the electorate — that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the president of the United States.

In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama’s Justice Department has overridden their will.
(more…)

From Powerline

In the United Kingdom, decentralization of the National Health System is being planned in response to widespread revulsion with rising costs and lousy health care. The latest case in point: Babies died after junior surgeon left to cope on his own.

Four babies died at an NHS heart unit where managers were trying to raise the number of patients being treated in order to avoid closure, according to a damning report.

The infants died within three months of each other after being operated on by a relatively junior surgeon who was appointed to raise patient numbers at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, an external review has found.

Caner Salih, who was left alone on his second day in the post, complained about the age of the equipment and poor working practices at the children’s cardiac unit. He blew the whistle to bosses after four of his patients died within three months and asked to stop operating.
(more…)

by Heather Mac Donald

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

So determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration’s political strategy regarding the law’s putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated. S.B. 1070 authorizes local law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they have lawfully stopped, if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally, and if the inquiry into immigration status is practicable. S.B. 1070 also required that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona stated in its brief and testified in court that the legislative intent behind that sentence regarding arrestees was that only people for whom there is already reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally would have their immigration status checked after arrest. The section does not apply to every arrestee.

Judge Bolton rejected that testimony, however, in order to buttress the White House claim that large numbers of legal aliens would be subject to immigration inquiries if S.B. 1070 went into effect. As the Justice Department portrayed it, and as Judge Bolton affirmed, massive categories of legal aliens by definition do not have proof of their legal status with them. If those legal aliens are now to be queried about their immigration status following every arrest in Arizona, they will be subject to undue harassment, the federal government and the judge concluded.

The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries, asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

Furthermore, the number of such individuals who would also be in a position to raise an officer’s reasonable suspicion that they were in the country illegally is extremely small. In a petition for injunctive relief, a judge must balance the equities in favor of both parties. The interest of Arizona, where 500,000 illegal aliens reside, in restoring the rule of law should be weighed against the interest of those small numbers of legal aliens or aliens whose status is in abeyance and who might be questioned regarding their immigration status because they have raised a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.
(more…)

by Michelle Malkin

You know when a politician starts a sentence with “frankly,” he’s about to lie to your face. The same principle applies to campaign finance legislation dubbed the “DISCLOSE Act.” The voter’s instinctive reaction should be: What are they trying to hide now? Drafted out of public view with left-wing lobbyists and rammed through Congress after bypassing committee hearings, this bum bill would have been better named the CLOSEDDOOR Act.

At a Rose Garden press conference on Monday, President Obama decried the influence of “shadow groups” on elections and urged the Senate to pass the “reform” sponsored by N.Y. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. But the loophole-ridden package exempts large nonprofits with 500,000 or more members. Behemoth labor unions get preferential treatment. Bradley Smith, former Federal Elections Commission chairman, noted that the law places radical speech-squelching restrictions on companies’ ability to run independent political ads: “(I)f you’re a company with a government contract of over $10 million (like more than half of the top 50 U.S. companies) or if you’re a company with more than 20 percent foreign shareholders, you can’t even mention a candidate in an ad for up to a full year before the election. … There are no similar prohibitions for unions representing government contractors or unions with foreign membership.”

GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell put it more starkly during Tuesday’s debate before the Senate cloture vote on the bill: The DISCLOSE Act, he said, is a “transparent attempt to rig the fall elections.” At bottom, McConnell diagnosed correctly, this is a jobs-protection bill for entrenched incumbents more interested in protecting their hides than protecting the Constitution. While the cloture vote fell three votes short of the needed 60 on Tuesday, Schumer vowed to resurrect the issue “again and again and again until we pass it.”
(more…)

The most recent Direct Mail piece from the MDGOP dropped last Friday, this piece had an immigration theme. I purposely informed the citizens that the O’Malley administration is creating a sanctuary state right here in Maryland. I also informed our constituency that the liberal majority of the Maryland General Assembly approved $1.2 million to Casa of Maryland, which is being used to oppose the Arizona law. This is not how I want my tax dollars being spent. It is imperative that we elect Republicans to the House of Delegates and our State Senate to reverse this downward spiral to socialism. Last Saturday morning, I did an interview on this issue with Bruce Elliott on WBAL and have been receiving very positive comments on the stand the MDGOP has taken. We support immigration, it is illegal immigration that we oppose.

Shirley Sherrod Should Have Resigned

from Flopping Aces

Darren Goode posted an article at The Hill titled

Dean calls Fox News ‘absolutely racist’ for aiding Sherrod ouster

But the following details prove the opposite (and the title was doltish).

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean accused Fox News of promoting racism, including in the recent fracas over the Obama administration’s forced resignation of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod.

“Let’s just be blunt about this … I think Fox News did something that was absolutely racist,” Dean charged on “Fox News Sunday.”

Chris Wallace then hands Dean his ass:

But host Chris Wallace shot back, “I know facts are inconvenient things, but let’s deal with the facts.” They include that Fox News did not play the clip or mention her name before the Obama administration forced Sherrod on Monday to step down, he said.

Goode, if you’re reading this, your title should have been

“Dean is handed his ass for stupid allegations”

But Dean is not one to easily face facts:

Dean said the clip was about to run on Glenn Beck’s program on Fox, “which is what the administration was afraid of.”

Howard Dean told America that the White House lives in fear of Glenn Beck.

That’s cool.

But ironically, Beck came to Shirley Sherrod’s defense.

“Now if she is relating a story from1986 to make a point about how her racial perceptions have changed, this woman deserves her job back. Again, me at AA. Something is definitely wrong here,” Beck said.

This is what the White House feared?

Amusingly, Jesse Jackson suggested that the White House acted stupidly:

“The idea of an avalanche of news media accusing them of being racist is offensive and politically threatening,” Jackson said. When the news story broke about the Breitbart video clip, “It frightened the White House,” Jackson said. “They didn’t want to be accused of being racist and of course they ignored due process [and] were wrong in overreacting.”

And frankly, so did the NAACP.

But one wonders- why did Sherrod resign if she knew she did no wrong? Why didn’t she put up a stink immediately and refuse to resign? Why didn’t she tell them to watch the entire tape?

Further, one wonders why the Vilsack and NAACP did not evaluate the situation on their own prior to demanding a resignation.

Maybe because she knew something else was there. Maybe it wasn’t the white farmer she was thinking about. Maybe it was something far more recent:

You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

Sherrod suggests George Bush is a racist. At least he’s not alone;

The people with money, the elites decided, hey, we need to do something here to divide them [the white and black servants] so that’s where they made black people servants for life. That’s when they put laws in place forbidding them to marry each other. That’s when they created the racism that we know of today. They did it to keep us divided. And here we are over 400 years later and it is still working.

She continued;

It’s not so much about white…” (catches herself, says), “It IS about white and black.”

Then she unloads what’s really in her mind:

“I think they should but they won’t. They intended exactly what they did. “They were looking for the result they got yesterday,” she said of Fox. “I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

This is the woman who claims her motto is:

‘Let’s work together’

Shirley doesn’t know when to shut up.

Perhaps it wasn’t the Bretibart snippet Sherrod was reacting to. Perhaps her guilt arose from these words. And maybe more than that. And perhaps resigning was exactly the right thing to do after all.

And if Obama gives her her job back?

That would be acting stupidly.

The GayPatriot has more.
(more…)

In 2008, some 17,000 servicemen and servicewomen mailed home completed ballots that were never counted. The DOJ barely lifted a finger to prevent or prosecute this travesty. What will happen in 2010?

July 26, 2010 – by J. Christian Adams

In the 2008 presidential election, 17,000 soldiers, sailors, and Marines mailed home completed ballots that were never counted.

Usually these ballots didn’t get home in time, mostly because they weren’t sent overseas early enough. One cause of this catastrophe is the Keystone Cops routine the Department of Justice Voting Section uses to enforce federal laws protecting the rights of military voters. Unfortunately, all signs point to a comic sequel in the upcoming November elections.

Congress tried to fix the problem last year by mandating that all ballots must be sent overseas at least 45 days before the election. But Military Voter Protection Project Director M. Eric Eversole has accused Justice Department officials of encouraging states to seek an exemption to the law. The law indeed grants states the right to ask the Pentagon to opt out of the law. Even worse, Eversole says the Department is telegraphing to states that it doesn’t want to pursue litigation to enforce the law.

Some voting rights are more important than others, it seems. Where have we heard this before?

Exemptions to the 45-day mailing mandate were supposed to be rare, and granted only for the most extreme emergencies. States had plenty of time to amend their laws to comply with the new 45-day window. Many states did nothing. Instead of aggressively enforcing the new protections, Justice has told states that the waiver provisions are ambiguous and encouraged waivers in numerous ways.
(more…)