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…)

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…)

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…)

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.

from Flopping Aces

Diggers Realm reported earlier today that two ranches inside our border, and just across the border from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico has been seized by Los Zetas, a highly trained group of killers in Mexico. None of this is confirmed tho and some of the information coming in appears to contradict the claims that land in our country has been seized by Mexican gangs. First, Diggers report:

The situation has become different in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico over the last few days. There have been gun-battles through the streets and fragmentation grenades used as the government of Mexico tries to run the Los Zetas out of their stronghold there. People died and were wounded. The city was on lockdown and the US government issued warnings to US citizens in the area to remain indoors. With our lack of border security and porous borders, it is not beneath my intellect to believe that the Los Zetas could be forced into a retreat into US territory and attempt to seize a hideout.

Not only that, but “first contact” with me of the initial story was from none other than Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, who had a confirmed source in the area of Laredo. With this in mind I decided to go with the story, but to remain cautious. I clearly stated on the story that it was not 100% confirmed. It remained that way all night.

I put out my feelers throughout the night to try and collect information and other credible sources to confirm the occupation of ranches in Laredo. I did not receive actual confirmation until this morning when I got word that Kimberly Dvorak of the Examiner had made multiple confirmations within the Laredo Police Department. Up until this point the story had not spread wide. There was no reason for the Laredo Police Department to crack down hard and keep things truly blacked out as there was no heavy interest from media.

However, upon that second confirmation and her running her story “Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas” the story to me at that point was 100% confirmed. I changed my story to reflect that and released it to the world - spreading it wide. It has since gone viral.

Confederate Yankee spoke to the Laredo police however and received conflicting news:

Twitter exploded a while ago about this story, which claims that heavily-armed Los Zetas gunmen of the Gulf Cartel have taken over ranches on the U.S. side of the border.

My curiosity got the better of me, and so I called the Laredo Police Department, and had a delightful chat with the acting watch commander, Sgt. Perez.
Sgt. Perez informed me that I was her seventh caller about this claim since she came on duty this afternoon. She stipulated two things that blows holes in the invasion claim.

• The location of the alleged invasion is outside of their city-limits jurisdiction, so they would not be involved, and;
• while they would not be involved in any law enforcement response outside of their jurisdiction, they work closely with the county sheriff’s office and would know if such an event is occurring.

She also provided me the number of the Sheriff’s Department. The deputy that answered the phone there was less bemused, having also dealt with this rumor multiple times in a short amount of time. She also told me that there was no invasion and no law enforcement siege, and that deputies were continuing normal operations.

Granted, Los Zetas has moved into the town of Nuevo Laredo en masse, and if they are fighting a battle with the government they may be run out and take refuge across the border. While stupid, it’s not out of the realm of possibilities. But I’m skeptical that they have seized some ranches and are holding them.

For now.

UPDATE

According to this site:

The approximate location of the U.S. ranches are 10 miles northwest of I-35 off Mines Road and Minerales Annex Road. Just off 1472 (Mines road) near Santa Isabel Creek south of the city of Laredo, Texas.

UPDATE

One other thought, being in law enforcement myself I know what the Watch Commander of the Laredo police said is quite true. If there was this massive an incident there would be a mutual aid request made for other law enforcement agencies to help. This is done routinely in big situations.

Digger believes there is a media blackout but I have a tough time believing any agency would believe a blackout would hold with this kind of incident. Doesn’t mean some ignorant supervisors wouldn’t do it…but its a stretch.

Still remaining skeptical.

UPDATE

Could be from this:

The FBI is advising law enforcement officers across the country that a Texas cell of Los Zetas — an increasingly powerful arm of the Mexican Gulf Cartel drug trafficking syndicate — has acquired a secluded ranch where it trains its members to “neutralize” competitors in the United States.

In order to ensure its share of the lucrative illegal drug trade, the cartel’s members reportedly are operating north of the border to collect debts and spy on competitors. They have also protected cocaine and heroin shipments that were bound for Houston, where they were repackaged and shipped on to Alabama, Delaware, Georgia and Michigan, according to the FBI.

The information, which was disseminated Monday to state, local and federal agencies, does not provide specifics, such as the location of the ranch, but includes a notation that the information came from reliable FBI contacts.

also:

Obama Has Always Left Destruction In His Wake

The best prophet of the future is the past. ~ John Sherman

Phyllis Schlafly wrote a great article in Investors recently. It makes the point that the woes of America are not different from the woes the Obama machine visited upon Illinois. In basketball it’s called continuation.

Americans are beginning to wonder if Greece is the picture of the U.S.’ future. But we need look no further than the place where Obama and his team were trained in community organizing and bully tactics to redistribute the wealth: Illinois.

Illinois was the stomping ground for years for Obama, his top advisers Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, and his appointees such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. After they promoted themselves to Washington to run the country, other Obama associates who didn’t make the cut continued to run Illinois into the ground, as the Illinois unemployment rate jumped from less than 5% to nearly 11%.

Illinois is a fiscal disaster:

Under years of Democratic leadership, Illinois has refused to honor its obligations, cut spending or trim its shockingly large deficit, which at $12 billion per year approaches nearly half its budget. As a result, Illinois’ credit rating has been downgraded and it pays a massive amount in interest on its loans.

This fiscal trainwreck is traced back to 2003 in an Illinois comptroller report: (more…)

also:

Boycott The Boycotters

Most Americans are no doubt aware of the tragedy of the oil slick coating the Gulf Coast from the damaged petroleum rig. What they might not be aware of is the attitude among elites of how we as citizens and consumers are simply to go along with whatever position they craft as a response regarding the matter.

A headline from the 5/25/10 online edition of the Washington Post bemoans “For Some Washington Drivers, Convenience Outweighs Calls For BP Gas Boycott”. The story laments the tendency of certain consumers who “…prioritize convenience over taking a moral or political stand.”

For starters, in this day where it is constantly pounded into our heads that no one is to impose their views on any one else or to even dare to suggest that certain values might be superior to others, on what grounds are we expected to do something because someone with no real binding authority over us tells us to?

Many of the rabblerousers behind the BP boycott are some of the same nags behind the boycott of the state of Arizona regarding the immigration law. Yet these crusaders would turn around and become moral libertines if some pro-family coalition organized a boycott of states such as Vermont authorizing sodomite matrimony.

In all fairness, busybody progressives are not the only ones to use boycotts not so much in pursuit of a policy objective but rather to exert power and control over their respective constituencies.

I remember in the early 90’s in some Christian circles how an edict was handed down how the truly spiritual wouldn’t shop at K-Mart because at the time its B. Dalton Booksellers subsidiary was selling a line of erotic novels. From the vehemence behind the pronouncement, one almost feared the possibility of expulsion from the more doctrinally rigorous Christian schools if it was discovered that was where one’s parents shopped every once in a while.

It is a good thing to have as much information as possible as to the implications of one’s socioeconomic decisions. However, when an interest group advances beyond the function of conveying information regarding a perfectly legal and acceptable product to demanding that a certain action be taken in response to the purveyors of the product for reasons tangential rather than inherent to the particular product in question and threaten with sanction or approbation those deciding not to go along with the particular campaign, the group presenting the overly enthusiastic warning may also require additional scrutiny as a threat to our liberty.

by Frederick Meekins

From Gateway Pundit

The Obama Administration announced this week that they won’t sue sanctuary cities…
But, they will sue Arizona for upholding federal immigration law.
the Washington Times reported:

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona’s new immigration law was singled out because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is “flimsy justification” for suing the state.
(more…)

by Mychal Massie

It’s time to Kill Some Crackers! You’re gonna have to Kill their babies!”

I condemn the NAACP. The NAACP’s move to condemn the tea party movement as racist is a scurrilous attack by a group that itself is unambiguously guilty of same. I have spoken at tea party rallies and am in contact with tea party members from across the country, and never have I heard even a whisper of that which we are falsely accused.

The NAACP has a selectively myopic view and short-term memory when it comes to actual instances of what can only be construed as racial bias. How do they explain their tacit silence about the allegations made in the New Black Panthers Party’s voter-intimidation case Philadelphia in 2008? Or talk that they tried to quash the complaint themselves? How do they explain their silence in the verbal accosting and outright attack on the black entrepreneur distributing tea party items at a town hall meeting in 2009? How do they explain their silence pursuant to King Samir Shabazz’s violent diatribe taped by National Geographic calling for the killing of white people — specifically children? Calling tea party members racist because we disagree with Obama begs the question of what they call the vicious screeds of Danny Glover, Harry Bellafonte and Julian Bond spewed toward President George W. Bush?

Their deafening silence in these instances indicate their de facto if not tacit support of those I reference.

also:

Obama Promised the Latinos Amnesty and Lied

By_Regina Sztajer

I have spoken to many Hispanics who have been working and living in America for years and they are very disappointed In President Barack Obama because he has failed in his promise for amnesty. Those who came legally, are citizens and tax payers, say he lied to their people and they will not vote for him if he runs again. They say they will vote in the fall elections this year as Republicans as well because they don’t believe what the Democrats promise.

When Obama had the 60 votes in a Democratic Senate he failed to present immigration reform and now it is to late in the year to get it through because many Democrats will defect and he will not have the 60 votes.
(more…)

From Gateway Pundit

A bomb threat shut down a rally tonight with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Kris Kobach, the author of the Arizona immigration bill.
LJWorld reported:

A rally featuring an Arizona sheriff and Kansas Secretary of State candidate Kris Kobach was evacuated after a suspicious package was found on the scene, according to emergency radio traffic.

Nearly 2,000 Kansas Republicans gathered in Overland Park to hear Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Tuesday night before the package was found around 8 p.m.

Authorities secured the package on scene around 9:15 p.m., according to emergency radio traffic. Several area streets were shut down during the investigation.

Kobach helped write the Arizona law that directs officers to question people who have been stopped for another crime about their immigration status if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.

Arpaio is known for his tough stance on illegal immigration. During the rally he told the crowd that Arizona needs its new immigration law because the federal government isn’t doing its job.

Kobach’s address was briefly interrupted when authorities announced the discovery of the suspicious package. Arpaio and Kobach urged people to leave if they wanted to but most of the crowd stayed to listen.

also:

A NEW RECORD… Team Obama Will Likely Break $1.5 Trillion Deficit Record This Year

Barack Obama is the worst president in history on job creation–
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

Everyone knew the Chicago gang of thugs were gonna pull this, so it’s no surprise:

The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation’s toughest immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix argues that Arizona’s law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations usurps federal authority.

Gov Brewer:

“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” Brewer said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

From Facebook:

It is done. We’ve expected it for weeks, and now we have it. The DoJ has just filed suit, arguing that SB1070 “violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution”. They will seek an injunction to delay the July 29th implementation date of the law. 1070 architect Kris Kobach says the suit is 100% political and will fail in court, as the law was “specifically crafted” to anticipate such a challenge. Regardless of the outcome, it is disgraceful that the Federal government, given stories such as Sheriff Babeau’s below, is making Arizona the enemy, and defending the enemies of the rule of law.

Co-author Russell Pierce rightfully called the suit an “absolute insult to the rule of law” as well as to Arizona and its residents. It is all that and more. The die is cast. This is much bigger than Arizona now. We will punish those who have done this on November 2nd. SWA will publish detailed records on border security and amnesty of every Representative up for election this year. ANGRY? REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER. That will be the “Peoples’ Injunction”.

For now…contact your Reps: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Free Congressional Fax from Numbers USA: https://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?id=12180

I find it curious how this Justice Department can trump this up, over illegal immigration, but it can’t manage to handle a the crystal clear case of voter intimidation by Black Panthers.

We all know what this is about. It’s a voter registration drive for the Democrat party.

also:

Hezbollah leader living across US border in Tijuana

My my… more evidence bubbles to the surface that the US-Mexican border war is about more than the civil rights of illegal immigrants… or the anticipated built in voter bloc for desperate Dems. Today brings good news that the Mexican police are actively working to thwart Hezbollah’s attempt to gain a foothold there. A surveillance operation focused on Hezbollah leader, Jameel Nasr, resulted in his arrest at his Tijuana home. Nasr employed Mexican nationals with family ties to Lebanon for his Hezbollah/Mexico network.

According to the report, Mexican police mounted a surveillance operation on the group’s leader, Jameel Nasr, who traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from Hezbollah commanders there.

Police say Nasr also made frequent trips to other countries in Latin America, including a two-month stay in Venezuela in the summer of 2008.

Tijuana… a stone’s throw from southern Cal. ummm, yeah.

Apparently Mexican officials are more astute to the US-Mexico border wars being intrinsically tied to jihad than the POTUS holding down the swivel chair in the Oval Office. As I posted back on June 26th, Obama’s attempts to grant a blanket amnesty to immigrants holding expired visas was most likely going to benefit the terrorists entering this country thru Mexico using falsified documentation…. something your average, poverty stricken, field picking immigrant can’t afford to obtain.

Makes you wonder if California officials shouldn’t be looking at that AZ immigration law a bit more carefully, no?

From Gateway Pundit

This is insane…

A federal judge allowed Mexico to have a voice in the Arizona Immigration Lawsuit today.
KOLD reported, via Free Republic:

Mexico gets to have a say in 1 of the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico’s request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens’ rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade and tourism. It also says the law would hinder work against drug trafficking and related violence.

The law’s provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

From Gateway Pundit

also:

Did Elena Kagan Lie to the Supreme Court in Last Year’s 9/11 Case?

Did Barack Obama’s radical court pick Elena Kagan lie to the Supreme Court in last year’s 9/11 case?

Looks like it. From Alec Rawls at Error Theory:

As Obama’s solicitor general, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged the Court to dismiss the suit that our 9/11 families have been pressing against the Saudi government and several Saudi princes for their extensive funding of al Qaeda. The families sued under the domestic tort exception to sovereign immunity, which according to Kagan’s Supreme Court brief (at p. 14):

requires not merely that the foreign state’s extraterritorial conduct have some causal connection to tortious injury in the United States, but that “the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee” be committed within the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5).

The “tortious act or omission” is the wrongful act (the tort) that leads to the injury. Thus she is claiming that for Saudi funding of al Qaeda to be actionable, the funding itself has to have been transacted within the United States. Compare this with the actual wording of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5): (more…)

From Gateway Pundit

Scott Brown could help kill the democrat’s $19 billion bank tax.

Scott Brown says he won’t support the democrat’s $19 billion bank tax on consumers.
The Washington Times reported:

UPDATE:Roll Call is reporting that Senator Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, is planning to vote ‘no’ on the Wall Street bill.

The financial regulatory reform bill seemed like a sure thing just almost a week ago. However, after Democrats in both chambers looked to hike $19 billion in taxes on banks, things changed.

Senator Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican, voted for the original Senate bill along with Senators Olympia Snowe, Maine Republican, and Susan Collins, Maine Republican.

However, the new taxes could be a problem for Democrats looking for Republicans to join their ranks again to support the financial regulatory bill when the newly merged House-Senate version rolls around to the Senate again. In order for the bill to pass the Senate, Democrats need 60 votes.

“I said right from the beginning, I’ll let my statements speak for themselves,” said Senator Brown. “I was disappointed and surprised that at the last minute, they put in assessment fees, taxes…really without letting us know, and I’ve always made it clear that I can’t support adding another $19 billion passed through taxes to individual consumers, especially in the middle of a two year recession.”

The recent death of Senator Robert Byrd does not make things any easier for Democrats, who were expecting to pass the banking regulation bill without too many problems.

UPDATE: And, from his website, Scott Brown also will oppose the democrat’s cap and trade energy tax:

Washington has no shortage of bad ideas. Even well-intentioned programs usually come wrapped up with higher taxes and fees that I refuse to support. The special interests are pushing for a national energy tax, otherwise known as cap and trade. They also want to increase red tape and regulation. For some reason, the Washington elites believe that if one opposes a national energy tax and more regulation, they must also support the Gulf oil spill. This is ludicrous.

The fact is, cap and trade will hurt the poor and working class the most and America can’t afford another tax.

While I continue to fight for lower taxes, less regulation and reduced spending in Washington, some groups are beginning to fight me here in Massachusetts by running negative TV ads. This is nothing new. The political machine has been running ugly attack ads against me since the campaign.

You would think that if my political opponents were really concerned about the Gulf oil spill, that they would invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are spending to attack me on efforts to protect the environment in the affected area. Instead, they cynically attack me for defending the working families of Massachusetts.

I’d like to fight back so I’m writing you this email to ask for your help. Will you donate $100 right now to my campaign to fight back? If that amount is not possible, would you consider donating another amount to help fend off these negative attacks?

also:

Obama Enlists Radical Groups, SEIU, Labor Unions to Push for Amnesty

Barack Obama just enlisted his radical leftist groups, the SEIU and labor unions to push for amnesty this year.
The AP reported:

President Barack Obama is enlisting activists and labor leaders in a push for comprehensive immigration legislation that will showcase Republican opposition and include a speech by the president.

The strategy was discussed during a meeting Monday by a range of prominent labor leaders and activist groups. Participants said Obama reiterated his support for immigration legislation but noted the political realities that have stalled it in Congress.
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

Does he take the problem of border security seriously?

In his June 3rd meeting with Arizona Governor Brewer President Obama promised he would send White House officials to Arizona within two weeks to see what help could be offered in the border security emergency. That long overdue meeting was finally held Monday, June 28, and Governor Brewer was underwhelmed. Out of only 1200 National Guard troops Obama authorized be made available for border security only 524 will be available at the peak of deployment for only a few months in Arizona.

Needless to say, Arizona Governor Brewer was “disappointed” with the White House response.

Brewer also released the following video further highlighting the problem. Signs less than 30 miles from the State Capitol warn citizens of danger in border region:

also:

The Kagan Confirmation Hearings

The Kagan confirmation hearings are underway and she has done her best to sound like a middle of the road kind of thinker. Paul Mirengoff on Kagan’s opening statement:

…As with Sotomayor’s articulated vision, Kagan’s could have come from the lips of John Roberts. Indeed, it could have come from a standard issue high school civics textbook of yesteryear.

Kagan must have been tempted to bring along a sign saying, “I spent two decades in the upper reaches of legal academia to say this?”

There is little indication that the Committee members were buying it. Nor should they. It’s certainly not the approach employed by Kagan’s judicial heroes, Thurgood Marshall and Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. The latter jurist, described by Kagan as the “judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice,” is famous for his unabashed efforts to “expand” Israel’s basic laws, which he equates with a constitution. According to Richard Posner, in an article about Barak called “Enlightened Despot”, the Israeli judge “created out of whole cloth [] a degree of judicial power undreamed of even by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices.”

There is every reason to believe that, if confirmed, Kagan will, in fact, become one of our very most aggressive justices.
(more…)

from Atlas Shruggs

If the king decrees that all illegals will be granted amnesty, I can assure you that America will not go quietly. If you recall the last time partial amnesty was broached under the Bush administration (when both parties actually worked together), millions took to the streets and voted it down — and that was before the phenomenon known as the “tea parties.”

It is increasingly clear that the most divisive President in history is itching for a riot. And at the rate he is going, he is going to get one — if he continues to ignore the will of the American people.

Is “Emperor” Obama Poised to Grant Illegal Immigrant Amnesty by Executive Order? Yid with Lid

The rumor swirling around the Beltway is that once again the President is poised to go against the will of the American people, this time on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. All polls show that American citizens want the government find a way protect the US borders before dealing with the illegal immigrants already in the country.

This time according to the scuttlebutt, unlike the health care bill, Obama does not have the Congressional votes to shove his policy down the throats of America, so he will go around Congress and the American people and issue an executive order granting amnesty to the 12 million potential Democratic Party Voters Illegal Immigrants in the United States.

The rumor is so fierce that earlier this week Senator Grassley and Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., signed a letter to the President saying:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

Why would the president make this move when such a vast majority of Americans would be against it? Probably the best explanation could be given in this video published on this site before featuring SEIU Vice President Eliseo Medina, who explained that granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the “progressive” electorate and help ensure a “progressive” governing coalition for the long term.

“We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters,” Medina said during his speech at a June 2009 Washington conference for the liberal America’s Future Now!
(more…)

also:

Even His Generals Do Not Respect Him

by Dan De Luce Dan De Luce

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US commander in Afghanistan apologized over a magazine profile that quotes him denouncing a top diplomat while his aides dismiss President Barack Obama and mock his deputies.

Tensions between General Stanley McChrystal and the White House are on full display in the unflattering article in Rolling Stone, but the general said it was all a mistake.

“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile,” McChrystal said in a statement issued hours after the article was released.

“It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never happened.”

McChrystal, a former special operations chief, usually speaks cautiously in public and has enjoyed mostly sympathetic US media coverage since he took over the NATO-led force last year. But the article appears to catch him and his staff in unguarded moments.

“Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard.

In the profile, McChrystal jokes sarcastically about preparing to answer a question referring to Vice President Joe Biden, known as a skeptic of the commander’s war strategy.
(more…)

Via Hot Air comes this report that the United States government will be suing the State of Arizona over its illegal-immigration law SB1070. The White House apparently chose to first break this news to the people of Ecuador, as part of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to that country; in light of this, it seems appropriate to report on this in Spanish. After all, it’s not like the Obama administration has any particular history of straight talk in English.

From Gateway Pundit

Breaking: 0bama is holding the lives of Arizonans, Texans, Californians, etc. HOSTAGE to acheive his political agenda–

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told an audience in North Tempe that Obama is holding the border hostage.

“They want to get something in return for doing their duty.”

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

also:

25 Former Gitmo Detainees From Saudi Arabia Return to Life of Terror

A Saudi security official admitted recently that at least 25 former Saudi Gitmo detainees have returned to terror after going through the country’s rehabilitation program.
Reuters reported:

Around 25 former detainees from Guantanamo Bay camp returned to militancy after going through a rehabilitation program for al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi security official said on Saturday.

The United States have sent back around 120 Saudis from the detention camp at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, set up after the U.S. launched a “war on terror” following the September 11 attacks by mostly Saudi suicide hijackers sent by al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, has put the returned prisoners along with other al Qaeda suspects through a rehabilitation program which includes religious re-education by clerics and financial help to start a new life.

The scheme, which some 300 extremists have attended, is part of anti-terrorism efforts after al Qaeda staged attacks inside the kingdom from 2003-06. These were halted after scores of suspects were arrested with the help of foreign experts.

Around 11 Saudis from Guantanamo have gone to Yemen, an operating base for al Qaeda, while others have been jailed again or killed after attending the program, said Abdulrahman al-Hadlaq, Director General of the General Administration for Intellectual Security overseeing the rehabilitation.

He pinpointed strong personal ties among former prisoners but also tough U.S. tactics as the reason why some 20 percent of the returned Saudis relapsed into militancy compared to 9.5 percent of other participants in the rehabilitation program.