Obama and Media Hyperventilate Over Immigration Law

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, ExposeObama

Obama, the media, liberal elites — and even some Republicans — have rushed to decry Arizona’s immigration enforcement law with shocking hyperbole. This bill is constitutional and it addresses a pressing issue at the state level because the federal government has shirked responsibility for years. While the critics would have you believe enforcing America’s immigration law is the second coming of fascism, the Arizona law properly emphasizes enforcement in a manner that upholds the Constitution and basic principles of human decency.

Nevertheless, Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post columnist, denounced the law by saying, "Arizona’s draconian new immigration law is an abomination — racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust." The infamous race baiter Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march in opposition to the law. President Obama decried the law as “misguided” and “poorly conceived.” Obama even falsely claimed that a Hispanic family eating ice cream could be forced to provide their papers just because they had dark skin. CBS News used fascist references to attack the law.

These critics completely miss the mark. If these critics had read the law, they would know that it primarily focuses on enforcing existing federal law at the state level. The section that has been misconstrued the most reads, “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.” While some like Obama interpret this provision as allowing police officers to round up Hispanic individuals and ask for their papers, it is anything but. The initial contact must be lawful. And the law was carefully written to preclude racial discrimination. Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official "may not solely consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status.

In order to clarify the non-discriminatory nature of the statute, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order requiring training to "provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual’s race, color or national origin alone cannot be ground for reasonable suspicion to believe any law has been violated."

Arizona Police Association board member Ken Crane said the new law prohibits officers from targeting people based on race, national origin and other identifying factors. Every rookie officer is trained extensively at the police academy on how to judge probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Crane said whatever training is developed should reinforce long-standing police standards. "It’s basic police work that’s never changed," he said. "We’re not reinventing the wheel here." Not only does the law prohibit discrimination, the governor is going out of her way to institute new training for officers so they can enforce it properly.

One of the most absurd reactions to the law was from the government of Mexico, which issued a travel warning regarding Arizona. “There is an adverse political environment for migrant communities and all Mexican visitors,” Mexico’s ministry said. This is quite ironic given that the Mexican government has much more stringent immigration standards than the U.S. and they will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics."

These hyperbolic critics ignore what is happening in Arizona. Currently, more than 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona. Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was recently gunned down on his own land, presumably by a drug runner. President Obama ignored the calls of Sen. John McCain and other Arizona lawmakers to dispatch the National Guard. Our borders are wide open and criminals are flooding through while the U.S. government continues to dither and turn a blind eye. It is no surprise that the new law has a 70 percent approval rating amongst Arizonans according to Rasmussen, and Gov. Brewster saw her popularity rise by 15 percent after the bill was signed into law.

Americans want our immigration laws to be enforced. We want to live in an open and free society without fear of our government or fear of criminals. This law strikes an important balance between defending precious personal liberties and enforcing our immigration law. The law’s critics should be honest and admit that they currently ignore enforcing immigration law because they want to change it. They support a demographic realignment of the USA through immigration that most Americans oppose.

Smart Aleck-in-Chief?

By DANIEL HENNINGER, WSJ

Here’s a quiz: For which of the following reasons is the 44th president of the United States bad-mouthing Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, bankers, mine operators, insurers, Glenn Beck, the tea party, the Supreme Court and whoever he hammers as we go to press:

a) He’s rallying his base.

b) He’s rallying the Democrats’ base (one overlaps but does not equal the other).

c) He’s changing the subject from 9% unemployment.

d) To reverse his sinking approval ratings.

e) It’s what Saul Alinsky would do.

f) It’s what Barack Obama likes to do.

Astute readers instantly saw that the answer is, all of the above. (Incidentally, the left’s notion that Mr. Obama had to prove he could "stand up" to the Republicans must be laughable to the man who stood down the Clinton machine to win.)

Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, a target of Obamian invective, are calling it conduct unbecoming a president. They are right. Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Ford didn’t do it. People assume the hyperpolitical Bill Clinton did it, but if memory serves, his public persona was presidential to a fault, even as he brimmed with Vesuvian anger.

Read More

Obama threatened by heckuva glob

By Joseph Curl, Washington Times

The rapidly expanding environmental catastrophe caused by the oil spill off the coast of Louisiana is presenting a growing political challenge to the Obama White House, with Mr. Obama and his aides at pains to defend the response and forestall comparisons to the Hurricane Katrina crisis.

Nine days after British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew apart and began spewing 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico, a massive oil slick is set to wash ashore on the southern coast Thursday evening and, experts say, could dwarf the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

Failure to get control of the relief effort and contain the environmental challenge could pose the same kind of political threat to Mr. Obama’s popular standing that the much-criticized handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina did for former President George W. Bush. And unlike Katrina, it is likely the federal government will be the clear lead authority in dealing with the BP spill.

But Mr. Obama only Thursday dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to help coordinate the federal response to the potential environmental disaster.

"We are being very aggressive and we are prepared for the worst case," Coast Guard Rear Adm. Sally Brice-O’Hara said at the White House.

Read More

Obama Stacking the Fed With Doves

AP

Barack Obama presented three nominees to join the US Federal Reserve Board, moving to put a stamp on the central bank that would outlast his presidency.
Obama’s candidates look set to boost the Fed’s focus on beating rampant unemployment, one of the president’s biggest challenges as Congress heads to midterm elections later this year.

Around one in ten American workers is currently unemployed.

Obama named Janet Yellen — known for her sharp focus on tackling unemployment — to become the Fed’s number two, at a time when the bank faces some of the most momentous decisions in its 97-year history.

In a move that would help decide US economic policy as the country battles to exit a crippling recession, Obama also named MIT economist Peter Diamond and financial regulator Sarah Raskin to fill two empty board posts.

If confirmed by the Senate all three will be members of the powerful Federal Open Market Committee, which sets interest rates and has a key role in dictating the tempo of economic activity.

Each would be eligible for a 14-year term on the Federal Reserve Board, far beyond Obama’s tenure in the White House.

Read More

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director Northeast Intelligence Network

I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?

In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

Read More