The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.—War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 2(c)

How many times have we heard both during the 2008 presidential campaign and since that Barack Obama was a constitutional scholar? Where did he find the time? Between being a community organizer, a Illinois state legislator, a law school professor, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, when did he find time for his constitutional scholarship?

While you ponder that question consider this one, has he ever really read it other than from the perspective of how to go around it? Since his election he and his progressive allies have moved us toward the “world government” model. They believe the Supreme Court should consider foreign laws in making their decisions. One of his first acts as president was a world apology tour to sooth the ruffled feathers of world leaders, that a reasonable man, a partner was now in the White House. How’s that for hope and change?

Domestically, he populated his administration with an unprecedented number of czars, and union leaders, who represent a small percentage of workers, are in almost daily contact with the administration and are frequent visitors to the White House as well. Now the Nobel Peace Prize laureate has started a new war without asking for Congress’s concurrence, but that’s okay, he got the UN’s blessing and after all aren’t they the precursor to a world government?

From a humanitarian perspective Americans don’ t like to see dictators murder their citizens who protest their treatment. So whether you think clipping Khadafy’s wings is a good thing or a bad thing, we are a nation of laws, not of men. We have a process to follow and it has not been. As you can see from the War Powers Act above, which was passed as a result of President Richard Nixon’s escalation of the war in Viet Nam, there is 1) no declaration of war by Congress; 2) no specific statuary authority to attack Libya; 3) there has been no attack on the United States. Therefore, President Obama’s action in Libya is a very serious breach of the law. Unlike President Reagan’s action against Libya in 1986, which was a single attack in retaliation for Libya’s backing of an attack that killed U.S. servicemen in Berlin, there was no attack against us.

It is good policy to get UN support prior to major action so that we are not perceived as the world’s bully, but that should come after or at least in conjunction with a debate and a vote by Congress before we commit troops. We are not at the beck and call of the Arab League and the UN to do their heavy lifting and pay the bills, when no one else wants to. To pour salt into the wound, Obama jets off to Rio to be photographed doing the samba, while U.S. service men and women are in harm’s way.

So, how long is it until November 2012?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Congressman Ron Paul, a perennial favorite of CPAC, the annual convention of the American Conservative Union, packed the house and then lit it up with his speech of liberty and libertarianism.

The themes he hit hardest were the fiscal situation, foreign policy, the Federal Reserve, and individual liberty and the crowd loved every minute of it. The full ballroom, the balconies, and several overflow rooms with video feeds waited for his remarks.

His opening salvo was on the fiscal situation. We have been spending far too much for far too long he told the crowd, surprising no one. He pointed to a common theme, which always seems to follow a progressive defeat at the polls, the call for bipartisanship. Congressman Paul tacked the opposite way saying he thought there has been too much bipartisanship. All of the social spending of the last fifty or sixty years could not have been accomplished without support from both parties, so Congressman Paul would like to see less bipartisanship. Unless, that is, there was support from the crony capitalists and the big government liberals to join in a bipartisan effort to cut the hell out of both.

His remarks on our foreign policy made a distinction between defense spending and military spending. Defense spending is what we need to defend ourselves. He called military spending what we spend to keep are troops around the world on a permanent deployment, citing Japan and Germany as places where we have had troops since the end of World War II. Congressman Paul is a strong advocate for staying out of the affairs of other countries. His definition of foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. Most of the seventy billion dollars we have given to Egypt in foreign aid has ended in the bank accounts of the Mubarak family, he said.

Congressman Paul’s opposition to the Federal Reserve is well known. He is now in a position to effect some changes as he is now chairman of a subcommittee with Fed oversight. He wants to audit the Fed and make them accountable, and the crowd roared.

Regarding personal liberty, Congressman Paul has a simple rule: the government should not be able to do anything we cannot do. “If I can’t steal from my neighbor, I should not be able to tell the government to go and steal from him for me. No redistribution of wealth.” The listeners lapped it up. He offered a deal to the crowd. He asked if they would be willing to accept paying no more than 10% of their income if they agreed to take care of themselves and not ask the government for anything.

Congressman Paulwon the2010 Presidential straw poll at CPAC and he may win it again, if the “applause meter” is a gauge. Yesterday, Donald Trump said he liked Ron Paul but he is unelectable. With the number of young people in the crowd, their enthusiasm, and the progressive agenda crumbling, I am not so sure. He may be getting on in years, but he did open his remarks with a good point. Kentucky has a new senator, Senator Rand Paul.

CORRECTION: In the original post we had that Ron Paul  has repeatedly won the CPAC straw poll. He did not win it repeatedly, he won it in 2010 alone.

The baseball season has ended.  The San Francisco Giants are the world champions for the first time since 1954 when they were the New York Giants.  The stadiums are empty and the spring training fields have not yet gotten busy.  But, fear not, the free agent season is heating up.

I’ve got a hot prospect for you.  His batting average is 0.004, but he does have a home run to his credit.  Interested?  Fantasy league or real, any attempt to sell this turkey, even during Thanksgiving would be a bust.  But when it comes to the trial of Islamic terrorist Ahmed Ghailani those are the stats turned in by Eric Holder. 

Ghailani was charged with 285 counts and the jury convicted him on one of them.  So for a batting average that is 1 for 285 or 0.004.  Holder and his backers are bragging that Ghailani is going to be sentenced to 20 years to life; the home run.  So how do you feel about having this player on your team?  Yes, his is capable of hitting a home run once every 285 times at bat, but how close was he to striking out?  Was the home run skill or dumb luck?  If you were a baseball team’s general manager, would to take a chance on him?

Such are the problems of trying terrorists in civilian court with the full rights of American citizens.  When asked if the information that could have resulted in more convictions was a result of interrogation techniques that may be considered coerced, the Holder team told the judge to assume so.  Out the door went all that evidence.

In a civilian court any number of national security issues are at risk.  A prosecutor has a choice to make, go for the conviction and reveal information that could be priceless to Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, or keep it under wraps and let the perp walk.

In a military tribunal, there is more leeway on the evidence and greater concern over protecting national security secrets.  It is well past time to stop the nonsense of trying these people in civilian court and try them in military tribunals instead.

There is one more thorny issue.  If the mighty Eric had struck out, after telling the American people that failure to gain convictions was not an option, they administration is saying they would have put Ghailani back in Guantanamo or some similar facility and held him as a prisoner of war until the end of hostilities.  If that face saving device is on the table, what is the whole point of even considering civilian trials?  Another head scratching moment brought to you by the most inexperienced administration in the history of the Republic.

Did you ever watch a business, celebrity, or government agency find itself in the middle of a media frenzy that it thinks will soon blow over and instead it only gets worse? In a way, I feel sorry for TSA Administrator John Pistole, but after listening to him try to defend what they are doing, a head slap is the more appropriate reaction. What are these idiots thinking?

Fighting the Last War

Almost every new “solution” the TSA comes out with is to fight the dismal failure they just allowed. Here are a few questions for Administrator Pistole before the TSA’s next grope:

•  How many attempted hijackings have there been by Islamic terrorists since 9/11 that have been thwarted by hardened cockpit doors or air marshals on planes? My guess is none because the Islamic terrorists moved on to the next strategy.
• Perhaps millions of shoes have been removed by passengers and run through the scanning machines. How many shoes have been found containing explosives? My guess is none because the Islamic terrorists moved on to the next strategy.
• Perhaps this question is too early to ask, but I’ll go ahead anyway, how many people have been electronically denuded and or intimately fondled that resulted in the capture of an underwear bomber? My guess is none because the Islamic terrorists moved on to the next strategy.
• How many people attempted to commandeer a plane using nail clippers? And why was a soldier, who was carrying his unloaded carbine on a military flight stripped of his nail clippers because they might be used as a weapon to take over the plane? “What about this?” the soldier asked the TSA agent, tapping the stock of his carbine.  Blank stare. “I’ll need those clippers, sir.” I am not kidding (click here to read the story). It just might be, but I doubt it that the Islamic terrorists are saying, “Why didn’t we think of that?” But is it probably more likely they are saying, “Take over a plane using WHAT???”

How About Trying Something That Works?

After all we learned from the 9/11 hijackers what did we do? We focused on nail clippers, cockpit doors, and using technology to screen flyers. But political correctness kept us then and continues to keep us stupid. Richard Reid the shoe bomber was next up.

On December 21, 2001, Reid attempted to board a flight from Paris, France to Miami, Florida, but his boarding was delayed because his disheveled physical appearance aroused the suspicions of the airline passenger screeners. Reid also did not answer all of their questions, and had not checked any luggage for the transatlantic flight. Additional screening by the French National Police resulted in Reid’s being re-issued a ticket for a flight on the following day. He returned to the Paris airport on December 22, 2001, and he boarded American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami, wearing his special shoes packed with plastic explosives in their hollowed-out bottoms.

He “aroused suspicions” and “did not answer all of their questions”. So why was this guy allowed to board a plane, ever? But board he did and he attempted to set off his shoe bomb in mid-flight. He didn’t try to commandeer the plane and fly it into a building, mind you; been there, done that. If for some unknown reason we felt compelled to allow him to fly he should have had his own air marshal, at about 6’5” and 265 rock solid pounds named Bruno who should have introduced himself to Reid saying, “Hi, the name’s Bruno, I’ll be sitting next to you personally escorting you on your flight. Have a nice day.” Instead they let Reid on the plane, and he tried to light the fuse but it would not ignite, it is presumed because of the one day delay he was walking around in the rain and profusely sweating, that he might have dampened the fuse. But don’t worry, I am sure we had many engineers working feverishly to design some technology to prevent another 9/11.

From that moment forward we could not leave home to fly without carefully checking our socks for holes so we would not be embarrassed when everyone was walking around without shoes. Naturally that was also probably the last time we would see a shoe bomber, but never mind.

Then there was the Christmas Day bomber. Here is part of his tale:

On November 11, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named “Umar Farouk” had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad, but the cable did not reflect Abdulmutallab’s last name. Abdulmutallab’s father made a report to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19 regarding his son’s “extreme religious views”, and told the embassy that Abdulmutallab might be in Yemen. Acting on the report, the suspect’s name was added in November 2009 to the U.S..’s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. It was not added, however, to the FBI’s 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.’s 4,000-name No Fly List, nor was his U.S. visa revoked.

U.S. State Department officials said in Congressional testimony that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab’s visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested that his visa not be revoked. The intelligence officials’ stated reason was that revoking Abdulmutallab’s visa could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida.

Abdulmutallab’s name had come to the attention of intelligence officials many months before that, but no “derogatory information” was recorded about him. A Congressional official said that Abdulmutallab’s name appeared in U.S. reports reflecting that he had connections to both al-Qaeda and Yemen. The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab’s American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab’s visa application earlier in 2009. The British did not inform the Americans because the visa application was denied to prevent immigration fraud and not for a national security purpose.

He bought his ticket with cash. The ticket agent refused to allow him to board the plane because he did not have his own passport, but somehow he and a “smartly dressed man” talked their way around that and he boarded the plane.

Always Two Steps Behind

So now, all of us are getting our freedom and dignity removed so that the next underwear bomber, who will never come, won’t blow up a plane. So now we have printer cartridges filled with explosives being shipped in the cargo hold. What are the full body scanner’s going to do about them? Nothing. We will have to spend millions more developing full cargo scanners and while we are working on that, the terrorists will be figuring out how to detonate explosives carried in a body cavity of a person on a plane. The new full body scanners cannot currently see into body cavities. So just imagine what the TSA will roll out after that attempt. “Just grab your ankles, this won’t hurt a bit.”

It’s Time to Get Serious Rather than Clever

It’s time to back off on the machines. Technology can be a very useful tool, but it cannot be used as a solution for all problems and this is coming from a guy who spent over 20 years in Information Technology. We need to go back to some very old, but very effective tools: brains, eyes, ears, and nose. Apply the technology resources where they will do the most good, handling information and getting the right names on the right lists to keep people off planes who are dangerous. Make their lives inconvenient by making them travel by boat, train or car, rather than putting the rest of us through hell.

The TSA should have agents checking the people,  rather than looking at monitor screens and IDs. Study their eyes, their demeanor, how they look, how they move, their behavior focusing particularly on Islamic males between the ages of 20-40. It is not racial profiling it is terrorist profiling. If anyone causes a TSA agent to feel the least bit wary, do not hesitate to politely ask that person to step out of line and question them. If the agent is not satisfied, take the person to an interrogation room and give them a detailed interview and if need be give them the full body search and if that means you have to do that to 10, 20, 30, or 50 people of similar age, color, sex, national origin, and religion in a row, do so without hesitation and brook no interference.

Between the shoe bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, and the Times Square bomber we got very lucky. But it is not as if we didn’t have the opportunity to stop them using our brains, eyes, ears and noses. We didn’t need the sophisticated technology that we so fervently pursue and believe in and we didn’t use the tools we have had for thousands of years.

I am not optimistic that we will get control over this problem. What we probably need is fewer TSA agents who are more highly paid and more thoroughly trained in behavioral analysis, but the current topic of discussion is how we can unionize all the TSA workers. That’s what we need now folks, a great way to protect the incompetent TSA workers and discourage the good ones to the point of quitting to do more interesting and less restrictive work.  Let’s start using our heads.  The American people are outraged because they don’t see the intrusion worth the risks.  If the TSA can’t figure it out perhaps they shold consult the Israelis.  Or is this administration too busy turning them into our enemies too?

Over the past few days we have learned of a new tack by Al Qaeda on how to strike at America.  It is not by commandeering planes and crashing them into buildings, it is not by putting homicide bombers into passenger seats, it is now by sending packages with bombs inside from overseas to targets in the U.S.   It is very disturbing to know that Al Qaeda is not giving up, despite the piles of olive branches Barack Obama has laid at the feet of these despots.

Equally disturbing, for those of us in the First Congressional District in New York, is the scorecard just issued by national security organization Keep America Safe, which just gave Congressman Tim Bishop its lowest possible score, an “F”.  It explained:

Bishop’s grade of F is based on a comprehensive study undertaken by the group, which analyzed every significant national security vote cast by Rep. Bishop since he assumed office in 2003. Bishop’s failing grade is rooted in his multiple votes to transfer terrorist detainees, currently housed at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. soil, thereby granting them additional Constitutional rights and hindering intelligence gathering.

Bishop further cast a vote against allowing the U.S. military to develop a contingency plan to deal with the growing threat posed by Iran.

The ranking was based on House member’s votes on twenty-seven national security rated bills.

As our enemies continue to try to kill us, can we afford weakness in our resolve to defeat them?

Other scorecards

How has Tim Bishop measured up on other scorecards?  Here is a sampling:

• ACLU – Tim Bishop has an 83% lifetime favorable rating from the organization
• The Club for Growth is an organization that supports policies that will help grow the economy through limited government and economic freedom.  A growing economy, naturally, creates jobs.  Mr. Bishop’s rating is 0% from the Club for Growth
• Another security organization, the Center for Security Policy, gives Mr. Bishop a score of 25%
• The American Conservative Union gives Mr. Bishop a lifetime score of 2.86% favorable, with a rating for 2009 of 0%.  While I understand Mr. Bishop is not a conservative, neither is he middle of the road. You cannot get much further left than a 2.86% lifetime rating from the ACU coupled with voting lockstep with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.  Some of Mr. Bishop’s positions that earned him this low rating include:
  • He voted against a bill to end TARP and return the unspent TARP money to the Treasury
  • He voted for the stimulus
  • He voted against a Republican proposal to balance the budget within ten years and extend the Bush tax cuts and $482 billion in spending cuts over five years.  In his debate with Randy Altschuler he scoffed at Republicans seriously having a plan to cut spending. Well there it is, and he voted against it.
  • He voted against deleting an earmark for an airport in Rep. John Murtha’s district in Pennsylvania.  Murtha, one of the kings of pork before passing away, channeled $150 million to this airport that handles six flights a week. A Wall Street Journal reporter visited this airport and said that they walked around for fifteen minutes before seeing another person.  Just what the taxpayers in New York need Tim Bishop to vote for, wasteful spending in Pennsylvania.
  • He voted against additional funding for missile defense, a function of Congress that is actually in the Constitution.
  • He voted for Cap and Trade, that will cause energy prices like home heating oil and gasoline to skyrocket.  Most of Long Island’s electricity comes from fossil fuels so this should also drive up electricity prices, already among the most expensive in the country.
  • He defeated an amendment to impose spending caps through 2014, limiting spending and deficits to a percentage of GDP.
  • He opposed spending cuts to the budgets of the Housing and Transportation departments by 5%.
  • He voted for ObamaCare over the strong objection of his constituents
  • He voted against extending the ban on the death tax, which could impact many small businesses and family farms in his district.
• The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council gave Tim Bishop a rating of 0%.

It is clear that Mr. Bishop is not a moderate, middle of the road, Democrat.  He often votes against the concerns of his constituents and in lockstep with the leadership of his party.  That would be an indication that he has his focus on moving up the ladder of his party and getting more power rather than serving his district.  At a time when jobs and the economy are critical to get our country moving again, Tim Bishop’s record is among the most anti-business in the entire Congress.  It is business that creates jobs, not government.  How can Mr. Bishop possibly hold the solution to the problem?

Mr. Bishop’s Support

So where does Mr. Bishop’s support come from?  In reading news stories, comments on newspaper articles, blogs and the like, the constant theme that I hear is that Mr. Bishop is responsive to the individual needs of his constituents and helps them with their problems.  Okay, that may be true and I have also heard the arguments from the other side that if you disagree with him, he is deaf to your requests for support.

Let’s talk about what is commonly known as constituent service, that is, helping people in the district with their individual problems.  This is a noble thing to do, but let’s also look at why they need the help?  How did the problem come about?  It is probably because government has gotten so big, and so complex, and is increasingly embedded in our lives, that we sometimes need to reach out to those more powerful (Mr. Bishop) to cut through the red tape.  But here is a thought experiment for you.  What if the government wasn’t so big?  What if Washington didn’t try to tell you what kind of light bulb to buy, what kind of toilet to install, how many thousands upon thousands of tax regulations you have to follow?  What if the government in Washington focused on those powers given to it under the Constitution and left the rest to state and local government and to ourselves?

What the people who support Mr. Bishop speak most passionately about is little more than a Tammany Hall fixer.  He wants his constituents to depend on him.  The more he can help out, the more they will vote for him and get their friends to vote for him.  So he is motivated to make the government bigger and more complex and then rather than deal with it yourself, you go to him to deal with it for you.  It’s time to break the cycle of dependency.

An Historic Moment

This election day presents an historic moment to turn the tide against big government.  Government that doesn’t listen to the people because it thinks the people are incapable of taking care of themselves.  Tim Bishop thinks he is smarter than all of us and he has proven that he thinks the fundamental purpose of the Constitution is to provide for the common good.  The Constitution says no such thing.  The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government to the few things that are best done for all of us, such as, national defense, a common currency, a court system, delivery of the mail, and manage or relationships with foreign nations.  It is not about light bulbs or toilets or government run health care.  It is for those things that affect all Americans, equally.  The reason we have legislation that is two and three thousand pages long is because this leviathan government has its tentacles into the far corners of our lives.  It is time to vote for a change.  It is time to start putting the monster back in its cage, where we are the masters, not the slaves.  Where we have the freedom to live our lives without interference from government intrusion.

Do you want your freedom for yourselves and your children, or do you want to continue to grow a massive government that will condemn your children, grandchildren and generations onward to a debtor’s prison, forever paying for the choice we make tomorrow?  Think carefully, my friends, your family is depending on it.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  — XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Well that’s a pretty bold statement.  Who am I to say that children of Illegal Aliens are not Citizens upon birth?  I say that because of the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that most people choose to ignore.  It is a two part statement.  The first part concerns being born or naturalized in the United States and the second part states that you must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  It’s not either or, the requirement is that both conditions must be met.

We have in the news talk about Lindsey Graham introducing a new Constitutional Amendment to bar children of illegal aliens becoming citizens upon birth.  I don’t think that step is necessary.

Let’s look at the history.  The infamous Dred Scott decision said that no black of African descent could be a citizen of the United States, even if they were freed blacks.  After the Civil War Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which stated:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Prior to the passage of this law, citizenship was conferred on individuals by the states and U.S. citizenship flowed from that.  This law reversed the process.  Why?  Because some southern states could have prevented blacks from becoming U.S. citizens by blocking state citizenship.  By turning it around, they were U.S. citizens first and then citizens of the states in which they lived.  Similar language was included in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent subsequent Congresses from repealing the 1866 Act.  In the Fourteenth Amendment, the language regarding Indians was dropped.  There were some concerns raised that this would automatically confer citizenship upon Indians, who also had allegiance to their tribes.  Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship clause said this:

“Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Senator Lyman Trumbell, who was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof {meant} not owing allegiance to anybody else…subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”  Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they owed allegiance, even if only partly, to their tribes.

So if an illegal immigrant comes to the United States and has a child, is that child automatically a United States citizen?  Does this action comply with the Fourteenth Amendment?  To the first part yes, they are born here; but to the second part, no.  The mother is a citizen of her home country and is thus subject to the jurisdiction of that country, not the United States.  Secondly, she is here illegally so she is exempting herself from rather than subjecting herself to, our immigration laws.  As for the child, a newborn can hardly swear allegiance to any country, so in all cases it fails the second part of the Citizenship Clause.  Consider diplomats who may be assigned to the United States.  If the French Ambassodor’s wife has a baby while posted here, is her child not French?

Let’s take another look at the history.  In Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court held that a “native Indian who had renounced allegiance to his tribe did not become ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States by virtue of the renunciation.”  It went on to state, “The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian Tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States.”  So that would mean an illegal alien could not come to the United States and declare in the delivery room, “I renounce my allegiance to [fill in country here],” and then her child would be a citizen.  “Neither the ‘Indian Tribes’ nor ‘individual members of those tribes,’ no more than ‘other foreigners’ can ‘become citizens of their own will.”  In other words there has to be a treaty or other legislation that allows the renunciation.  Congress began extending citizenship to various Indian tribes beginning in 1870.

In a later Supreme Court decision United States v Wong Kim Ark “conferred birthright citizenship to legal residents of the United States.”  It appears that the language of the majority opinion is broad enough to allow interpretation that this also extends to children of illegal aliens, but it should only take a Supreme Court challenge or legislation to clarify the meaning of the Citizenship Clause to do what the authors of that clause originally intended.  There is no need for the arduous process of a Constitutional Amendment.  With the will of the American people as strong as it is for regaining control of the immigration situation, this could be done with a new Congress in January.

Reference: The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Regnery (Washington, 2005)

Yesterday, at a joint session of Congress, Filipe Calderon the President of Mexico addressed the joint body.  In his address he openly criticized the new immigration law recently passed in Arizona.  This law was passed by a duly elected legislature in Arizona and signed by the governor.  To their great disgrace most, if not all, Democrats as well as President Obama’s cabinet members gave the Mexican president a standing ovation.  These Members of Congress took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Are these Members of Congress going to now claim, well… Mexico is a friend, not an enemy so we can actually help them wipe their feet on the Constitution?

An analysis done by Megyn Kelly, an anchor on Fox News and an attorney, compared federal law and Supreme Court decisions to the new Arizona law. She found that current federal law is tougher than what was recently passed in Arizona.  Under federal law, police can stop anyone for any reason or no reason and ask them for their immigration status.  In Arizona, a police officer can only ask immigration status if, while in the course of stopping the individual for another reason and they suspect the individual may be in the country illegally, for example, if they don’t have a valid driver’s license.  If they can produce a valid driver’s license, the inquiry is over.

So let’s recap.  Existing federal law is tougher than the recently passed Arizona law regarding asking an individual for proof they are here legally.  The federal government is AWOL on enforcing immigration law.  Arizona acted where the federal government failed.  Attorney General Eric Holder calls the Arizona law discriminatory and a potential law suit target, but without actually reading the law.  It is also clear, he does not know the federal laws he has sworn to uphold.  Janet Napolitano also has not read the law and she has a sworn duty to secure the homeland.  She also does not know the federal laws in place that she should be enforcing.  Both of these individuals along with most, if not all, Democrats in Congress give a standing ovation to a foreign head of state who criticizes a properly passed state law.  The whole lot of them are a disgrace to this country and should be booted out of office at the first opportunity.

There comes a time when you have to realize saving face is not worth putting your countrymen at risk.  After the terror attack on Foot Hood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said:

“The system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days,” Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary said, in an interview on “This Week” on ABC. Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, used nearly the same language on “Face the Nation” on CBS, saying that “in many ways, this system has worked.”

Later, both Napolitano and Gibbs had to “amend” those statements.  After a botched terror attack in New York City, Secretary Napolitano was quick to conclude it was a “one-off”.  No problem folks, it’s all clear.  Later in the day reports were that officials were increasingly seeing international links to the bombing.

What is it with Napolitano and her rush to sound the “all clear”?  Wouldn’t it be prudent to let the investigation lead where it is going to lead?  The last place we need such superficiality is at the Department of Homeland Security.  President Obama should replace her before her next goof leads to serious damage to the country.

The situation down on the Arizona border has reached crisis proportion.  With no help from Washington in defending our borders, the state of Arizona has passed a law that will help it identify illegal immigrants.  This has sparked a controversy because protecting the border is a federal function.  Gee, imagine that, something that is actually in the Constitution that the Obama Administration is supposed to do, they don’t seem to have time for because they are too busy doing what they are prohibited by the Constitution from doing.

This is probably the last thing that Obama wanted.  If he agrees with Arizona he essentially has abdicated his federal responsibility to that state as well as shown he cannot carry out his duties.  If he disagrees with Arizona, he seems to be saying he doesn’t care if Arizona is being overrun by illegals, he wants them here.  So true to form, he punts.  He said he wants the Congress to take up comprehensive immigration reform right away.  What happens in Arizona in the mean time?

Whatever Happened to the Fence?

I have seen a number of estimates on the cost to build the fence along the Mexican border.  Michael Chertoff, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, estimated that a 2,000 mile “state of the art” fence would cost between $4 and $8 billion.  Other estimates range as high as $50 billion.  Didn’t we just squander $787 billion in stimulus money that did nothing?  Why didn’t we take that money and finish the fence?  A real fence like the Israelis put up?  Isn’t there a large amount of the so-called stimulus money unspent?  This is a national security issue.  Why doesn’t this administration get on it?

The other day George Stephanopoulos of ABC News had the temerity to ask President Obama his response to criticism from Sarah Palin on his new nuclear policy.  In his typical haughty way he said:

“Because last I checked,” he added, “Sarah Palin’s not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”

A child on the playground, as Ms. Palin explained, understands nuclear deterrence better than this president.  Tell a child that you can punch me in the nose and I won’t strike back and you’re asking for trouble.  How far along has President Obama’s “let’s all be friends” initiative gotten us?  He is reduced to scolding Iran and saying “this time we really, really mean it,” while Ahmadinejad snickers in his sleeve.

The Turning Tide

Rasmussen has added a feature to go along with their Daily Presidential poll that measures favorability of media reports on President Obama.  What struck me when I looked at them today was that the favorable had dropped below 50%.  Uh-oh, Mr. President, call your office.  If he loses the lame stream media, stick a fork in his presidency, it’s done.

The left is gathering a circular firing squad and first up is Mr. Stephanopoulos himself, as indicated by this account:

“In effect,” wrote Steven Benen of The Washington Monthly, “the ‘GMA’ host was saying, “Some conspicuously unintelligent right-wing media personality said something stupid about a subject she knows nothing about. Mr. President, how do you respond?”

However, Stephanopoulos was having none of it, responding:

“Whatever Steve thinks of Sarah Palin,” he wrote, “she’s a former VP candidate — and potential challenger to President Obama — with a strong following in the GOP. She made a pointed critique of a new Presidential policy. By asking the President for his response, I was doing my job.”

Wow, impertinent questions for President Obama and respect for Sarah Palin, coming from the lame stream media.  This could get very interesting.