Immigration · Immigration Reform · Sarah Palin

Palin’s Immigration “Solution” Panned By Fox News Pundits

Does anything that woman says, politically, make any sense at all?

News Hounds

Add Dana Perino’s name to the growing list of Fox News personnel who are less than impressed by Sarah Palin. On last night’s (7/9/10) O’Reilly Factor, Perino beat liberal Leslie Marshall to the punch of panning Palin’s “solutions” for the country’s immigration problems discussed in the previous segment.

Bill O’Reilly, who had neatly come close to destroying Palin’s credibility on the issue during their discussion, asked Perino, “You heard Governor Palin. What did you think. Does she have a plan that would work?” Notably, he refrained from commenting in that regard, himself.

Perino answered, “Well, I didn’t hear a lot of specifics and, because she is not the president, she doesn’t have to provide a lot of specifics. But I think that interview was instructive for a couple of reasons, Bill… One thing that was concerning to me is when she said she would send as many troops as it would take on the border. I think that’s as unspecific as what President Obama has said… The question of how many it would take, I mean, I don’t think anybody really knows that. So she would need to get more specific there. And in addition to that, you hit the nail on the head with the problem of the 12 million people who are already here. And it might sound OK to say that you would just send them all back and deport them. But our country is not going to do that. We’re not going to stand for it. And plus, many of these people have had children here. We’re not going to send them back.”

Liberal Leslie Marshall joked that if Perino didn’t stop agreeing with her, they wouldn’t be allowed back.

Nobody said a good word about Palin’s “solutions.”

GOP · GOP Agenda · GOP Hypocrisy · GOP Leadership Quagmire · GOP Obstructionism

The Republicans Are Still Looking For A Leader

Mark Halperin says that angry anti-Obama rhetoric is not enough to make the case that the GOP can fix the problems this country faces.  In fact, I’ll add that the GOP were the ones that created the problem, while the Dems are in the process of fixing them. 

However, all we have to remember is that it appears teabaggers, birthers as well as  right-wing media hysteria and “logik” look at all things Obama and the current political situation in our country from an extreme Orwellian view. 

Hence, whatever lies the GOP, Fox news and the rest of right-wing media and talk radio tell  these people, it makes perfect sense and to them.  To them,  GOP lies are in fact “truisms”. 

I am quite curious to see the outcome of the 2010 mid-terms based on the above factors.

Time Magazine – Mark Halperin

Barack Obama’s poll numbers may be down and the economy struggling, but the Republican Party still lacks the concrete ideas it once had. Angry anti-Obama rhetoric is not enough to make the case that the GOP can fix the nation’s vast problems. Even more important, in difficult times voters require a flesh-and-blood alternative to provide leadership and reassurance, or they’ll stick with what they’ve got.

But at this crucial moment, one party honcho after another has eliminated himself as a plausible spokesman. The latest gaffe of party chief Michael Steele — saying the Afghan conflict is a war of Obama’s choosing — rendered him, once and for all, irrelevant. The normally low-key House Republican leader John Boehner opted to go toe to toe with the President in late June and came up on the losing side after he suggested that the financial crisis Obama inherited was no bigger than an “ant.” The top GOP man in the Senate, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, is a strong inside player but is well aware that he will never be a persuasive public advocate. (See ten races that have Republicans worried for 2010.)

The party’s possible 2012 presidential candidates are either too polarizing to sway swing voters (Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich) or inclined to lie low this year (Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour). Other congressional leaders are far too green or unskilled to mount or keep their balance on the national stage.

The presidential megaphone can almost always drown out the competition, even if the Republicans get their act together and unite over a “Lower taxes, less government” mantra. Unless the GOP — quickly — finds an appealing, aggressive and competent face for itself, Obama is going to have an easier time protecting his Democratic allies and shoring up his own strength than the polls currently suggest.

Tea Party · Tea Party Racists

Tea Party Finally Admits It with – “Yup I’m a Racist” Shirts

Vyan Blogspot

From the July 4th Tea Party Rally in Lexington Kentucky where T-Shirts declaring “Yup,’ I’m a Racist!” were sold.

The Shirt Says on the Front: Yup, I’m a Racist

On the Back: if the Government Says so Because…

1. I support the Constitution

2. I support Free Speech

3. I support the Right to Bear Arms

4. I support the Bill of Rights

5. I support Capitalism

6. I support NO Government Bailouts

7. I support closing the border

8. I support the Military

9. I support the Tea Party

10. I support Jesus Christ as My Savior.

This apparently passes for Irony in Tea Party World. Somehow, just like Alanis Morisette, I do not think they know what that word means.

This list is not why anyone in the Tea Party was ever associated with or accused of bigotry or racism – this is…

Continue reading…

United States Dept. of Justice

United States v. Jan Brewer

The Department of Justice had no choice, but to sue the state of Arizona regarding their soon to be implemented “papers please” immigration law.   Arizona was the first state to impose state law on what is usually seen as a federal issue.

The DOJ uses Arizona in this instance, but the case will set precedence for  any future states that might impose the same types of laws.  Think ProgressProgress Report explains the law suit in detail:

Progress Report

Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was deciding whether to file suit against Arizona’s recently approved immigration law, SB-1070. “President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy,” said Clinton. This Tuesday, the DOJ officially filed a lawsuit  in U.S. District Court in Phoenix against the state government and Gov. Jan Brewer (R), arguing that SB-1070 violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The lawsuit is based on “federal preemption,” or the notion that that the Constitution’s supremacy clause mandates that federal law preempts state law “in any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts or interferes with federal law.” “Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.” The government further requested that a federal court issue an injunction to bar the law from going into effect on July 29th.  However, proponents of SB-1070 remain overly confident in the legal validity of the law and continue attacking the Obama administration for daring to challenge it.


The DOJ brief argues that “Arizona impermissibly seeks to regulate immigration by creating an Arizona-specific immigration policy that is expressly designed to rival or supplant that of the federal government.” While proponents of SB-1070 insist that “there’s complete consistency” between it and federal immigration law, the DOJ notes that SB-1070 not only departs from federal immigration law in several instances, it also conflicts with it. SB-1070 requires local police to check the immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that a person who has been stopped is undocumented. It also allows legal residents who suspect that local law enforcement is not enforcing SB-1070 to individually clog the courts with lawsuits against police officers. The DOJ criticizes the “mandatory nature” of this provision, stating that the excessive burden it places on police, U.S. citizens, and legal immigrants “conflicts with and otherwise stands as an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”  



Proponents of SB-1070 have argued that the federal government has little legal standing. Even the architect of the bill, lawyer Kris Kobach, dismissed the federal preemption claim as a “remotely plausible argument,” noting that “numerous judicial precedents supporting the Arizona law will make this an uphill climb.” Kobach points out that the Supreme Court decision in De Canas v. Bica determined that “states and cities can enact laws discouraging illegal immigration.” However, Justice William J. Brennan also wrote in his opinion that “the power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” The case also established three scenarios in which a law would be federally preempted, and many legal experts have argued that SB-1070 fits multiple criteria. Kobach also cites Gonzales v. City of Peoria, overlooking the fact that while the decision stated that “state law authorizes Peoria police to enforce the criminal provisions” of the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), “this authorization is limited to criminal violations.”



After being notified of the lawsuit, Brewer maintained that the “Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional” and erroneously claimed that “[i]t mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades.” Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and John McCain (R-AZ) blasted the President, accusing the “Obama Administration” of not doing “everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona” — despite the fact that violent crime is down along the border. “Until it does,” argued McCain and Kyl, “the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.” Pearce called Obama a “dictator,” accusing him of “ignoring the rule of law and siding with lawbreakers over the citizens of this country.” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and 19 other House Republicans sent Holder a letter saying that the suit “reflects the height of irresponsibility and arrogance.” Even three Arizona Democrats facing a tough reelection slammed the DOJ’s decision. While analysts debate the political fallout of the lawsuit, Utah Police Chief Chris Burbank — who may have to enforce a copycat version of the law — is relieved, hoping that, at the very least, the whole ordeal will “spur the federal government toward its need to take a look at a very big, sweeping reform of immigration law.”

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder · PTSD Benefits · Veteran's PTSD

Government To Stop Requiring Veterans To ‘Prove’ PTSD

Well it’s about time…

Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — The government is making it easier for combat veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder to receive disability benefits.

The Veterans Affairs Department plans to announce Monday it will no longer require veterans to prove what might have triggered their illness. Instead, they would have to show that they served in combat in a job that could have contributed to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Veterans advocates and some lawmakers have argued that it sometimes could be impossible for a veteran to find records of a firefight or bomb blast. They also have contended that the old rule ignored other causes of the disorder, such as fearing a traumatic event even if it doesn’t occur. That could discriminate against female troops prohibited from serving on front lines and against other service members who don’t experience combat directly.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the change in policy “long overdue.” Last year, Schumer and Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., proposed legislation similar to the new rule.

“It is so unfair to put the burden of proof on the brave men and women who have already put themselves in harm’s way,” Schumer said Thursday. “These guidelines rectify that and should bring more veterans who’ve served their country the help they need.”

A study last year by the RAND Corp. think tank estimated that nearly 20 percent of returning veterans, or 300,000, have symptoms of PTSD or major depression.

The change in regulations was first reported by The New York Times.

Politics · Politics News · Rob Teilhet Campaign Ad

Georgia Democratic Candidate Unveils Provocative Ad Featuring Shooting Victim’s Mother (VIDEO)

I’ve lived in Georgia since 1998.  This is a case that is not only despicable, but outrageous as well.  The sad truth is, this sort of thing is “politics as usual, in these parts”.

Huffington Post

A Democratic candidate running for state attorney general in Georgia is going up on the air with a campaign ad that may prove to be the most provocative spot of the election season.

The thirty-second television clip from State Rep. Rob Teilhet highlights the 2003 shooting death of Kenneth Walker — a controversial and heart-wrenching tragedy in which Teilhet’s primary opponent, Ken Hodges, played a key role. The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer relays the background:

Hodges was the special prosecutor who presented the Kenneth Walker case in November 2004 to a Muscogee County grand jury, which did not indict former deputy sheriff David Glisson for his role in Walker’s death. Glisson shot Walker during a traffic stop related to a drug investigation. Walker was unarmed at the time of the shooting and no drugs were found in the vehicle.Glisson is white and Walker was black, and the case caused a racial division in the community.

 Emily Walker, the victim’s mother, appears as the singular voice in the new and emotional ad from Teilhet that features footage of the final moments in her son’s life.

“You are seeing the last minute of my son’s life,” Walker says. “He was in a car that was pulled over by mistake. He was lying on the ground unarmed when a police officer shot him twice, in the head. But the officer got off, because the prosecutor, Ken Hodges, forgot to swear him in, tried to hide the video, and then refused to reopen the case. I could never get an answer why. “Mr. Hodges should not be our next attorney general.”


Fear Mongering · Fox & Friends · Fox Nation · Fox News Distortions · Glenn Beck · Glenn Beck Delusions · Glenn Beck Lies · GOP · GOP Agenda · GOP Hypocrisy · GOP Lies · J. Christian Adams · President Obama · Rush Limbaugh · Wing Nut Reaction

Conservative media use New Black Panthers case as excuse for race-baiting

More on the “New Black Panther” screed from Fox News and the right wing media machine… 

Media Matters – Right-wing media have seized on an opportunity for race-baiting with the manufactured scandal surrounding J. Christian Adams’  accusations that President Obama’s Department of Justice engaged in racially charged “corruption” in the New Black Panther Party case. 

Adams: DOJ decision not to pursue charges in New Black Panther case demonstrates unprecedented, racially charged corruption. Adams, a GOP activist, penned a Washington Times op-ed leveling accusations of a “corrupt” and racially charged dismissal of the New Black Panther Party case and appeared in a two-part interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. During the interview, Adams accused the Justice Department of “a hostility in the voting section and in the civil rights division to bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities.” Adams further said that “the decision to dismiss this case was corrupt,” adding, “to abandon law-abiding citizens and abet wrongdoers constitutes corruption.” In a Pajamas Media post, Adams wrote

 If we had that frank, truthful discussion about race, we’d learn that the Obama administration doesn’t believe some civil rights laws protect every American. The Bush Civil Rights Division was willing to protect all Americans from racial discrimination; during the Obama years, the Holder years, only some Americans will be protected. Americans have a right to know and judge the racial policies of the administration they elected in 2008. 

Right-wing media jump on race-baiting opportunity

Beck accuses Obama of aligning himself with “community organizers” like the Black Panther Party. On the July 7 edition of his radio program, Glenn Beck played an audio clip of one of the New Black Panthers who stood outside the Philadelphia polling place. In the audio, which was from a 2008 National Geographic documentary on the New Black Panthers that was completed before the 2008 election day, the New Black Panther said, “I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate it. … You want freedom, you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.” Beck likened the New Black Panthers’ rhetoric to “the kind of stuff” Van Jones “was holding up” with the group STORM, stating: “These are the kinds of people that our president aligns himself with. He already has Van Jones and STORM. How many people do you have to have that are community organizers? Because, really, that’s all that the Black Panthers are: community organizers.”Beck: “This administration is full of … people that will excuse” the “hatred” of the New Black Panthers. On the same edition of his radio show, Beck stated: “What everyone is leaving out is that this administration is full of radicals, full of revolutionaries, full of people that will excuse this kind of hatred.” He then played the audio clip from the National Geographic documentary and stated, “That is incredible. And talk radio is deemed hate speech. I’ve never heard anything like that. I’ve never heard anything like that on talk radio. And if I did hear that on talk radio, I would be all for turning that person off.” 

 Beck: “I’m not sure what racism is any more.” Also on the same edition of his radio show, after again playing the audio from the New Black Panthers documentary, Beck stated, “Now, some people might call this racism because he hates all white crackers.” Beck later said: “I heard this language before in the ’60s, and it didn’t end well. I think we all have to watch our language. I wonder if Nancy [Pelosi] is going to give a speech today about the watching of our cracker language. Of course not. So, I’m not sure if it is officially racism because I’m not sure what racism is any more.” accuses “African American Attorney General” Holder of “blatant reverse discrimination.” In a July 7 post on the New Black Panthers case, Dave Poff wrote: 

 It’s impossible to believe that President Obama and his Administration actually buys in to this idea that we have moved beyond race and into a new generation of a color blind society, when you consider the blatant reverse discrimination his Attorney General (yes, his African American Attorney General) Eric Holder has been pursuing in the name of leveling the playing field in matters of Justice. Holder, it would seem, is still judging people by the color of their skin. [emphasis in original] 

Fox’s Johnson goes after Holder for being “active in black student associations” in college. Responding to a question from Megyn Kelly about “what … we know about Eric Holder and his history of prosecuting this kind of case,” Fox’s Peter Johnson Jr. stated that “[i]n college, he [Holder] was active in black student associations” who had taken over the dean’s office at Columbia. From the July 1 edition of America’s Newsroom

 KELLY: Now, in terms of how high this goes, this is one of the big questions of this case. Just exactly to what extent did the attorney general weigh in on this? To what extent did the top brass in the DOJ weigh in on this? What if anything do we know about Eric Holder and his history of prosecuting this kind of case? 

 JOHNSON: We don’t know at this point. We know that he was a federal judge. We know that he inserted himself in a discussion about race in America early on in this administration. 

 KELLY: And said we’re a nation of cowards — 

 JOHNSON: Correct. 

 KELLY: — when it comes to race. 

 JOHNSON: We know that at Columbia College he was active in black student associations there and at some point there had been a takeover of the dean’s office at Columbia. We know that he spoke recently at Columbia Law School and indicated there that he was grateful to the dean, Dean Henry Coleman, who is a friend of mine as well, who wrote a recommendation for Eric Holder to Columbia Law School in spite of the takeover of his dean’s office. But we know based upon Mr. Christian’s statements to you that this goes to very high echelons in the Justice Department. We don’t know whether it’s Mr. Holder or not — and we also know that people have paid the price in the Justice Department for speaking out on this particular issue. 

Continue reading…