Bin Laden's death may in the end have few political implications for Barack Obama. Possibly because at the heart of it, many of Obama's supporters don't really care about prosecuting the War on Terror.

The Mississippi River is flooding in Tennessee and other river bearing states this week, and the results have been catastrophic. Thankfully, the river’s flooding in Memphis has recently crested. So too, it seems has the bounce President Obama received from the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. The one negative that many feared might result from the killing of Bin Laden on Obama’s watch was that it might have ensured Obama’s re-election in 2012, and the continuation of the policies that will destroy the America that the porn-aholic Bin Laden fought so very hard against (possibly aiming to conquer America to plunder its many porn-stars).

In any case, an Obama re-election would be more catastrophic to America than any flood ever could be. There is hope, however. According to the most accurate pollster in the business (Rasmussen–can’t argue with the results), Obama’s approval rating in the wake of OBL’s kill shots went from 46% to 51%. However, that 51% has within the last week deflated to 47%, well within the margin of error for a 0% bump.

Notably, Obama’s attempts to milk the Osama execution for a public relations bonanza had meager effects upon those who strongly support the president, a rating which still stands at 25%, up only 5% from its all-time low last month. The bigger difference has proved to be in those who strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance as president. That number stands now at 37%, which is a significant drop from the 46% who strongly disapproved not long ago.

Ultimately, the Bin Laden bounce may be fleeting and if anything, it has not increased the support of his base. For now, it seems that it has succeeded in blunting the growing discord among independents. For how long remains to be seen, but those numbers of people who strongly disapprove is again rising, and opposition to Obama on issues like healthcare and the economy remain strong enough catalysts once the campaign rhetoric elevates again to November 2010 levels to reignite those calling for Obama’s ouster. After all, Bin Laden’s blood will not fill anyone’s gas tank.

But, about that ouster… Though Obama’s poll numbers still reflect intense vulnerability in 2012, there does not appear to be any strong Republican candidate to exploit Obama’s foundering. Obama polls barely above a generic Republican challenger in polling taken even after the Bin Laden success, and well below the hallowed 50% mark. However, when any of the major announced Republican challengers’ names are attached to those same polls, Obama’s numbers jump over 50% and it is not even close. Not good. That may be a remnant of the short lived Bin Laden bounce, but it still doesn’t look very good when your real candidate lags far behind the hypothetical generic candidate. It means the brand is good but the personalities are not.

The greatest obstacle to defeating Obama is the Republican baggage that we are currently stuck with in the primary race. The great thing for Democrats about Obama in 2008 was that he was a blank slate. The people who voted for him could make him into whoever they wanted him to be, because he had no paper trail. That is what we need now. We don’t need resurgent politicians from 20 years ago, we need Herman Cains, Marco Rubios, Allen Wests, Chris Christies and Bobby Jindals. No baggage. No B.S.

They have all refused to run thus far, rightly estimating that they are probably not ready to be president. The thing that they may refuse to see is that Barack Obama was not ready to be president either, and is still not ready. A Marco Rubio candidacy is a winning one, and it wouldn’t even be close. The candidates running right now are good guys, sure, but I don’t see anyone yet that has the energy to run the race that needs to be run. Surprise me, Republicans.

-David

Knee Jerks, clockwise: Michael Bloomberg, Clarence Dupnik and Mike NiFong. These guys have a tendency not to think before they accuse--usually for political motives.

The unfortunate, evil and tragic recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona that killed six, including a nine year old girl and a federal judge and wounded fourteen, including Rep. Gabby Giffords shocked the nation. Americans of all sorts mourned a senseless tragedy that by all objective accounts had nothing to do with politics. Within hours of the incident however, reports and stories began streaming from the mainstream media outlets and uniformed politicians and pundits that some political rhetoric, mostly from conservatives like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and probably yours truly was what inspired Jared Loughner, who by all objective accounts was, if anything, politically left of center (atheist, drug abuser, 9/11 Truther, devotee of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf), to attack moderate Democrat Giffords. It became clear at that time that there was a small contingent of shady political operatives who weren’t shocked by the shooting. They were ready.

After the Minnesota I-35W bridge collapse in 2007 and before the bodies could be dredged from the river below, liberals sprang to try to harangue the local and state (Republican) government for not spending enough on infrastructure, when studies later found the collapse due to an original design flaw in the bridge, no one retracted their salvo. Probably because massive infrastructure projects happen to be the major focus of legislative earmarks. After the economic crash in fall of 2008, somehow a 700 billion-ish dollar TARP bail out package and 1,000 page and trillion dollar stimulus package were developed faster than legislators could physically read the bill (which, I might add, was bigger than the Bible—the Bible, people), rife with pet projects for left of center legislators.

Perhaps this premature blame-gaming is due to the emotionally driven rationale that imbues most of the unconstrained political philosophy, and not calculated political dirt-baggery which drives this knee jerk, wrong headed response to crises. Perhaps. After all, Barack Obama had nothing to gain by stoking racial tension in the aftermath of the arrest of (Black) Henry “Skip” Gates for disorderly conduct by the (Black and White) Cambridge police officers by saying that even though he didn’t hadn’t “seen all the facts…it’s fair to say that…the Cambridge police officers acted stupidly”, going on to insinuate that race probably played a role in the arrest. Later evidence proved that Skip was out of his mind and should have been arrested. Nothing to gain, right?

Finger pointing is one thing. Finger pointing when you don’t have any facts yet, just to score political points is another entirely. Let’s not forget now-disbarred Democrat District Attorney in Durham County North Carolina, Mike NiFong who was, as most elected prosecutors are, trying to pad his resume for higher office. He’s the one who ruined the careers and reputations of the Duke Lacrosse team by prematurely declaring them guilty of raping a lying stripper. This incited the campus community against the team and stirred up racial tension. Once the facts were out, it was too late to repair the reputations of the players.

After the attempted Times Square bombing in New York City, the ultimate political opportunist (I’m a Democrat—no, a Republican—no, an independent… wait, what am I again?) Mike Bloomberg was equally quick to claim that the wanna-be bomber must have been a Tea Partier who was upset about Obamacare. Bloomberg quickly ran with the right-wing extremist thing—Mike stated that the culprit was likely a “home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill…” Except that it turned out that the bomber was a Muslim terrorist. Maybe Mike was half right and he was a mentally deranged Muslim terrorist.

But, what about when liberal after liberal, particularly Paul Krugman and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik jumped at the opportunity to blame talk radio, which they don’t listen to, and Sarah Palin’s campaign map, which they had likely never actually seen, for inciting Loughner to violence? “Hate speech” and violent rhetoric were to blame, apparently, and not the evidently paranoid schizophrenic, who built a human skull shrine in his back yard, smoked dope and other hallucinogens, was enamored by ‘conscious dreaming’ and had numerous run-ins with local law enforcement, even on the day of his rampage. Except that by the time these facts were largely available, liberals had two days of the weekend news cycle in the aftermath of the shootings to spread their lies and set the narrative. Magically, Democrat legislators were ready on Monday with a new gun-control law, a renewed push for a free-speech squelching Fairness Doctrine, and Peter King’s misguided sponsoring of a law prohibiting weapons within a 1,000 foot perimeter of elected officials.

Time and again when crisis or tragedy strikes, there is always a liberal legislator who happens to have, tucked away in a dusty drawer in their Rayburn Building office a thousand or so paged bill, drawn up nearly a decade prior. It was Rahm Emmanuel who once said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and liberals, sadly, usually waste no time in attempting to take advantage of them. This is another tragedy born out of the one we already faced—that the names and deeds of those involved are lost in petty attempts to score political points.

Far and away these mass murdering nuts tend to have liberal-leftist political views, if any at all. However, conservatives never imply that liberal politics or liberal politicians have anything to do with lunatic violence. The only reason I even mention Loughner’s politics is to disprove the litany of leftist dilettantes trying to opportunistically ascribe guilt to conservatives. Just as with the Holocaust Museum shooter, who actually stated he was inspired by Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, conservatives usually do not ascribe blame to anyone but the evil people involved. Why? Because, one, they have nothing to do with the tragedies, and two, because we are honorable people. Not knee-jerks.

The president tonight is set to speak to the nation about the events in Tucson. I recommend that he sticks to the facts, calls for Americans to come together in the face of tragedy, appeals to the victims and their families, and denounces the true motive of this crime. If the president drags politics into his speech as so many of his colleagues have, his presidency is over. He will immediately dash his re-election hopes in 2012, and rightfully so. It is time to stop playing politics with tragedies and to focus on what really matters: the victims, their families and their communities.

David Teesdale, didn’t even want to have to write about the political opportunism running amok in the wake of tragedies these days.  Too bad people of sound minds these days have to spend their time combating dangerous foolishness of this sort.

DHS’s newly ‘perpetrated’ directives to TSA regarding naked scanning and enhanced pat downs in airport screenings have created an riotous outcry from the public. Add to that potential health problems caused by the naked scanners, the alternative groping, and the fact that at best, the additional grope scanning only applies to 20% of randomly selected nuns and toddlers. This means that 80% of terrorists with PETs strapped to their crotches will still get through security. I think 100% of suicide jihadists will take those odds 100% of the time.

However, why randomly select flyers to be microwaved for national security when we can profile the biggest threats, like most successful outfits around the world (how many terrorist attacks has TSA stopped again?). While profiling based on traditional criminal and counterintelligence protocols may be a pipe dream at this point, the Israeli’s offer another possible route to employ in the fight against underwear bombers.

Israeli scientists have developed, and Russia is testing a new lie-detection device called GK-1, which analyzes undetectable voice stress in response to routine questioning to winnow those with ill intent from the peaceful passengers.

The device, developed by Nemesysco and to be sold at between $10,000 and $30,000, I heard discussed in a recent Interrogation Training course. Passengers don headphones and are asked to provide the exact name on the identification provided to the security screener at the console. As the screener looks on, they are asked “yes” or “no” questions regarding their intents for the aircraft and the flights.

Uncontrollable and undetectable to the naked ear, voice tremors betray the true intentions of liars in 30-75 seconds. If you pass, you go on with minimal screening. Fail, and the liar is subject to more intensive screening. Out of 500 passengers in testing, the GK-1 machine was able to detect the one passenger planning something illegal. Not bad, and it can’t be worse than the 20% naked booty scanning machine.  You’re welcome, Napolitano.

David Teesdale, thinks that TSA takes naked pictures of thousands of people every day to get on a flights, and it only provides 20% chance of catching a dude with PETs.  It isn’t worth it. All or nothing. A simple solution as airports work to get my lie detector idea implemented: Everybody does the scan, and you have someone more qualified and discreet than your average TSA worker–say, a retired doctor/cable guy review the images.  It’s professional and secure.  Yes.

When Obama reassured America that “”If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period.” Obama was technically being truthful, though artfully so. In the two years since Obama assumed office (and his dubious distinction of being the first socialist president in American history), my health-insurance premiums, like those of many of my colleagues, have tripled. My deductibles have tripled, and my co-pays have increased five-fold. In fact, as my wife and I were examining our Open Enrollment options, it became readily clear that this year for the first time it would probably make more financial sense for us to go without health insurance at all.

But of course, this was the Obama plan all along: “Yes, you can technically keep your health care, *snicker, snicker*, if you like it. Obamacare will not force you into a public option, *suckers*. By no means will you have to leave your insurer, if you like them. *Instead, we will just make it incredibly stupid to carry private health-insurance by raising the operating costs on your insurance company to unsustainable levels*”

Thank you so much, President Barry.  Isn’t this what we’ve been warning of all along?

Karl Rove (pictured), Charles Krauthammer and other conservatives' relationship with the conservative wing in the Republican Party is damaged because the conservative wing does not root for the Republican Party, win lose or draw, regardless of what it stands for.

NPR – GARBAGE NEWS

• So, I am scanning through my FM stations while driving through downtown Knoxville yesterday, and I happened to be unfortunate enough to stumble upon the local National Public Radio station.  All Things Considered, a poor excuse for a radio program, was in the midst of a piece about Democrat Representative Betty Sutton of Ohio’s 13th Congressional District.  The whiny rag by Robert Siegel lamented that she is in a unexpectedly tight race against Republican Tom Ganley, due to the tsunami of discontent with pseudo-socialist policies being rammed down Americans’ throats–ehh, that last part was paraphrased.  In any case, the district is supposed to be safe for Democrats, according to political scientist Dave Cohen: “This is a seat that should not be in play. This is a seat that should be on nobody’s radar… [and the reason] is that a few years ago, a very popular Democratic Congressman here was making noises about running for Governor, against then-Republican Governor Bob Taft.  The Republicans were in the process of re-districting…and so, the Republicans decided to make this district more safe for him as an encouragement for him to stay right there in the U.S. Congress and not challenge Taft for the governorship.” (NPR)

• This tale by the ever-so-objective NPR reminded me of a minute fact that I’d run across regarding gerrymandering of Congressional Districts.  Not only do Democrats gerrymander to make Democrat seats safer, Republicans do the same for their Democrat colleagues!  So much so, in fact, that a Slate article last year documented the most gerrymandered districts in America.  Finding?  Well, by golly, apparently 16 of the 20 most gerrymandered districts in America belong to those ethically inebriated Democrats!  Including none other than everyone’s favorite Banking Committee Chairman, Barney ‘F’ Frank…  Not surprising at all, actually, now that I think of it.

ON DELAWARE AND THE REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION

• Mike Castle is exactly the type of Republican that the establishment Republicans told us in 2008 that the Party needed to become.  This, after the ‘transformative’ election of Barack Obama.  I remember it all over the punditry; gleeful accounts of conservatism’s hull, creaking and bowing, the last gasp before breaking up completely and sinking to the bottom of the proverbial ocean.  Now, they said, the Colin Powells, Lindsey Grahams and Al DaMatos and the rest of the Rockefeller Republicans could paddle out in their dinghies, to take back the Party–or the junk heap that would be left–preferably as a permanent minority–y’know, all the golfing and celebrity benefits but none of the responsibility.  The old Republicans that “got stuff done”, but never did anything?  Those ones.  We work best as a permanent majority, right?

• Think back.  Which types of candidates are the first to be ousted from office in liberal leaning states like Delaware when Republican electoral momentum wanes?  Is it the right-wing Christine O’Donnell types, or the moderate Mike Castle ones?  The conservative fire-brands or the squishy liberals?  Of course, everyone remembers how in 2006 and 2008 all of those right wing Republicans were thrown out on their kiesters in places like Rhode Island and Ohio…  Err, wait, I think it was the other way around…  It was the liberal Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Mike DeWine in Ohio, Ted Stevens in Alaska, Norm Coleman in Minnesota, and a long list of other moderate to liberal Republicans who lost their jobs.  Not those crazy conservatives.

• In any case, we are now to believe that conservatives are best served by nominating John McCains, Lisa Murkowskis, Charlie Crists, Mike Castles and other liberal establishment Republicans.  We’re told this by…  establishment…  Republicans…  Hmm.  In any case, these guys lose elections, they don’t win them–and if they do win, they don’t do a darned bit of good from a policy perspective, a la six years from 2000-2006 under Republican control when we got nothing done of note.  Karl Rove is the most ardent of the numbers guys to espouse this notion, that nominating moderates who presumably stand a better chance of getting elected gives Republicans just barely enough seats for majority power.  True?  Maybe, yeah.  But what kind of power?  Will those moderates go along with policy initiatives to enact real, tangible conservative changes?  The kind that work?  No.  They won’t.  But Republicans will get Chairmanships and Speakerships back, short term, and long term we will lose elections, because moderate policies suck.  And, if you follow political parties like you do your favorite football team–that is, rooting for them to win, sans ideological investment–then that is great (hello D.C. establishment, talkin’ ’bout you!).  And that is what Karl Rove is.  He is a good guy, don’t get me wrong, and it was a pleasure working under him.  But he is a math guy.  His job is to get Republicans power–not to enact transformative changes.  To right America’s current wrongs, we need transformative people.  Not Mike Castles.  Isn’t it about time to let the unelectable likes of Sharon Angle, Scott Brown, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Joe Miller, Bob McDonnell, Marco Rubio and Christine O’Donnell have a shot at this thing?  I think so.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY

• Representation without taxation is more nefarious than taxation without representation.  The latter depends merely on the good intentions of the few, wherein a benevolent oligarchy may in fact benefit the people, for a time.  The former empowers the tyranny of the mob, and falls victim to the Law of Averages in regard to human nature, ensuring misery for all.

-David

Soaring ever higher on wings of wax we chase the wind.

Ozymandias’ folly lay in graven immortal aspiration,

Tho’ left, eloquently set more firmly than any stone edifice,

The muse of ancients; wisdom, mores stewardship,

Fanning the flame sewn upon nature, harbinger of logos.

.

Even as the heirs of this priceless foundation,

Raise ever higher the spires of achievement,

The swill of words leave the looters’ lips,

Sophists’ tendrils to brand with feigned righteousness,

Condemning to serfdom the torch bearing pillars.

.

With hubris they raze aiming to birth morality anew,

The depravity of indulgence without purpose.

If there ever hath been a time, Lord Yahweh,

Show us the way, that time is today,

As Sophist’s hands beat plowshares into swords,

Shine perishing Republic, shine.

A movie derived from Barack Obama's presidency is not one I care to see. How about you?

Michael Douglas’ portrayal of president Andrew Shepherd in the 1995 romantic-comedy The American President fully encapsulated the distracted and whimsical state of presidential politics that real-life president Bill Clinton practiced at that time. This romanticized version of the American presidency was rooted in some order of truth—the presidency in the Nineties was all about a womanizing megalomaniac who was too preoccupied by his personal dalliances to meddle with policy. That is, policy beyond that which would effect his approval rating. Leo Solomon, played by John Mahoney, perfectly embodied the political meme of the day with his shallow line: “politics is perception.” Derivative? Yeah, it was. But that was what it took for president Bill Clinton to sustain his personal brothel at 1600 Pennsylvania—surviving only through his penchant for buoying his poll numbers with staged walks on the beach and puffing out his lower lip.

So what would a movie about the Obama Administration be like? Well…

“In an era where Americans are feared by those who don’t understand them, one man stands between America’s enemies and the people who seek to destroy their way of life. Donga Obongo, the charismatic newly-elected president raised in a foreign land, educated amongst radical communist student organizations, and utterly devoid of private sector employment history, aims to reshape America’s domestic and international agenda in ways no one would ever expect. Obongo has moved to centralize government control of industry, stagnate growth, and capitulate to foes around the globe. Coming to theaters near you in January 2009.”

Uh…

Not quite a blockbuster.

The sad state of things is that real-president Barack Obama is far more dangerous than Bill Clinton. Clinton just wanted to do his own thing—and maybe a few other things… In any case, Obama is not content without being in your business, my business—everybody’s business—as evidenced by his sweeping ‘reforms’ to health care, the economy, and now to American foreign policy.

ILL INFORMED

Cadets listen as President Barack Obama speaks about the war in Afghanistan at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Barack Obama swept to office promising to right the ills of the evil Bush, who acted unilaterally and alienated our allies—he would also shut down Guantanamo, get out of Iraq, and maybe even get the U.S. out of Afghanistan—oh, and by the way, he was going to make everyone that hated us love us again. After all, Obama proudly proclaimed that he is a “citizen of the world,” as we learned when his rock tour stopped in Berlin in 2008. Going on two years later, Guantanamo? Still open. Afghanistan? Doubled down. Iraq? Yep, still there—and, following exactly the plans laid out by the Bush Administration.

The president in a recent speech at West Point  though quipped that “our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power.” The implication is that our military is being stretched to its limits and our adversaries, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and radical Islam are all giddy. This view is misguided. The view, first of all, is un-American in its implication that America is in the business of extending its power. When we conquered Japan, we gave it back. When we conquered West Germany, Italy and France? Gave em’ back. Panama? Gave it back. The Philippines? Yep, gave it back. Cuba? Gave it back. Iraq? Well by golly, aren’t we pulling out after we spent our blood and treasure liberating the sand pile? Even Obama’s implications about our enemies are misguided. Rest assured, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not happy that they are being slaughtered. On the contrary, When the Roman Empire overextended itself and collapsed, the Barbarians that they were subjugating and conquering were not jumping for joy.  Neither are radical Islamists.

THE APOLOGY TOUR

Obama bowing to one of his many suitors.

And how is the apology tour to our enemies going? Alienating our allies in order to woo our enemies has gone swimmingly! The president has insulted our closest allies, the Brits, by giving them a crappy DVD set that wouldn’t work on British DVD players and an Ipod for their 83 year old Queen full of a collection of… Obama’s speeches (and she already had an Ipod). As for our next closest ally, the Israelis, Obama has repeatedly brow-beaten their leaders and blatantly snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu on his visit to the U.S.

On the other hand, Obama has apologized to the Chinese for Arizona’s Immigration law, while they uphold their mandatory abortion and human quota policies and totalitarian human rights violations. He has engaged with Iran, while they continue to enrich their uranium. Obama has also brought the U.S. into negotiations to deal with the more “moderate” elements of the Iranian terrorist arm, Hezbollah. Obama has been similarly chummy with Hugo Chavez, who interestingly still hates America just as much as when Bush was president—except now we have a president who is a charter member of Chavez’s book of the month club. At least that embargo has been loosened against Castro’s Cuba as they hurl insults at the U.S., right?

So what is the score? Well, All of our enemies still hate us and are trying to kill us. However, Israel has publicly spat at the Administration and the U.K. has even hinted that they no longer consider U.K.-U.S. relations to be the “special relationship” coined by Winston Churchill. Fitting, somehow, that the first “post-American president” should stray so far from wooing our traditional allies who are on the side of freedom, by catering to our tyrannical foes.

A SLAP IN THE FACE

The Ipod for Her Majesty was one of many gift gaffes by Obama, including a terrible DVD set which he gave to Gordon Brown in 2009.

American presidents have always spoken softly and carried a big stick. The metaphor is meant to symbolize America’s firmness and restraint. However, no president has ever waged war on America’s sovereignty the way Obama plans to. In his speech to West Point graduates this week Obama crooned about his new world order: “the international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times.” Obama went on to detail the international social safety net that he envisions and that we have seen fail so spectacularly on a smaller scale in Greece, the U.K., France, and more parochially in New Jersey, New York and California. Obama still speaks softly—to our enemies. The stick,on the other hand, is reserved for whacking wildly at our allies for no apparent reason.

Perhaps the greatest insult of all occurred when president Obama invited Mexican president Felipe Calderon to address Congress and White House officials.  Calderon addressed the stupid Americans and ripped the new Arizona Immigration Law either ignorantly or maliciously. Congressional Democrats, who never afforded their own president Bush such a courtesy during State of the Union addresses, leaped to their feet in an uproarious standing ovation that lasted fifteen seconds. Instead of defending his countrymen, Obama, along with Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano (who admitted they have not read the law), also rose in applause. Obama promptly apologized to Calderon for America’s uncultured and unsophisticated people. This act of support for a foreign leader’s attack of the American people in such a slanderous and dangerous way on American soil, let alone at the White House and on Capitol Hill, is a slap in the face. That the president agrees with him is flat out un-American, and this movie does not reflect American values in 2010.  Obama is not the post-American president, he is the Un-American President.

David Teesdale, is a lovable young conservative exiled to the South from his Yankee roots in New York State.  For many reasons, of course, not the least of which is that his lovely city of Utica, NY is rated the fourth worst place in America for business and careers.  Knoxville, his new home is in the top 100 places to live, by contrast. Comment below.

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed the now infamous immigration law S.B. 1070, liberals and race baiters sprang to their feet in feigned outrage. SNL, Jon Stewart, CNN and every liberal politician to the man, decried the “Nazi-like” aspects of the new law, which they claimed would lead to racial profiling and Third Reich-style requirements for ethnic minorities to carry their papers and produce them on demand. News outlets and dilettantes on the left all began to ask the tongue in cheek question: What’s the matter with Arizona?

When the Phoenix Suns changed their uniforms this week they did so to pander to Phoenix's largely Latino population. The MLB's threat to boycott Arizona over their immigration law is all about the bottom line--many Major League Stars are from Central America or are Latino--what is the excuse for the American Left?

Ivory tower leftists across the country immediately joined in unison to decry the bigoted law, celebrities sciolistically spoke out in opposition against the knuckle-draggers in the Copper State, San Francisco and other moonbattish municipalities threatened to boycott Arizona, the Phoenix Suns issued solidarity uniforms in support of illegal Latinos and Major League Baseball’s Bud Selig began considering canceling the 2010 All-Star game, which is to be held in Phoenix. But the real reason for the political reaction to the new law? The sagging poll numbers of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, of course. Cue pragmatic scheming and populist demagoguery from the usual characters–Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann, and CNN/MSNBC, ABC, etc.

If current trends continue as they have for liberals in Congress, the 2010 mid-term elections stand to be a historic drubbing for Democrats, and November will see Democrats lose not just one, but both houses of Congress. What is really at stake, is a demoralized and disengaged liberal base and an invigorated grassroots movement of tea-drinkers which is raising money for conservative candidates and has designs on storming the polls in six short months. If Democrats can manage to muster a populist backlash against a non-issue that is perceived as rampant discrimination and bigotry, they can apply a tourniquet of sorts to their bloody stumps in the Senate and House. It’s what we in the political business call a “wedge-issue.”

And make no mistake, S.B. 1070 is a non-issue at worst, and a solid, necessary piece of legislation at best. Faced with a Federal government which has failed for over twenty years to enforce its own immigration laws at the expense of states like Arizona and California, where billions of dollars annually hemorrhage from local budgets and an ever expanding drug war threatens to engulf border states, who can blame Arizona? All the while, the over twelve million illegal immigrants flooding over the border into the U.S. and refusing to assimilate has increasingly balkanized the Southwest.

Yes, yes human beings can be 'illegal.' Like, when they do illegal things. Leftists don't see the problem posed by illegal immigrants who refuse assimilation, creating hundreds of billions of dollars in costs for tax payers and shifting entire Congressional districts' seat apportionment. The essential problem is that liberals have a tendency to disregard the Rule of Law in implementing their preferred policies. Want more immigrants? Change the law. Don't ignore it.

As just a small proof, just this week students were punished at their school in Live Oak, California for wearing t-shirts emblazoned with American flags, which offended the heavily Mexican student body, one of which was quoted as saying “they can be a patriot on some other day. Not [on Cinco de Mayo].” Also on Cinco de Mayo, a veteran named Jim Brossert (who may be charged) in Reno Nevada marched to a Hispanic-owned store and cut down a Mexican flag, which was being flown illegally positioned above an American flag. Not that the liberal immigration ‘reform’ crowd cares so much about legalities on Cinco de Mayo (which, interestingly, is pretty much an American-only holiday, virtually ignored by Mexicans in Mexico and promoted here in the U.S. by, no surprise, American corporations trying to hauck Coronas). Then of course, there are the riots and rallies by groups like La Raza, which openly advocate turning portions of America over to Mexico.

The Arizona law is nothing more than a reinforcement (if you can call it that) of existing Federal laws enacted by F.D.R. (that weren’t being enforced, oddly enough). An extension of the Federal law to the state, really. The Federal law, passed in 1940, states in 8 USC 1304(e) that:

“Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The idea that the Arizona Immigration law is in any way draconian or cruel and unusual, therefore, is preposterous. Aliens were already required, as is the case in all other foreign countries, to carry their documentation. The Federal government was simply not doing its job, and Arizona decided to take matters into its own hands.

Of course, the main problem sprinkles have with the S.B. 1070 is that the bill empowers local law enforcement to ask for proof of citizenship—“SHOW ME YO’ PAPAHS!”… And, encourages racial profiling. They are way off base, as usual, as the law’s opponents fail to—Well, I’ll just let the law speak for itself:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION.

Reasonable suspicion? Why, that sounds a lot like the grounds necessary for law enforcement officials to search cars or persons for drugs, open containers, missing persons, or any variety of other illegal property.

The law goes on to dictate exactly just what can be used to determine the citizenship status of the person(s) in question:

THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL…OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

Interestingly, that sounds a lot like the law is strictly prohibiting racial profiling (never mind whether the tactic is effective)! The law allows for the following proofs of citizenship or legal residency:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. ….ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Mein Fuhrer demands that anyone of mocha colored skin must SHOW ME ZA' PAPAHS or face immediate deportation! Perhaps some small yellow sombreros can be patched into the clothes of legal Latinos! Heil!

A driver’s license? The horrors! That is just like Germany circa 1939. How dare any government agent demand documents from someone stopped during lawful contact—like… when you are asked to provide a driver’s license, proof of insurance, or a title when you are stopped for speeding, visit the D.M.V., get into an accident, get a job, get married, or apply for a library card… All regardless of your race!

In December my car was rear-ended while parked outside of my home by a car speeding at 40-50 mph in a 30 mph zone, during what amounts to a blizzard in East Tennessee. I rushed outside to see if anyone might be injured given the speed of the crash, only to find the offending vehicle’s airbag deployed, still in drive, embedded in the rear of my brand new car—and the driver was nowhere to be found. Bewildered, I called the police. Thirty minutes later, Angelo Ortiz returned to the scene, with translators, since he didn’t know any English. Ortiz had no valid driver’s license, insurance, or an address that he could recall. His title, which I had examined while he was AWOL, was registered to a guy named Brandon, who I am sure was fictitious or a front. Angelo was clearly an illegal, and under Arizona law, police would be empowered given this reasonable cause to determine Angelo’s immigration status and to enforce Federal immigration laws—instead Angelo didn’t have to pay a dime, and got to continue driving recklessly in his undocumented state.

The feigned outrage over the new immigration bill is less about civil rights and more about misrepresenting the bill in order to fire up the populist base and perhaps even designed to fuel a national amnesty bill for the twelve million lawless potential voters for Democrats. The populist base gets all wee wee’d up when they see ‘outrageous’ headlines like CNN’s: “AZ Immigration law makes it illegal to be in the country illegally.” Really? It is illegal to be an illegal alien? Sadly, many on the left hold just this view. Mike Bloomberg is a great example of this nonsense, as he and other liberals are in favor of “normalizing the status of otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants.” Law-abiding illegals? Isn’t that like calling someone a law-abiding drunk driver or a monogamous adulterer?

Immigration is a glorious thing and is the cornerstone of the American success story. America has taken not the best of every country around the world, but the tired, huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. Not the upper class, but the very lowest of the oppressed people of the world have come to America—and then proceeded to use their new freedom build the wealthiest nation in the history of earth.  All other great empires have been built on that backs of slavery, conquest and colonialism.  America’s success story starts with all of those things, but it was America’s freedoms that made it the great nation that it is.  I love talking to immigrants who come to the U.S. and have embraced what America is about, and love their new country. After all, immigration is what America is all about—but America is also all about the Rule of Law—and people who come here to break those laws, or come here by breaking them, can go right back to where they came from.

The question with the new Arizona Immigration law is not “what is wrong with Arizona?” The real question is what the heck is wrong with the rest of you liberals?

David Teesdale, absolutely loves demolishing liberal shibboleths.  Look it up, it works.  If you would care to comment, encourage, or point out where I’ve gone astray, feel free.