Why Do Liberals Constantly Smear Republicans By Comparing Them To VILE DEMOCRATS???

I watched the Fox News program called “The Five” last night, and the discussion turned to the Alabama immigration law.

Obnoxious and vile liberal Bob Beckel called it “the Bull Connor law.”  I don’t have the transcript of his remark, but it’s a leftwing talking point, so I don’t need it.

There’s only one problem with that: Bull Connor was a Democrat.  He started his career as a Democrat and he ended it as a Democrat.

Google the Wikipedia article on the slimebag.  Copy and paste it into a text file and then search for the word “Republican.”  You’ll get the message box “Cannot find Republican.”  Because Bull Connor WASN’T a Republican.

Try that with “Democrat” and THAT word comes up repeatedly.

In the same way, Republicans invariably get tainted with “slavery.”  It doesn’t matter that the Republican Party had an abolitionist platform, or that the DEMOCRAT Party was the pro-slavery Party.  Those are “facts,” and Democrats hate facts with a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy that has to be seen to be believed.

Again, Republicans are invariably compared to “the Ku Klux Klan” and “pointy hats” and “white sheets,” etcetera, etcetera.  It doesn’t matter that:

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.   As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.

It doesn’t matter that:

“the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan … provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.”

It doesn’t matter that the 1924 National Democratic Convention was so dominated by the Klan that it was called “The Klanbake.”

It never ceases to amaze me that the most vile things Democrats can accuse Republicans of … all actually come from Democrats.  It amounts to Democrats shouting at us, “You are such a vile piece of cockroach crap that you’re a DEMOCRAT!!!”

Here’s another example just out today about Democrts and liberals calling Republicans and tea party people “terrorists” WHEN THEY WERE MORE DAMN TERRORIST THAN WE WERE.

And what makes that vicious label even funnier is that Democrats won’t call the ACTUAL TERRORISTS “TERRORISTS.”

Democrats and liberals routinely call Republicans “Nazis” and “fascists.”  It doesn’t matter that “Nazi” stood for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party” or that the evidence is FAR more extensive that Nazis and fascists were at best the far right of the very extreme LEFT (see also here).

Again, Republicans, according to Democrats, are so evil, so vile, so despicable that they are SOCIALISTS.

Democrats live in a world of lies.  St. Paul could have used the word “Democrats” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 where he wrote, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

It’s not only Jesus Christ or biblical morality Democrats are blind to, it is truth, reason and history.

Obama Continues To Reveal He Is The Lowest Form Of Demagogue

CBS News had the story:

President Obama invoked the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis while criticizing cuts to infrastructure in the Republican budget plan at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.

“According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third,” he said. “…You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big hue and cry, how could this happen in America?”

Obama pointed at the Republican agenda to reign in the utterly out-of-control federal spending that will be absolutely 100% guaranteed to implode America’s economy unless that spending is reigned in, and then demonized the Republicans for a previous bridge collapse.

But as happens far too often in the mainstream media propaganda that often gets to pass for “news,” CBS didn’t fully report the facts.

You see, Obama lied.  Because that’s what he does.  And that collapsed bridge he demagogues to demonize Republicans for - claiming that their budget cuts would eliminate maintenance – didn’t actually have anything whatsoever to do with maintenance:

NTSB: Design errors caused Minn. bridge collapse

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deadly collapse of a Minneapolis bridge last year began at steel plates in a main truss, attributable to a design flaw and not corrosion, federal safety investigators said Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said the bridge collapse was unavoidable once U-10 steel gusset plates failed at the U-10 connection, near the center of the bridge. Investigators also ruled out any pre-existing cracking as a factor in the accident.

A hearing into the collapse quickly focused on the U-10 gusset plates on the Interstate 35W bridge. The safety board as far back as January had identified design flaws in the plates as a critical factor in the collapse.

CNS actually does a little investigation and reports the facts in an article entitled, “Obama Misstates Cause of Minn. Bridge Collapse–Falsely Blames Insufficient Federal Spending“:

Contrary to Obama’s townhall speeech, the bridge did not collapse because of “deteriorating” infrastructure. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the collapse was due to a design flaw, not to a lack of maintenance.

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error,” the NTSB states in its 2008 report on the incident.

In fact, the NTSB reported that on the day of the collapse, the bridge was in the process of being refurbished, further contradicting Obama’s claim that the collapse was evidence of a lack of infrastructure spending.

“On the day of the collapse, roadway work was underway on the I35W bridge, and four of the eight travel lanes (two outside lanes northbound and two inside lanes southbound) were closed to traffic,” reads the NTSB report.

If Obama were a halfway honest man, he would apologize for his vicious demonization that is entirely based on a lie.  But he’s not a halfway honest man.  And so he will count on the fact that the mainstream media will report his lies and not bother to correct them.  Because they are leftwing ideologue propagandists, and that’s how they roll.

You want to know something else I don’t understand?  It’s why we still need so much money for mainstenance projects.  Remember Obams’s so-called “stimulus” and how it was all going to go to such “shovel-ready projects”?  According to the CBO, Obama’s stimulus will cost $3.27 TRILLION.

Where did that money go, Barry Hussein?  Why is it that if Republicans cut so much as a dime, bridges across America will collapse?

Then there’s Obama’s demagogic remarks about border security and immigration:

“The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of
using it as a political football?”

But Obama had total Democrat control of Congress for TWO YEARS.  And he utterly failed to make any kind of serious bipartisan overture whatsoever on immigration reform during a period when Republicans had little chance of stopping much of anything.  He is simply lying and blaming Republicans for his own failure.  Which is to say, the only one using this issue as a “political football” is the guy demonizing others for doing what he himself is clearly doing.

You can again see just how utterly and vindictively partisan and demagogic Obama is in this exchange over the fact that Obama had a major meeting on immigration reform, and refused to invite so much as a single governor from one of the border states:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Did you hear what is  going on in Washington? President Obama is talking about immigration reform. The president held a meeting  today at the White House to discuss the broken immigration system. He met with a  bipartisan group. Guess what, he didn’t invite any governors from border states.  Why not?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer joins us live from  Phoenix. Governor, did you miss your invitation? Did you decline your  invitation? Why weren’t you here at the White House to talk about immigration  reform?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ.: I wish I would have been  invited. No, I do not – I did not get an invite. You would have thought one of  the governors would have been invited since we are on the frontlines fighting  for security there. It was a little bit of a snub, if you will. I think that on  behalf of myself, I think I could have added insight to the situation that  Arizona certainly is facing.

VAN SUSTEREN: I looked at the White House press release. Of  the people who were invited — the category of those — it says stakeholders  expected to attend. I looked up stakeholders to see whether you might be a  stakeholder or Governor Rick Perry. It says a person or group that has  investment share or interest in something as in the business or industry. I  guess it is someone who has a strong interest in the topic. He must think you  don’t have any interest in the issue or you would have been invited.

BREWER: That is very unfortunate if that’s what he believes.  I feel Arizona, I believe I and Rick Perry and certainly the governors on the  border have been leading the fight. We’ve been bringing the message to America.  And I think that we should have been afforded that opportunity to be at the  table to help him understand the situation that we want straightened out.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me tell you who he did think was a  stakeholder and has a huge interest in this partial list — Mayor Bloomberg, who  of course is the mayor who sent investigators down to Arizona to investigate you  about guns, your state, the former police chief of New York Bill Brown,  Secretary Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security.

Then he invited Senator Mel Martinez, former United States senator. Here’s  another interesting one, Greg Page chairman and CEO of Cargill. I thought that’s  an odd one. I understand why, because Cargill was raided in 2007 by immigration  and ice for violations having to do with immigration. They probably have the  inside scoop on that one.

Al Sharpton was invited. The CEO of Facebook, another one. Arnold  Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California not the current governor, and  Richard Trumka, who is AFL-CIO union leader. Those are some of the people that  the president thinks has a greater interest than you do.

BREWER: That’s an unfortunate list as far as I’m concerned.  I didn’t know he had extended the invitation that this meeting was going to take  place.

But it seems by the list and what has been reported back to me this afternoon,  it is people that looking at that wonderful word “comprehensive immigration  reform.” It has nothing to do with what we really need to have done, and that is  to get our borders secured.

I think they are looking to try to talk about amnesty and all these other  issues and the dream act. None of these things in my opinion are going to take  place until we get our borders secured. I don’t think the American people want  to address anything until we feel secure. Our citizens need to feel secure in  their homes. It just continues to grow with the issue of people coming across  our borders illegal, the drug cartels.

VAN SUSTEREN: I may disagree with you a little bit. I would  like a solution that is complete and which protects our borders, protects  Americans and handles all the issues. I would like to see it put behind us. I to  the president’s speech at American university last summer to hear it. I did want  to hear what he said he was going to do.

We haven’t heard anything. He a Democratic house and Senate we don’t hear  anything until now as he gets ready to launch his campaign. And now things have  changed. Now we are hearing it again. I’m deeply disturbed. I think this is  talk. I think his guest list supports that because this is not bringing people  to the table who have real interests in this.

BREWER: I absolutely agree with you. The bottom line is that  he has a different agenda than what the American people have. Unfortunately, we  keep talking and we keep contacting him with our concerns, really no response,  no concern. Of course now we are in the election period so we now he’s going to  be standing up and talking about he’s going to do this and that. He’s had two  years to deliver what he promised two years ago and hasn’t delivered.

So we want our borders secured. I truly believe that the majority of us are  not going to discuss anything else in regards to what his agenda is, until we  get satisfaction with security at our borders.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/border-governors-not-invited-white-house-meeting-immigration-reform#ixzz1K3EvMeaH

This is beyond ridiculous.  If you have any intention whatsoever of coming to some kind of agreement, you invite the major decision makers.  But Obama doesn’t want solutions; he wants to prevent solutions and then blame Republicans for the well that Obama personally poisoned.

Last week Obama gave a hateful speech in which he blasted Republicans as the party that wanted to kill old people and children with autism.  During a point in the health care debate, when Obama needed to appear bi-partisan, Obama said:

“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

And then he proceeded to do the very thing that he himself had said would undermine and poison the process.  Rep. Paul Ryan said correctly:

“What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”

And, again, Obama doesn’t WANT to fix problems.  Obama wants to demonize and demagogue and lie and accuse and blame.

We can and should go back to 2006 remarks made by Obama when he personally demonized George Bush for raising the debt celing.  Obama demagogued:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Now the same weaselly demagogue is saying that anyone who acted like Obama himself acted would be an un-American traitor.

It just never ends with this guy.

Way To Go: GOP Blocks Ideology-Laden Defense Bill

When I heard that the Democrat leadership was playing politics by inserting the amnesty-granting DREAM Act into a bill ostensibly to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, I hoped Republicans would block it.  And then the Democrats decided they weren’t being ideological enough in their partisan politics, and added a provision forcing the military to embrace homosexuality whether it hurt national security or not.

What Democrats wanted to do was force Republicans to either vote for the bill, or be the side that “opposed funding our troops.”

And the fact that Democrats started a game of political chicken with our troops’ lives would get conveniently overlooked by the mainstream leftwing media.

Thank God, our Republican Party stood up to this vile game and said no to frankly vile measures that had nothing to do with troop funding.

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.

The mostly partisan vote dealt a major blow to gay rights groups who saw the legislation as their best hope, at least in the short term, for repeal of the 17-year-old law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming congressional elections this fall, as many expect, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year. The Senate could take up the measure again during a lame-duck session after the elections, but a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hasn’t decided whether to do so.

“The whole thing is a political train wreck,” said Richard Socarides, a White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Democrats included the repeal provision in a $726 billion defense policy bill, which authorizes a pay raise for the troops among other popular programs. In a deal brokered with the White House, the measure would have overturned the 1993 law banning openly gay service only after a Pentagon review and certification from the president that lifting the ban wouldn’t hurt troop morale.

But with little time left for debate before the November ballot, the bill had languished on the Senate calendar until gay rights groups, backed by pop star Lady Gaga, began an aggressive push to turn it into an election issue.

Reid agreed to force a vote on the bill this week and limit debate, despite Republican objections. A Nevada Democrat in a tight race of his own this fall, he also pledged to use the defense bill as a vehicle for an immigration proposal that would enable young people to qualify for U.S. citizenship if they joined the military.

Republicans alleged that Reid was using the defense bill to score political points with the Democratic base.

“This is not a serious exercise. It’s a show,” said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

You read it right.  The intellectual and moral power behind the Democrat Party is Lady Gaga.  The Democrat Party reached the sewer, and just kept right on digging.

I don’t doubt for a second that Republicans have done this themselves in the past.  But it is vile.  And it is the kind of thing that any party that is worthy of the title “reformers” will pledge to stop doing and then never do again.

The funding for our soldiers – and most especially during time of war – should be off-limits to anyone who would politicize it.  Because every time a soldier is wounded or killed in action, he is wounded and killed for every American; not merely Democrats or Republicans.

And our politicians damn well better start respecting that.

You want your ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal?  Then have the simple integrity to vote for it straight up.  Because otherwise, you are nothing more than an evil, vile weasel.  And the same thing applies with leftwing OR rightwing immigration proposals.

Both Democrat proposals would transform our society.  And to try to sneak them through under the guise of supporting our soldiers is undemocratic and in fact un-American.

Obama Demagoguery Outraging The Citizen Class

A good article on Townhall underscores the building anger that is going to overtake Obama and the Democrat regime in November.

Sunday, May 23, 2010
by Austin Hill: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama Has Enraged the “Citizen Class”

The “citizen class” is horrified.

We’re speaking here of those Americans who, while they may disagree on a variety of social and public policy issues, nonetheless agree on a few, crucial matters.

Those of us among the citizen class generally agree that the United States is a good country. While far from perfect, we see our nation as being a place of tremendous opportunity, and a force for goodness around the world.

We also agree that being a U.S. citizen is a significant and distinct thing. While we respect the notion that all human beings are worthy of their “basic human rights,” we see the rights imparted to citizens of the United States as being something different, something “over and above” the category of “basic human rights.”

This is not to say that we are superior people, because we are U.S. citizens. This is, however, the greatest blessing of being a U.S. citizen. It is why so many of us in the citizen class think of our status as a “naturally born citizen” as being a God-given gift, and we celebrate those who legally earn American citizenship as well.

But along with the distinctiveness of being an American citizen, those of us among the citizen class also regard our nation’s sovereignty as something that must be safeguarded as well. Political philosophies, governmental structures, and economic systems are not morally neutral – some work far better than others. And the structures and institutions and governing philosophies of the United States have produced a far higher level of human flourishing and freedom than any others. For this reason, if for no other, our nation must always be regarded as separate and distinct.

Our nation is good, U.S. citizenship is distinct, and national sovereignty is non-negotiable. In a nutshell, this is the mindset, the worldview, of the citizen class. It has nothing to do with one’s ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, or sexual orientation, or gender. It has everything to do with one’s most deeply held beliefs.

Not every U.S. citizen possesses the “citizen class” view (clearly some Americans don’t understand the blessing of their status), yet a majority of us still do. And no matter how much we may disagree on other matters, those of us in the citizen class won’t budge on these three items.

And this why President Obama has enraged the citizen class. He has planted the seeds of doubt regarding our nation’s goodness, and has implied that U.S. citizenship, and national sovereignty, are irrelevant.

While an overwhelming majority of the citizen class supports Arizona’s effort to uphold the significance of citizenship and sovereignty, President Barack Hussein Obama has sided with the United Nations, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, China, and the President of Mexico in opposing the state of Arizona. One would hope that the President of the United States – any President of the United States – would seek to protect all fifty of the states that he governs from international criticism, even if he didn’t happen to like the behavior of one of his states. But our current President stands united with some of the most thuggish regimes in the world, in opposing his fellow Americans of Arizona.

Worse yet, our President not only allowed, but enabled Mexican President Felipe Calderon to publicly humiliate our fellow Americans of Arizona, while standing on the sacred grounds of the White House. And President Obama’s party – the ruling party in Congress – couldn’t rise to their feet quickly enough and offer thunderous applause, when Mr. Calderon publicly humiliated Arizona during an address to both the Senate and House last week.

It’s nothing short of disgraceful to see the President of the United States undermine us, while the entire world is watching. His behavior has, in no small part, called in to question just how “united” the United States of America is right now.

Yet in the midst of the disgrace, there are hopeful signs. The citizen class has whole-heartedly rejected the agenda (such that it is) of Barack Obama. It began last November with statewide elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where gubernatorial candidates endorsed by Barack Obama both lost. It moved on to Massachusetts where Obama’s choice for U.S. Senate lost to Republican Scott Brown.

And now, evidence of the rejection of Obama’s agenda has radiated from Utah, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. And we haven’t even seen yet how the President’s trashing of Arizona will impact elections yet to occur.

The louder President Obama and his party cheer, the greater the rage of the citizen class. And the citizen class won’t be ignored much longer.

Democrats are claiming that the victory of Democrat Mark Critz over his Republican challenger in a heavily Democrat district, proves that the Democrats are as popular as ever.  Let’s forget the fact that Pennsylvania’s 12 district has been gerrymandered to give Democrats a 2-1 registration advantage over Republicans.  Let’s forget the fact that the special election occurred on the same day as the Democrat primary – whereas Republicans had already voted, and essentially had to vote twice.

Republicans could point out that they just won the election in Barack Obama’s hometown in Hawaii – another state that is heavily Democrat as proof of the fact they they are going to destroy Democrats in November.  But the Republicans only won that because two Democrats were in the race, splitting the Democrat vote.  Sometimes those little details matter.

The fact is that the Democrat victory in Pennsylvania and the Republican victory in Hawaii are for the most part anomalous. Both races will be fought all over again in six months – and the results of both may very likely change.

But the fact is also that the American people have largely turned against Barack Obama.  As of today, he has an approval rating of minus seventeen (- 17), with only 45% of Americans approving of his performance versus 54% who disapprove.  And the fact that a pissed off and frightened people are going to vote in huge majorities against Barack Obama in states and districts across the country in November.

What is particularly interesting is that Mark Critz – and many Democrats – are actively running against Barack Obama and the Obama agenda.  Crizt ran against ObamaCare, and against Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, among other things.  Democrats are literally saying that the American people should elect Democrats in order to oppose the Democrat agenda.  Does that really sound like a narrative that’s going to work in November?

Add to that the fact that unemployment and a host of other measurements of the U.S. economy are bad, with not a whole lot of evidence that they are going to improve.

The Democrats demagogued and demonized Republicans about the Republican record as they assured the American people that they would make everything better.  And now the same anger and outrage that Democrats rode last year will fittingly come back to wash them away over their failures.

I see a reckoning coming.

Update May 24: Oops.  Did I say 45% of Americans approved of Obama, versus 54% who disapproved?  That was yesterday.  Today only 44% of Americans approve of Obama, against 55% who disapprove.  And the President Approval Rating is at a negative eighteen.

Update May 25: Oops again.  Did I say 44% of Americans approve of Obama?  That’s no longer correct.  I’m sorry, but Obama is tanking so fast that it’s just hard to keep up with it.  Today, only 42% of Americans approve of this turd which is stinking up the White House.

From Rasmussen, May 25:

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

And oh my, a whopping 20% more voters utterly despise Obama now than like him.

And that overwhelming majority of voters is going to want to come out and hurt somebody in November.

Rabid Arizona Boycotters Continue To Be Boycotted – Blame Obama For The Whole Mess

Remember how Obama promised to transcend the political divide and reach out to “move beyond the divisive politics”?

Well, he lied.

Instead we have the most divisive and polarizing president in American history, a man who fearmongers, demagogues, and demonizes without regard for the truth.

Obama deceitfully and maliciously told a story of fathers being deported just for taking their children to get ice cream.  The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Arizona immigration law that would produce anything like the fearmongering scenarios our Demagogue-in-chief claims.  And I defy anyone to actually cite the bills as proof of any such argument.

If you really want to go after a bigoted racist on immigration policy, why don’t you go after Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat Congress?  Because they’re running the federal government, and it is simply a fact that the federal law is FAR more “racist” than the Arizona law.

And, of course, Democrats gave a standing ovation to the President of Mexico, whose immigration laws protecting Mexico from Central American illegal immigrants are about as hard-core as it gets.

But none of that matters.  Not to Obama, and not to Demon-crats.  They’re liars and demagogues, and what else do you expect liars and demagogues to do if not lie and demagogue???

So, in the bipartisan, non-ideological, and transcendent world of Barack Obama, American cities boycott one another in a move to start an economic war that will bring the country crashing down.

The silver lining to it – if there IS one – is that the boycott appears to be hurting the cities of the rabid little liberal rodents even more than it’s hurting Arizona:

Boycott Backlash: Some stay out of city
Growing number vow not to do business in Austin
Friday, 21 May 2010

AUSTIN (KXAN) – The city council’s decision to boycott travel to Arizona is resulting in organizations and individuals boycotting the city of Austin in protest.

A growing number of political organizations, including the Odessa and Burleson Tea Parties, have decided not to do business with the city of Austin until the council rescinds the Arizona boycott they passed a few weeks ago.

“We will try to minimize what the city gets from our stay there,” said Hood county Republican Party Chairman Randy Shelton. “We will not stay in hotels inside the city of Austin and we will not ride the city transit.”

Shelton says they will continue to support Austin businesses but try to prevent any dollars from going towards city revenue. Other boycotts are more extreme.

A search online showed many more individuals vowing not to do business in Austin, including one poster who says they will cancel hotel reservations and a Leander resident who says they will skip having lunch inside Austin city limits.

The boycott apparently is already being felt according to the Austin Hotel and Lodging Association who sent KXAN this statement:

“The AHLA is not a political association and does not in any way support travel boycotts of any kind. Hotels in Austin are now beginning to experience concrete evidence from the many visitors now canceling their leisure or business plans to Austin.”

KXAN was told some of the cancellations include riders who normally take part in the Republic of Texas Rally.

All I can say, residents of Austin, is that you should have thought about this before you elected a bunch of leftwing ideologue loons to your city council.

I wrote an earlier article about San Diego reeling from counter-boycotts by pissed-off Arizonans.  Let San Diego’s tourism industry blow up in flames because Democrats are vile and intolerant people who just have to spread their hate around with boycotts against innocent and decent Arizonans who are just trying to deal with an impossible wave of illegal immigration and the crises created by illegal immigration.

And I frankly hope that Los Angeles is honest enough to cut off a full 25% of their electricity which is produced by Arizona.  And Arizona may help Los Angeles find their missing integrity by cutting off the electricity it supplies.  You want a boycott?  Let’s have at it.  Wonder how many Los Angelinos will die sweltering in the heat without air conditioning this summer as a result of their own city council’s stupid and immoral boycott?

This is all Barack Obama’s fault.  He’s the demagogue who started this.  He’s the one who has set us at one anothers’ throats with his fearmongering and his lies.  Thanks to him, we don’t have to worry about al Qaeda, or Iran, or North Korea; now we’ve got to worry about Los Angeles and Austin and a whole bunch of other cities starting an endless war of mutually assured economic destruction with the people of Arizona.

Maybe one of Obama’s top officials will finally actually bother to read the ten page law they’ve been demonizing.  None of them have so far.  The reason none of them have is because they don’t want to have to be held accountable to the truth.

Primary Day Presidential Approval Poll Points To Vicious Anal Rape Awaiting Democrats

Now, I know, the headline is kind of confusing.  Most Democrats love nothing more than a nice anal raping.  So liberals will come here thinking, “Oh, good!”

But, trust me, they won’t enjoy the one that’s coming in November.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. Today’s rating is the lowest earned by the president since the passage of his health care proposal two months ago (see trends).

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has seen his advantage over Republican hopefuls shrink dramatically following a New York Times accusation that he exaggerated his Vietnam military service. Against Linda McMahon, Blumenthal’s lead is down to just three points.

John McCain still leads in his primary battle, but his level of support is hovering just over 50%.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters now support offshore oil drilling. That’s up from 58% right after the oil spill began in the Gulf of Mexico but down eight from a peak of 72% support in March.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.  Those figures also reflect the weakest ratings for the president since the health care bill became law. The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of the President has been 52% positive over the past week.

A month ago, Rasmussen Reports became the first firm to show Joe Sestak closing the gap on Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. With other firms showing Specter ahead by twenty points or more, our poll showing a toss-up was described as an “outlier” and “well outside the lines of existing polling in the race.” As in Massachusetts, it turns out that the Rasmussen poll was simply the first to capture the changing dynamic of the race. The final Rasmussen poll on the race showed Sestak winning by five. He won by eight.

In the general election, the latest polling shows Sestak in a very close race with Pat Toomey.

In Arkansas, the latest polling shows Republican John Boozman holding a wide lead over whichever Democrat wins the run-off. In Kentucky, Rand Paul also starts out ahead. Rasmussen Reports will release updated polling for Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Kentucky in the near future.

(More Below)

Fifty-five percent (55%) would like to see an immigration law like Arizona’s for their own state. Most voters (56%) also favor repeal of the recently passed health care law.

Obama used to lead chants saying, “Fired up!  Ready to go!”  And now the people who WANT to fire Obama have a 19-point advantage over the people who want to keep him.  Do you have any idea what a tsunami of righteous anger is going to wash over Democrats?

55% of American voters want to see the Arizona immigration law that Obama has repeatedly and falsely demonized in their own state.  And 56% of voters want to see Obama’s signature ObamaCare repealed.  What has this man done but either screw the American people or fail to lead?

Obama’s response to the fact that Americans overwhelmingly support the Arizona law?  Ratchet up his illegitimate demonization of Arizona.

And as we speak, 68% of Americans want offshore drilling.  It’s only a matter of time before they realize what an amoral weasel Obama has been with drilling, basically being against it before he was for it before he was against it again.

Obama endorsed slimeball Arlen Specter, who has now been officially rejected by Democrats after previously having being totally rejected by Republicans.  Like Specter himself, nobody wants Obama.  He is now at least 0-for-4 in endorsing candidates who then got dumped by voters.  He couldn’t be more radical, or more out of touch with the American people.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – Voters rejected one of President Barack Obama’s hand-picked candidates and forced another into a runoff, the latest sign that his political capital is slipping beneath a wave of anti-establishment anger.

Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president’s active involvement, raising doubts about Obama’s ability to help fellow Democrats in this November’s elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter’s loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania’s Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama’s influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.

And the guy who defeated Obama’s handpicked candidate Specter has all but stated that the Obama administration offered him an illegal bribe to drop out of the race and let Specter win.

[Update, Sunday, May 23: The UPI has an article out today which clearly states that Joe Sestak claims the White House did in fact offer him a job if he pulled out of the race against Arlen Specter.  End update].

Thanks to Obama’s utterly failed policy that even Hillary Clinton said would fail hideously, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons, and will “fundamentally transform” the Middle East into a terrifying nightmare-awaiting bloodbath-status.  And Obama is so occupied with his failure regarding Iran that he has demonstrated himself to be completely unfit to deal with North Korea.

An international report has just determined that North Korea sank – in an aggressive and unprovoked act of war – a South Korean navy ship.  This is clearly an escalation of aggression that rivals anything the communist nation has committed since the end of the Korean War.

How has Obama done anything but miserably fail with this regime?

And thanks to spending which dwarfs anything ever seen before in the history of the human race, Barack Obama has lost any and all leverage with China to do anything about either crisis.

It is hard to imagine how Obama could have failed worse.

The American people are furious.  And they are going to take it out on Democrats who couldn’t deserve it more.

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

We keep hearing people who claim that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) is “unconstitutional.”  But it keeps turning out that those who are decrying it on the mainstream media haven’t actually bothered to even read the law.

Well, the Arizona law is ever bit as “constitutional” as the federal law – considering it basically IS the federal law with even more limitations added to it.

Oh, you’ve got the crowd that says that a state can’t protect its own citizens.  The fact that the federal government has refused to do its job and protect Arizona from illegal immigrants for the last 25 years means nothing.  Let an out-of-control situation continue for ANOTHER 25 years, such people say.

Well, baloney, say three law professors who did something that AG Eric Holder and most liberals have refused to do – and actually bothered to read the law before demonizing it:

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
By EDWARD SIFUENTES  May 13, 2010 7:44 pm

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona’s law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person’s immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

“The problem is the application of the law,” said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. “On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race.”

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person’s immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person’s status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person’s apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

“I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced,” Schwarzschild said. “But it certainly doesn’t, on its face.”

CORRECTION: Law professors incorrectly identified

The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the three law professors who took part taught at UC San Diego. They teach at the University of San Diego School of Law.

We apologize.

In any event, ANY law enforcement officer can abuse ANY law.  If the left wants to abolish this law because a police officer could conceivably abuse it, let’s abolish all laws and have total anarchy instead.

We get to the root of the real issue: the people who are protesting this anti-immigration law are not doing it because it’s “unconstitutional,” but rather because they are opposed to any form of action to deal with the soaring and searing crisis of illegal immigration.  They are open borders fanatics; they are leftwing ideologues who want illegal immigrants from Mexico to be able to undermine the vote of legitimate citizens and impose the next failed socialist Utopia.

They don’t want the United States to do ANYTHING to control our borders.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  If there’s something wrong with it, then cite the relevant passage in your argument.  Don’t give me any of your bogus penumbras and emanations in which you gaze into a crystal ball and find things that aren’t even there simply because you want to see them.

Otherwise, let’s have less complaining, and more shutting the hell up.

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

This is how you can know that an issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with facts or principles or justice, and everything to do with political opportunism and blatant demagoguery.

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly appeared on national television to denounce and demonize the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but never bothered to read the ten-page law for himself (a total of sixteen pages, counting all footnotes and addendums!).

Instead he relied upon mainstream media accounts.  Which is another way of saying, instead he relied upon leftwing propaganda, to make his determinations.

Apparently, the highest law enforcement official in the land will arrest you on the basis of some liberal loon’s opinion.  That is beyond incompetent; it’s dangerous.

Youtube video of Holder admitting he hadn’t read the law he demonized and threatened to use the full weight and power of the federal government to attack:

Here is a transcript of that encounter:

REPRESENTATIVE TED POE, (R-TEXAS): So Arizona, since the federal government totally fails to secure the border desperately then passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. Seems to me the Administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the Administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had a chance to, I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the healthcare bill which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s Constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.

Later during his questioning, Poe further challenged the Attorney General:

POE: You have some concerns about the statute. It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being un-Constitutional if you haven’t even read the law. Seems like you wouldn’t make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you hadn’t read the law. So, can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that, but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s Constitutional or not?

Holder’s response will even FURTHER amaze most Americans on both sides of the aisle:

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made, made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in the position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Eric Holder relied on wildly inaccurate and biased news reports, and then went out and made several wildly inaccurate and biased statements to the press.

On April 28 Holder stated that the Arizona law is an “unfortunate one that I fear is subject to potential abuse” (video).   On May 9, Attorney General Holder was on Meet the Press and said the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” And on May 11, he said “I certainly think it’s divisive. I don’t think there is any question about that” (video).

And none of those demonic denunciations were based on the actual facts.  Eric Holder is reading the muckraking journalists and deciding to go to war on their urgings.

Meanwhile, the same Eric Holder who denounced and demonized Arizona refused – even after several requests – to acknowledge that radical jihadist Islam was even among the factors contributing to the terrorist attacks we’ve seen.  Which have ALL had radical Islam as the primary motive.

I just wish that Eric Holder had a tiny fraction of the respect for the rights of the citizens of Arizona that he has demonstrated for the radical jihadist Muslim terrorists who would gleefully murder every single one of us if they could.  Just a tiny fraction would do.

The only thing that there isn’t any question about is that Barack Obama’s attorney general is shockingly incompetent and partisan.  This is not about law, but about the rabid pursuit of political power and demagoguery of the worst kind.

Here is the entire text of the Arizona law (SB 1070).  I defy anyone to actually cite a passage that is racist, or which actively endorses any racist policy.

Nancy Pelosi LOVES Mingling Church And State – As Long As Church Worships Liberal State

The constant hypocritical double-standard parade otherwise known as “liberalism” continues full steam ahead.

Pelosi to Bishops: Talk Up Immigration
Monday, 10 May 2010 10:34 AM
By: Dan Weil

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is telling Catholic bishops who want her to pass immigration reform that they must speak out in favor of the reform in their churches.

“The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’” Pelosi, who is Catholic herself, said Thursday at the Catholic Community Conference.

“And I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit.’”

This is the same Pelosi who drew strong rebuke from Catholic Church leaders in 2008 by arguing that the denomination’s doctrine is unclear on when human life begins. She made that contention in defense of abortion.

As for immigration, Pelosi said last week that, as a practical matter, the United States can’t say to 12 million illegal immigrants, “’Go back to wherever you came from or go to jail.’”

And she was quite clear as to what she expects out of bishops.

“I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is — the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a ‘manifestation of our living the gospels,’” Pelosi said.

“Our patron saint of San Francisco, St. Francis of Assisi, he said, ‘Preach the gospel — sometimes use words.’ We need the words to be said because it isn’t being picked up automatically.”

In the 2008 dispute, Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” show: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition [when life begins] . . . The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”

An array of bishops blasted those remarks, with Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., saying, “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the church place themselves outside full communion with the church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

Other than the fact that Nancy Pelosi was a dishonest liar (as well as baby killer) over her statements about abortion, and is probably lying about immigration as well…

Speak out from the pulpit!  Unless you say something against liberal ideology – then we’ll come after you quoting the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by screaming “Separation of church and state!”

Black churches have openly politicked for decades.  And it’s been fine because they politick for liberalism.  But if you’re a conservative, evangelical church, you might as well play with lit dynamite as do the same thing liberal mainline denominations do as a matter of routine.

You know what I’m looking forward to?  The day we can finally have the separation of Nancy Pelosi and state.

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

Laura Ingraham’s site details the basic facts regarding what Obama said and why it isn’t true:

Obama attacks again: AZ law would ‘single out people because of who they look like’
Posted by Staff

At a Cinco de Mayo reception at the White House Wednesday evening, President Obama launched another attack on Arizona’s new immigration law. “We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress,” the president told the crowd. As he had in earlier criticisms of the law, Obama ignored the law’s specific stipulation that any check on a person’s immigration status can only come after a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” when a person is suspected of breaking some law — that is, as Arizona lawmakers explained in a footnote to the bill, it must come “during the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

And even after meeting that standard, the law directs that police meet a “reasonable suspicion” standard before “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” The phrase “reasonable suspicion” means that there must be a number of specific factors that an officer can cite before taking action, and the law specifically says that prosecutors “shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

And even with those safeguards, the law specifies that if the person involved produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other forms of identification specified in the law, then that person is immediately presumed to be in the country legally. In other words, the whole question of legal or not legal becomes moot once the person produces a driver’s license — a common experience for nearly every American, regardless of his or her race or ethnicity.

So there’s the fact that Obama is simply wrong on the facts.  And he’s not only wrong, he’s demagogic.  He uses his lies to slander and demonize his opponents.

But there’s another aspect to this story that comes out of something else that Obama recently said:

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

So, okay, we’ve got Obama saying that we shouldn’t distrust government, or view it as inherently bad (like conservatives are out there demanding that all government be abolished and we live in total anarchy – which is to say that Obama is yet again being the slandering demagogue here).  But let’s take Obama’s statement here at face value.

Isn’t what Obama says we shouldn’t do exactly what he’s in fact doing?

What is the cornerstone of our society if not our laws and our justice?  And what is the cornerstone of our system of justice if not our police who are out on the streets enforcing our laws?

But Obama and liberals – even as they decry the right as being “anti-government” – are patently anti-government when it comes to the Arizona law.

Because they demagogue the police who are the ones at the very forefront of our system of justice.  They claim that the fact that the law specifically says that police can’t just walk around saying “show me your papers,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Why?  Because these guarantors of our system of justice are inherently evil, inherently biased, and inherently racist.  You can’t trust the American police officer.  And you can’t trust the government to enforce its laws fairly or honestly because it’s those same dishonest, biased, bigoted, and deceitful police officers who would do it.

Now, as a laughably hypocritical matter, it doesn’t matter to liberals that most Americans are compelled to “show their papers” to their government as a matter of routine course.  It’s okay all the other times when government demands proof of our identities; it’s only evil this time, when Arizona tries to deal with a population that Democrats regard as “their” race who will vote for them.

A Politico article understands Obama’s racial polititicking quite straightforwardly:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Which makes another of Obama’s remarks beyond asinine:

On April 28, while speaking in Iowa, President Obama denounced Republicans who “exploited” the immigration issue “for political purposes.” President said Arizona’s new immigration law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” He painted an alarming picture: “local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

Just who’s exploiting immigration for political purposes?  How on earth can Obama possibly claim that it isn’t anyone other than himself?!?!?!

And why are these legal immigrants going to be harassed?  Because, to put it in terms that Obama has made in the past, “police act stupidly.”

What a profoundly anti-government thing to say.  If Obama is right, and our police – who are all-too-prone to “acting stupidly” or in a racist and bigoted manner – are fundamentally incapable of being honest or fair, then on what possible basis do you want to grow the size of government, so that there are more laws for more police to enforce in a fundamentally unfair and bigoted manner?

Let me put it bluntly: if I can’t trust the police – the guys who go out to your house and arrest you for disobeying all the laws that increasingly big-government will pass – then why in the freaking world would I want MORE government that will pass MORE laws for the dishonest police to maliciously and falsely roust me over?

Just who are the ones out there referring to “when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity”?

By Obama’s own logic, YOU SHOULD BE ANTI-GOVERNMENT.

Obama and the Democrats – who falsely charge that conservatives are “anti-government” – are therefore the ones who are themselves profoundly anti-government.

They are also anti-truth, and pro-race baiting:

So, do all these politicians have a point or is it just scaremongering? Unlike the couple thousand plus page laws passed in Washington that are filled with very complicated legalese, the Arizona law, along with the minor clarifications passed last week, is only about four pages long and is written in pretty straightforward English. Anyone reading the law will clearly see that the claims made by some Democrats are false.

As a matter of fact, Arizona legislators themselves didn’t want the police to have the power to simply “ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers.” So they set up not just one but two requirements. First, police must have “lawful contact,” meaning officers must already have detained an individual they suspect violated some other law.

Even then, authorities must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal alien. This “reasonable suspicion” standard has regulated police behavior since the 1960s and is a rule that police nationwide already deal with every day. “Reasonable suspicion” requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of “reasonable prudence” that a crime has been committed.

Opponents of the law claimed “lawful contact” was much boarder than the legislature intended and would allow police who were simply questioning an individual to ask for an ID. On Friday, April 30, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill clarifying the point, replacing “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

We can look at the actual language used. After Friday’s bill signing, the new Arizona law reads: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin.” Before Friday, the bill said that police could not just consider race, color or national origin. But this was also superfluous, as every police officer who arrests someone or stops them for a traffic offense requests identification.

Democrats are playing with fire by misleading the nation to stir up racial tensions. Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano, Rep. Rangel, and President Obama are all lawyers. They know what legal terms such as “reasonable suspicion” and “lawful stop, detention or arrest” mean. To quote Congressman Rangel, the distortions are “outrageous.” The new law is so short, just four pages, and written in such plain English that they must hope that no one else bothers reading it. And the worst part of all this? The racial animosity Democrats are creating will last for years.

Barack Hussein: the demagogic, anti-government race baiter-in-chief.