The Light: Hillary

Over Immigration policies? Well, if a lot of people currently running for office win, I guess the DOJ will just have to since they all want to implement an Arizona-style immigration law. Yes, fully twenty-two (22) states are looking to incorporate Arizona’s law on their own books, as the report below highlights:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Wow – that is a whole lot of states – maybe Obama can use some of his Obama dollars (aka, Stimulus) to increase the staff at DOJ. He’s gonna have to, if almost half the country enacts legislation to mirror federal law. (Please don’t think about that one too hard – it will just make your head explode.)

And about that whole DOJ lawsuit targeting AZ…Well, I should say, ONE of their lawsuits targeting Arizona, the one directed at Sheriff Arpaio. Oh, yes – the DOJ is handing out these lawsuits in Arizona like they are candy. Not only are they suing the state, but they are suing the Maricopa Community College for – get this – discriminating against would be employees by asking for additional paperwork. And why did they do this? Because the would be employer asked for a Green Card. And the DOJ is filing suit for that? WTH?

Then there is Sheriff Arpaio, who allegedly committed Human Rights violations. Except maybe he didn’t, as this Daily Caller piece by Byron York indicates, “New Evidence Undermines Fed’s Case Against Arizona.” Oh, yeah – this is a doozy:

[snip] Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department’s investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio’s office — and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio’s lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.

[...]

The report, crammed with acronyms and bureaucratese, is not light reading. But struggle through it, and the key sentence is this: “The OI and DRO supervisors consider the conduct and performance of the MCSO … officers to be professional and meeting the requirement of the MOA.” Translated, that means officials from the Homeland Security Department’s Office of Investigation (OI), along with officials from the Detention and Removal Operations office (DRO), concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), in its handling of illegal immigrants, acted in a professional manner and complied with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) under which the government gave them the authority to enforce federal law. That agreement included a ban on racial profiling.

[...]

What happens now? It’s been nearly a year and a half since the investigation began, and the Justice Department has not charged the sheriff’s office with violating anyone’s civil rights. Instead, Thursday’s lawsuit goes after Arpaio for allegedly failing to cooperate fully in the probe.

[...]

Failing to find proof of real discrimination in Maricopa County could ultimately doom the administration’s entire crusade in Arizona. The much-publicized suit against the new immigration law is based on the possibility that it might result in future discrimination, but at the same time the department is struggling to find evidence of civil rights violations in Arpaio’s office, which uses enforcement techniques similar to those outlined in the new law. There’s a real chance that in the end Obama’s war on Arizona will come to nothing. (Click HERE to read the full post.)

Honestly, the whole concept of our Department of Justice suing one of our states for enforcing federal Immigration law is so mind boggling, I hardly have words to describe it. Visualize Scooby Doo’s shaking his head, and that’s what I am doing.

Fortunately, a regular at No Quarter, Noogan, summed it up well with this comment:

This is the issue that crystalizes my fear and loathing of this administration. Everything about it stinks to high heaven. It’s unconscionable. The Federal government suing the state of Arizona for passing a law which mirrors Federal law; at the same time allowing ICE and other government arms of the state to ignore Federal law? This is simply outrageous. It’s breathtakingly tyrannical.

It’s stunningly unconstitutional. Along with allowing the President of Mexico to come here, speak before Congress, maligning this country? These acts are the reason for the widely held suspicions about Obama; and no matter how many times liberals and the professional left mock the anger about it, the fact remains: The President of the United States is violating the Constitution, behaving as a dictator. That’s a very good reason to suspect the man.

I simply don’t have words to express my loathing of Eric Holder and Obama….

Thank you, Noogan. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

One thing is crystal clear – Obama and his Department of “Justice” have it in BIG time for Arizona. They are throwing anything they can against the wall hoping SOMETHING sticks to bring Arizona down. So far, though, all they are doing is demonstrating a callous disregard for the laws they are sworn to uphold.

The DOJ and Obama Administration are sure going to have their hands full if half the country follows Arizona’s lead of trying to enforce Federal law.

Wow. I have to stop now, before my head explodes…

Recently, the United States celebrated the 90th anniversary of women’s right to vote. That right was won by the significant efforts of a number of women, many of whom were jailed, beaten, and starved, fighting for this right. We honor them, and all that they have made possible for us 90 years later.

Now we have women governors, senators, representatives, and Secretaries of State. I can only imagine what out founding mothers would have thought of that, the joy, the excitement, the relief. No doubt, things have changed in this country for women. Not that women are treated as full equals yet in the United States. The sexism and misogyny evidenced by one of the two major political parties in 2008 made that abundantly clear. But things are better. We strive, still, for equal equal pay, for equal representation, for our first woman president, but there is no denying we are better off now than we were 90 years ago.

Indeed, our foremothers worked hard for this, as many of us have in the intervening years. But there are other countries, like Afghanistan, for example, where girls are in danger for merely trying to get an education. Yes, on Wednesday of this week, a girls’ school had poisonous gas spread throughout the school, sickening a number of the girls and teachers. Who would do such a thing? The Taliban would:

[snip] Wednesday’s incident follows a similar pattern seen in other recent attacks at girls’ schools involving an airborne substance which officials say could be some form of gas.

Those have raised fears that the Taliban and other allied groups who oppose female education are using a new method to scare them away from classes. [snip]

Wow. I scarcely know how to respond to this. It is despicable. And it is a pattern with the Taliban:

[snip] “This has happened a couple of times before, mainly in the northern province of Kunduz. At the time, it was also said, that these girls were poisoned and officials pointed the finger at the Taliban and rightly so,” she said.

“However, there is still no hard conclusion on who is behind this attack and what kind of poisoning is taking place.”

The Taliban banned education for girls during their Afghan rule from 1996-2001, but have condemned similar attacks in the past.

They have, however, set fire to dozens of schools, threatened teachers and even attacked schoolgirls in rural areas.

In one attack in Kandahar in 2008,around 15 girls and teachers were sprayed with acid by men on motorbikes.

In parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, particularly in Taliban strongholds, schools for girls still remain closed. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This attitude toward women and girls is a bitter pill to swallow. As is this headline from The Hill, “Sen. Kerry: ‘Very active’ efforts under way to reach settlement with Taliban.” What? How? Why? Kerry explains:

[snip]“I can report without being specific that there are efforts under way. They are serious, and I completely agree with that fundamental premise — and so does General [David] Petraeus and so does President Obama — there is no military solution,” he told NPR. “And there are very active efforts now to seek an appropriate kind of political settlement.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged that some sort of political settlement must be reached with the Taliban — a loosely affiliated group of Islamic insurgents that control large swaths of territory in Afghanistan — in order to bring an end to the almost nine-year-long U.S. war there.

The beginning of settlement negotiations represents a significant development in terms of Western involvement there…

Kerry said any “appropriate” settlement would have to include “a renunciation of al Qaeda,” a “reduction of violence,” a “recognition of the constitutional rights of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and greater efforts to reduce sanctuaries for insurgency.”[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And what about the women and girls, Senator Kerry? What about them, in your “negotiations” with terrorists? Yeah, I know – who gives a damn about them? They are just “casualties,” I suppose, necessary capitulations to this woman-hating group.

How it is Kerry, and Obama, think having active negotiations with the Taliban is a good thing? What are the chances, really, that, if they can even get some of these groups to come to the table, they will even keep their word should a compromise be reached?

And what about these women, these girls? The ones gassed by members of the Taliban to prevent them from learning? Or, the Taliban members who throw acid in the faces of these girls in an attempt to force them our of school? Oh, yeah – these sounds like just the kind of people with whom we should be engaging in “very active” negotiations. You know, since we are choosing to negotiate with terrorists in the first place.

I cannot help but be reminded of this powerful moment (again) of CJ Craig on “West Wing”:

Wow. Yep, that sounds a little too familiar…

Indeed, I am thankful, grateful, and humbled for the work our foremothers did to secure us the right to vote in this country. For the women who fought to make this possible: Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the other remarkable women who enabled for us to have this right, thank you.

May the young girls and women of Afghanistan one day be allowed to learn, to study, to be educated. And may they, one day, one day soon, be full participants in their country. Sadly, that day is not today.

One other note – almost 200 women and 4 boys were raped near a UN Peacekeepers camp in Congo. And what has the UN said about it? They’re looking into it. Well, it only happened three weeks ago, so you can see why it might take them a while to come out with any kind of statement. Right. Sec. Clinton spoke out about this atrocity, and you can read her remarks HERE, but this sums it up:

[snip]“Sexual violence harms more than its immediate victims. It denies and destroys our common dignity, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as humans, it endangers families and communities, it erodes social and political stability, and it undermines economic progress. These travesties, committed with impunity against innocent civilians who play no role in armed conflict, hold us all back. [snip]

Amen to that.

Leave it to Maureen Dowd to miss the forest for the trees in her argument that

“The Obama White House is too white.”

In Dowd’s latest NYT column, You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing, she discusses the Shirley Sherrod incident, and writes that “unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture,” the Obama white house just doesn’t get the “central African-American experience.”

Dowd contends the Obama administration had better shape up otherwise…

“…[T]his administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race.”

and

“We may not have a “nation of cowards” on race, as Attorney General Eric Holder contended, but we may have a West Wing of cowards on race.”

They are cowards. Period. Yet they use the Rovian tactic of blaming others for sins of which they themselves are guilty.

While Dowd understands that Barack Obama’s exotic background and upbringing in Hawaii may be a contributing factor to his seeming lack of understanding, she cannot admit that White House insensitivity on racial issues is due to much more than his being surrounded by “smart-ass white boys” as she puts it. The real problem stems from something far worse. His administration’s actions are governed by branding, political expediency and preserving Obama’s popularity.

When polling rather than conscience drives your actions, the Shirley Sherrod firing fiasco is the result.

Dowd then resorts to the typical “let’s attack FOX News for the hell of it” gambit:

“The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce…”

Dowd does not clarify what Glenn Beck “pouncing” actually meant – Glenn Beck pounced on the White House, not Sherrod. Beck felt they had unjustly fired her. But Dowd could not possibly admit that Beck took Sherrod’s side. Sherrod could not either from the looks of it and wanted to continue to paint FOX News as the bad guy when the network held off on covering the story until they got all the facts – unlike President Obama. Sherrod was forced to resign before FOX did any “pouncing.”

And what of the NAACP? They were the ones with the entire tape – why didn’t they speak on her behalf, if indeed they had the basis to do so?

Perhaps Andrew Breitbart was wrong to show the edited tape of Sherrod’s remarks. It is up to you to decide whether you believe he did so less to slam Sherrod and more to slam the audience at the NAACP dinner who reacted appreciatively to what he felt were reverse racist sentiments on her part.

Dowd also complains…

“At some level, [Obama] acts like the election was enough; he shouldn’t have to deal with race further. But he does.”

…“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.

Um. I did. So did a lot of other folks on this blog.

In May of 2008, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson penned a piece entitled The Card Clinton Is Playing – accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the race card to advance her candidacy while ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign had been playing that card daily and with impunity. I responded to Mr. Robinson’s accusations. In pertinent part, I wrote:

…The few like Tavis Smiley, who criticized Sen. Obama for skipping the State of the Black Union, and I believe [Senator Obama] also decided not to speak at MLK’s anniversary event, raise an interesting point. Senator Obama is, perhaps of necessity, courting the white vote and taking for granted the African American community who vote for him in droves. I believe, if he were to be elected, aside from the great symbolic value of having him in office, which I grant you is no small thing, the AA community may suffer because the white liberal elite in the party pushing to elect him will feel they’ve put a band aid over the racial divide in this country, while in actuality doing little to heal it.

Apparently Dowd agrees, complaining that Obama is “light years” behind Bush on developmental help to Africa and wouldn’t let Muslim women in head scarves appear behing him at a rally because Obama staffers were afraid he would be painted “as a radical/Muslim/socialist.” She accuses his staffers of insensitivity — as if Obama were somehow not involved in these decisions. Isn’t he the President?

Ms. Dowd – it is not “insensitivity.” It is Obama’s ‘you are a notch on my bedpost, I use you for my own purposes and otherwise you can get lost attitude.’ This White House is run by a bunch of arrogant frat boys. What do you expect?

Dowd also reported:

“I don’t think a single black person was consulted before Shirley Sherrod was fired — I mean c’mon, “ said Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. [snip]

“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” Clyburn told me. “He needs some black people around him.” He said Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race.

A laughable comment to be sure. I don’t know whether President Obama needs “some black people around him” as much as he needs to grow some genuine leadership ability and the willingness to do his homework before making a judgment on an issue of which he knows nothing.

A disproportionately high number in the black community have been adversely affected by high unemployment, something NYT columnist Bob Herbert has pointed out many times. He too, is wondering why the President is “screwing up on race.”

Perhaps Rep. Clyburn and others are now regretting having played the race card on the Clintons during the primaries, who have done more for the African American community than Obama ever has.

President Obama had never in his career exhibited compassion or understanding of these issues, certainly not to the point of taking action on them. How did Dowd, Herbert, Robinson, Clyburn or anyone else assume he would be magically transformed once elected?

President Obama’s administration only uses the race card as a defensive tool and a shield against criticism of his inane policies and actions. That has officially backfired. It backfired in Massachusetts with his “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” remark, as it has once again with Shirley Sherrod.

More is required than different advisors.

The White House has a horrible habit of working reactively, resorting to a “don’t blame me — it’s the other guys fault” mantra. That is not genuine leadership, which, of course, has been the problem all along. Every time one of these incidents gets played out before the American people, it is further evidence that those in charge have not done their homework and cannot grow beyond making pathetic excuses for the same. Slowly but surely, the country is getting a glimpse into the real character of this administration.

In their article Pelosi Vents About Gibbs, Politico writers Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan shared that

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday night, even as the president’s top spokesman continued to backpedal from his assertion that Democrats could lose control of the House in the November election.

“How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?” Pelosi told her members in the caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol Tuesday night. “Some may weigh his words more than others. We have made our disagreement known to the White House.”

The hostility escalated when Democratic lawmakers accused the White House of losing the messaging wars. Are some Dem lawmakers implying that if President Obama, Gibbs et al had done a better job of “selling” their non-working policies to the American people, House Dems wouldn’t be facing the prospect of such huge losses in November?

This is a wake up call to Ms. Pelosi and those who stand in lock step with her – If you have a good product – it sells itself.

I think we would prefer better crafted legislation to a better sales pitch. Putting the check mark next to the “DONE” box just to parade around with a giant gavel and goofy smile pasted on your face does not substitute for putting Americans back to work, passing health care legislation that won’t bankrupt the country or passing a stimulus bill that actually stimulates something beyond pet pork projects.

Even Arianna Huffington, a big Obama ally, has complained bitterly that the Wall St. reform package doesn’t go far enough or protect us from “too big to fail.” Then again, she is another political opportunist who has lately taken to agreeing with Tea Party protests and even Sarah Palin. She must be seeing the writing on the wall, too.

It is appalling that Congress does not intend to pass a budget this year — something else they wish to sweep under the rug so as not to damage themselves further in advance of the midterm elections, perhaps. Outrageous spending and a lack of responsiveness to constituents’ concerns is a far more reasonable explanation for the poor prospects of Democrats this fall than President Obama losing the “message wars.” How about winning the competence war and going on a few less vacations?

On Meet the Press on Sunday, here is what Press Secretary Gibbs had to say:

“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that. This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats,” Gibbs said on Sunday.

By the next morning, Democratic strategists were fuming privately that he had handed Republicans a great fundraising and voter-motivation tool.

Gibbs and other White House officials have been backpedaling, in carefully measured steps, ever since.

Speaker Pelosi also complained that Obama favors the Senate and helps them in their fundraising efforts far more than he helps the House, which has shown great loyalty to him.

The Senate love fest may be coming to an end as well. Embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went on the record saying that President Obama is not “firm” or “foreceful enough” with his Republican opposition. This prompted the bellicose Ed Schultz of MSNBC to complain Reid just called the President a “wimp.” The “timing is horrible” says Shultz. No kidding:

Looks like Harry doesn’t feel the wind at his back, given that Sharron Angle is besting him in the polls in Nevada at the moment. Other historically “safe” Senate seats are in trouble as well. Fiorina is polling ahead of Boxer in CA for the first time. Even Russ Feingold’s seat is not quite safe.

Apparently, Ms. Pelosi and her cronies missed the memo on how this politics stuff works.

The President is going to do everything he can to save himself. If that means throwing Congress under the bus so he can have a Republican foil to do battle against, making more of his straw man arguments, then he will. If that helps in his re-election bid, that is Job One.

Did Nancy and Harry think when they threw Hillary under the bus, they were going to be rewarded for it?

These two are not the only Presidents-by-Proxy to find out they are dispensable.

ABC’s Sunlen Miller reports on Political Punch:

While visiting with Louisianan residents last week during his trip to Grand Isle, President Obama expressed a little frustration that he was not able to plug to hole still spewing oil in the Gulf by himself.

“Even though I am President of the United States my powers are not limitless,” Obama said last Friday at Camardelle’s Live Bait and Boiled Seafood, “So I can’t dive down there and plug the hole. I can’t suck it up with a straw. All I can do is make sure that I put honest, hardworking, smart people in place.”

“I will do everything in my power to do right by you guys. And everybody along the coast.”

The president’s quote – previously unseen by the pool of reporters traveling with him not allowed access to this specific exchange – was posted today on the White House website as part of their weekly video posting, “West Wing Week.” The weekly video summarizes the president’s week by featuring behind-the-scenes footage shot by White House videographers.

I had to post this. I think the comment just stands by itself.

First President Obama wants to know whose ass to kick.

Now he is speaking with local residents suffering horribly because of the BP crisis and actually has to make the snarky, petulant comment that “He can’t suck it up with a straw.” I understand this is a very difficult situation, but I think it is safe to say that he has no reserves whatsoever to deal with adversity if he resorts to making offhanded petulant comments like this.

Kudos to Sunlen Miller for reporting on it. Those non-teleprompter soundbites are priceless.

/ Bumped up /

On the surface it may look like BP and the Obama administration are having some bad oil days.  Rust-colored oil that fouled Louisiana’s ecologically sensitive marshes washed ashore on barrier islands off Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday.  The oil slick now looms about 7 miles off the Florida coast and changing wind patterns are expected to drive it ever closer.  Weathered oil and tar balls could hit the western Panhandle “in a day or two,” said Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

In response (via Time),

today NOAA announced that 37% of the federal waters of the Gulf were no-fishing zones. That’s nearly 89,000 sq. miles — almost twice the amount of territory restricted as of May 18 — where the sea life is considered potentially too toxic to eat.

Meanwhile yesterday, the Coast Guard’s Thad Allen announced that the saw blade cutting a riser pipe became stuck, temporarily halting the actually fix part of ‘cut and cap’.  Though not, unfortunately, halting the flow of oil which has actually increased due to the cutting procedure.

Unfortunately, as bad as these setbacks are, the reality could be much worse.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) just released animation of how and where this oil spill may travel based on ocean currents. H/t Mother Jones

We have officially started the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season.  It runs from June 1 to November 30 and affect the eastern and Gulf coasts of the U.S. and the Caribbean nations.  For the 2010 hurricane season, NOAA is projecting a 70 percent probability of the following ranges:

• 14 to 23 Named Storms (top winds of 39 mph or higher), including:
• 8 to 14 Hurricanes (top winds of 74 mph or higher), of which:
• 3 to 7 could be Major Hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5; winds of at least 111 mph)

Which means the August deadline for stopping the spill touted by BP is more likely to be pushed back to the Christmas season (via Bloomberg):

…operations may need to be suspended to allow for an evacuation ahead of a tropical storm or hurricane, during which oil would continue to gush into the Gulf.

Or later, if their first two attempts (BP is drilling them concurrently) at drilling relief wells fail. Of course, then they still have to plug the well.

The so-called relief well being drilled to intercept and plug the damaged well by mid-August might miss — as other emergency wells have done before — requiring more time to make a second, third or fourth try, Dave Rensink, President Elect of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, said.

And while NOAA points the good news/bad news of hurricanes and oil slicks on their website with the likes of:

The high winds and seas will mix and “weather” the oil which can help accelerate the biodegradation process.

Storms’ surges may carry oil into the coastline and inland as far as the surge reaches. Debris resulting from the hurricane may be contaminated by oil from the Deepwater Horizon incident, but also from other oil releases that may occur during the storm.

NOAA doesn’t mention that a new report (via USA Today) says Underwater oil pipelines extremely vulnerable to hurricanes:

The findings, based on data obtained during Hurricane Ivan’s savage tear across the Gulf of Mexico in 2004, will appear in an upcoming edition of Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The study found that the 31,000 miles of pipelines along the seafloor of the Gulf could crack or rupture unless they are buried or their supporting foundations are built to withstand hurricane-induced currents. “Major oil leaks from damaged pipelines could have irreversible impacts on the ocean environment,” the authors wrote.

Researchers got a unique look at what a hurricane can do underwater during Ivan, a Category-4 hurricane with wind speeds of more than 130 mph in the Gulf. Ivan passed over a network of sensors on the ocean floor.

“This is the first time that anyone measured hurricane-induced stresses on the Gulf bottom,” says study author Bill Teague of the Naval Research Laboratory in Mississippi.

The study’s calculations are the first to show that hurricanes propel underwater currents with enough force to dig up the seabed as far as almost 300 feet below the surface, potentially creating underwater mudslides and damaging pipes and other equipment that rest on the bottom.

The research suggests hurricanes considerably weaker than Ivan could tear up the seafloor.

Which really brings the unresolved questions surrounding the volume of spilling oil into sharp focus.  While the current government estimates 12,000 to 19,000 barrels leaking a day and BP has presented 60,000 barrels as a worst case number, one has to wonder if we are still getting the full picture when (via Bloomberg):

In its original exploration plan for the Macondo well about 40-miles from the Louisiana coast, BP estimated the worst-case scenario for an oil spill was 162,000 barrels of crude a day, according to a filing with the U.S. Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service.

And that leads us to the underwater oil plumes that much of the media isn’t talking about, the Obama administration calls “anomalies”, and BP claims it can’t find.   This spill is more than 40 days old and yet, it was only yesterday that NOAA sent the Thomas Jefferson to join the Gordon Gunter in investigating the effects of the spill on our undersea environment. (via Time)

Several independent academic research teams say they’ve found evidence that plumes of oil are forming and moving underwater — perhaps due to the effect of the nearly 1 million gallons of chemical dispersants the energy giant BP has used on the oil, both on the surface and at the wellhead 5,000 feet below.[snip]

University of Georgia scientists — out to sea on a research trip to the oil spill right now — took water samples at the middle depths where the plumes are thought to be and could actually smell and see the oil.[snip]

“The source of reliable information on this has not been the government,” says Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who has been following the spill since the beginning. “It has been independent academics.”

And (via ABC News) Marine scientists have discovered 3 huge swaths of oil particles in the Gulf of Mexico waters.

…new video showing oil plumes 40 miles out in the ocean, just southwest of the Deepwater Horizon. So far, three large underwater islands of oil have been discovered, some 20 miles long by 6 miles wide.

___

Kind of makes you wonder what all that dispersant is doing to marine life and wild life.  And what it will eventually do to us.

BREAKING — According to MSNBC today …

President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, an administration official and an Arizona congresswoman said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, they said.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts blocking drug trafficking. The troops will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, the administration official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending Guard troops to the border.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s popularity has gone through the roof since signing the new Arizona immigration law, despite the bullying of the President himself, not to mention the derogatory comments of both Attorney General Holder and Janet Napolitano, his head of Homeland Security. Brewer stood up for the safety and rights of her constituents, asking the President to step up and do his job and…he blinked.

That’s what happens when you call out a bully.

Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have abdicated their responsibility to secure the border – since it is such a difficult hot button issue and I can only assume both were afraid of risking the ire of Latino voters. This is not about discouraging immigration, but as many others pointed out, we cannot even move forward on immigration reform until we secure the border and protect our citizens – of all ethnicities.

MSNBC further reports…

Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move and Republicans planned to try to attach it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.

I guess the President needed to cut McCain and Kyl off at the pass.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the situation on the border has “greatly deteriorated.” He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent … as well as an additional $500 million, but it’s simply not enough,” McCain said.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said in a statement that the administration would announce the deployments later in the day Tuesday.

It may not be enough but it’s a start. Can’t wait to see what happens from here. Clearly, the President did not want to look like was standing on the sidelines once again.

I sincerely hope more of our representatives stand up for their principles and their constituents. Whether or not we agree with them on a specific issue is less important than the fact that someone is willing to make an honest case for their actions. Only then – when governance and choice is out in the open – can we have an effective debate on legislation, making decisions that will have a positive effect.

Better that than offering a small bandaid or merely paying lip service to a hot button issue.

What say you?

The Huffington Post, of all places, carried two surprising news items critical of The One. The first as reported by Danny Shea tells us Chris Matthews…

The MSNBC anchor, once so enamored with Barack Obama that he admitted a campaign speech sent a thrill up his leg, has now told Jay Leno that Obama scares him.

“The President scares me,” Matthews said of Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill disaster. “He’s been acting a little like a Vatican Observer here. When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn’t want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, ‘I’m in charge,’ he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It’s in our interest.”

Mr. Matthews described the BP oil spill as “the scariest thing I’ve ever seen.” He likewise lambasted Rush Limbaugh and former VP Dick Cheney, as he lamented years of various administrations looking the other way on safety precautions for off shore drilling. But no matter how much he spread the insults around, the fact remains that the bloom is off the rose between him and his Prez.

Matthews was forthright in condemning our backdoor deals with oil companies and no oversight re drilling – but the Dems have been the majority in Congress since 2006 and Obama has been President for 16 months – could safeguards not have been put back in place before the BP disaster? Matthews does not mention that Obama received large campaign contributions from BP.

And while Chris figures out he is scared of a man who leads from the rear, or leads by waiting, that is to say, not at all, we figured this out 2-1/2 years ago. I will admit to being likewise scared of someone who constantly says “I didn’t know” to inconvenient truths about his associates and dances quickly away from responsibility. I am also worried by someone slow to act on this oil spill but quick to jump down the throats of Arizonans, passing immigration law in desperation when the federal government was and is a no show. Our President is quick to race bait and pander to the Hispanic vote for his own benefit. Taking charge on the oil spill… not so much.

Laura Bassett of HuffPo reports that James Carville, a democratic stalwart, finally voices his frustration, too:

“He’s ‘Risking Everything’ With ‘Go Along With BP Strategy’”

Carville, the famously outspoken Louisianian who was a chief political aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Thursday that the administration’s response to the spill has been “lackadaisical” and that Obama was “naive” to trust BP to manage the massive clean-up effort.

“I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good motivation here,” he said. “They’re naive! BP is trying to save money, save everything they can… They won’t tell us anything, and oddly enough, the government seems to be going along with it! Somebody has got to, like shake them and say, ‘These people don’t wish you well! They’re going to take you down!’”…

“I’m as good a Democrat as most people, and I think this administration has done some good things. They are risking everything by this ‘go along with BP’ strategy they have that seems like, lackadaisical on this, and Doug is right, they seem like they’re inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it’ll all go away. It’s not going away. It’s growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude, and they’ve got to go to Plan B.”

Most damning is this little tidbit…

Not until yesterday, critics note, a full 30 days after the oil rig explosion, did federal officials establish a technical team to measure the full extent of the spill.

Until now, the vast bulk of clean-up responsibilities have been left to BP, which isn’t much closer to capping the oil leak now than it was weeks ago. The oil has already affected nearly 50 miles of sensitive marshlands on the Louisiana coastline, according to estimates by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and federal authorities have increased the no-fishing zone to 45,728 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP has consistently downplayed the severity of the spill despite growing evidence that suggests otherwise, and their strategy to clean up the spill has involved the use of a toxic chemical dispersant that EPA officials warn may cause lasting damage to coastal ecosystems.

The EPA has now given BP 24 hours to begin using a less toxic dispersant, but Carville says the government’s primary failure was trusting BP to handle the clean-up in the first place.

“Right now I wouldn’t trust BP to do anything,” he said. “And nobody does”

So much for ready on day one. It would have cost BP all of $5 million dollars to install the safety equipment to prevent this disaster. This Administration had plenty of time these past 16 months to put such safety precautions back in place.

The Administration may have been slow to act, but here’s a bit of news that may surprise you. Guy Adams of The Indpendent/UK reports that BP calls in Costner’s $26m vacuum cleaners to mop up huge oil spill.

[Mr. Costner] has spent 15 years developing device to separate oil from sea water and it is now being put to work.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. So with hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil still spewing into the Gulf of Mexico each day, and its corporate image starting to resemble the tar-covered sea creatures now washing on to Louisiana’s fragile shoreline, BP has called on Kevin Costner to help stave off environmental Armageddon.

The Hollywood star has been bobbing around the Mississippi Delta helping representatives of the British oil firm and US coastguard test-drive a stainless steel device called the Ocean Therapy. In a claim which sounds as unlikely as the plot premise of Waterworld, he says it can quickly and efficiently clean oil from tainted sea water.

Bizarrely, Costner may be on to something. The actor has spent 15 years and roughly $26million of his personal fortune developing the patented machine with the help of his elder brother Dan, a scientist. It works like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking up dirty liquid and then using a high-speed centrifuge to separate it into oil, and heavier water.

When he allowed the local media to see Ocean Therapy in action – albeit on dry land – it appeared to work as advertised. Yesterday, six of the devices were attached to boats and floated into the Gulf, so the organisers of the clean-up operation could see whether they might also be capable of functioning on the high seas.

“This is a technology that we know works, and has worked for a long time,” Costner said, adding that 26 of the machines are now in Louisiana ready to be put into action. “I’m just really happy that the light of day has come to this, and I’m very sad about why it is. But this is why it was developed, and like anything that we all face, as a group, we face it together.”

Costner, 55, has quietly been developing Ocean Therapy since the mid-1990s when he founded the Costner Industries Nevada Corporation, a company which funded eco-friendly research by his brother and a team of scientists. Aside from the water cleaning device, the firm has also invented a non-chemical battery.

Each of the 26 Heath Robinson-style machines now in Louisiana waiting to be deployed can clean between 5 and 200 gallons of water a minute, depending on its size, said Costner’s lawyer and business partner, John Houghtaling, which means they could in theory mop up oil at the rate it is currently gushing into the Gulf. Polluted sea water which passes through them comes out 97 per cent clean.

“Kevin saw the Exxon Valdez spill, and as a fisherman and an environmentalist, it just stuck in his craw, the fact that we didn’t have separation technology,” said Houghtaling. “Kevin wrote all the checks for this project. This was one man’s vision. Sometimes it takes a star to come in with their money and time to make a difference.”

I appreciate someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is and hope Mr. Costner’s invention will be of assistance in this horrid situation. Odd however, that we might have to pin our hopes on a private citizen rather than our Government or the oil company that caused this disaster in the first place.

The LA Times also reports on Costner’s invention:

If all goes according to plan, he said, “We could have as many as 26 machines dispatched throughout the gulf. Our largest machine is 112 inches high, weighs 2 ½ tons and cleans 210,000 gallons a day of oily water. We are hoping to have 10 machines that size out there — meaning we could potentially clean 2 million gallons of oil water a day.”

Godspeed.

So, um, what’s the Administration doing?

Oh, this is rich, In yet another breach of protocol, the White House has crafted an interview with SCOTUS Nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, as this article highlights, Kagan’s Video on White House Blog.

What’s wrong with that, one might ask? Well, this:

White Houses usually keep their Supreme Court nominees under wraps, shunning all interviews. With Elena Kagan, the Obama White House made an exception.

It interviewed her, itself. And in keeping with its habit of using online tools to talk about various policy matters, the White House staff posted her remarks on the official in-house blog.

And here it is, if you care to watch it:

The article continues:

Not surprisingly, there were no questions about her views on abortion, or executive power, or affirmative action, or any of the other hot-button issues that conservatives and liberals alike would love to hear her address. Rather, the video is a bland, overly scripted take on a woman who, by all accounts, is warm, funny and engaging.

Ms. Kagan did allow one bit of humor to slip in, though. In describing her current job, as solicitor general, she said, “Nobody knows quite what that means. Some people think it’s the people who put the labels on the cigarette packages.’’

In fact, the solicitor general argues cases on behalf of the government before the Supreme Court. Ms. Kagan will be continue to hold the title, but from here on out she will focus exclusively on getting confirmed. That begins Wednesday, when she will go to Capitol Hill for her first round of meetings with senators, who will ultimately decide whether she gets the job.

Say, whaaaa? There were no tough questions from some White House staffer, someone who makes videos. Well, color me so surprised at that. I imagine had they wanted real questions asked of Solicitor General Kagan, they would have allowed real journalists (okay, what passes for them these days) to interview her. Except that would have been breaking with protocol, which this White House never does (that was snark).

All of that is to say, there is much we don’t know about SG Kagan yet. That’s exactly why there are hearings for positions of this magnitude. From what I have seen of her resume, it is impressive indeed. I am withholding further judgment until I know more about her. And while her resume is impressive, it is a resume. And a resume is not the same as a paper trail or a judicial record. The latter is a concern for many, as this poll indicates, Polls: Judicial Experience Matters:

If the Senate confirms Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, there will be three female justices on the court for the the first time, no Protestant justices on the court for the first time, and, for the first time in nearly four decades, a justice would join the court with no experience as a judge.

How will Americans react?

Recent polls indicate that Ms. Kagan’s gender and religion will have little effect on Americans’ support for her nomination. In polls by Gallup, ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News, broad majorities of Americans said that the next justice’s gender or religion did not matter to them.

Her lack of experience as a judge, however, could prove problematic in the court of public opinion.

In the ABC/Post poll, 70 percent said experience as a judge would be a factor in favoring a Supreme Court nominee, including 52 percent who said it was a strong factor. And in the Fox News poll, 76 percent of voters said that when selecting a new justice, whether he or she has served as a judge should be a factor, including 20 percent who said it should be the single most important factor.

While it is not a requirement that a nominee for the Supreme Court has served as a judge, it is helpful to have access to decisions rendered. (Click Here to read the rest of the article, and HERE to see the full results of the poll.)

And now, the White House has put the kabosh on SG Kagan’s family being interviewed, too, Want to Talk to Kagan’s Family? Permission Denied. Such a big ol’ surprise from the Obama team. I mean, really – they gave everyone that cute little video to watch? Why the heck would they need to talk to Kagan’s family, too, right? Oh, sure:

White Houses traditionally put a muzzle on their Supreme Court nominees, to keep them from saying anything that might jeopardize Senate confirmation. But the Obama White House has taken it one step further. It is limiting, if not blocking, access to the nominee’s family.

The New York Times received permission on Tuesday from Hunter College High School in Manhattan, Elena Kagan’s alma mater, to observe a constitutional law class there taught by her brother Irving. We thought it would be intriguing to watch the give and take between Mr. Kagan, who is known as a passionate and interactive educator, and his students on his first day back after witnessing his sister’s nomination in Washington.

Mr. Kagan, who is also a Hunter alumnus, did not have a problem with the idea, a school spokeswoman said, but she added that all media requests now had to be given final approval by the White House. The times were tentatively set: there was either an 8:52 a.m. class or a 9:36 a.m. class on Wednesday. “I thought it would have been great,” said the spokeswoman, Meredith Halpern.

But when presented with the idea, the White House balked.

Wait, is the author (Sharon Otterman)trying to claim that the “Most Transparent Administration In The Universe” would be trying to keep information away from the people? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES:

Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman, said that the administration was “uncomfortable with the idea at this time.” The White House called Hunter, and Ms. Halpern said later Tuesday it could not permit the class observation. A formal proposal has been submitted to the White House, which the administration requested. They asked that it outline the intent and goal of the article in significant detail.

A cousin of Ms. Kagan, Gail Katz-James of Minneapolis, was quoted in a profile in The Times the day after the president announced the nomination. She described the “verbal sparring” around the dinner table in the Kagans’ Upper West Side apartment, saying that the family “just really enjoyed debating and discussing everything.”

But two days after the article appeared, when contacted again by the same reporter from The Times, Ms. Katz-James said: “I’m sorry. I’m not able to talk to you.” She was asked if the White House had directed her not to talk to the press. “Nope,” she said, and hung up the phone.

Golly gee – not to be the suspicious type or anything, but isn’t that just a tad curious? They give us this slow pitch softball interview, then refuse to even allow family members to be asked about their experience of SG Kagan? Wowie zowie.

Remind me of the definition of “transparent” again, would you? I’m sure the White House would be happy to give me their version, but I’m thinking that might not match reality…

**UPDATED** Since I wrote this post, new information has come out about SG Kagan. One is her college thesis which discussed her thoughts on Socialism, and the other is a paper she wrote in 1996 entitled (h/t SFIndie), “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role Of Governmental Motive In First Amendment Doctrine. It has some interesting passages in it, that’s for sure.

But get this. Wanna guess whose transcripts from Law School are available?? That’s right, Kagan’s. You cannot see Obama’s, mind you, even though every other president has had to make their records public, but you can see hers!! I guess that’s something…

Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times offered this little tidbit about the new and highly controversial Arizona immigration law:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.

Knowing how fair our media is – why wouldn’t our Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, want to get his talking points second hand from a bunch of pundits and media hacks. According to Politico, some of these jokers have even confessed to withholding important parts of the story for books they are writing so they can earn a giant payday for their negligent behavior. I tell ya, it warms the cockles of my heart to know Mr. Holder is right on the job – willing to comment on propaganda and sensationalized headlines rather than reading the actual law.

And how long could it take to read the thing anyway? It’s not as nearly as big as our 2700 page health care legislation, is it?

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama’s request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

“On the basis of what he’s heard” – kind of like hearsay?

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation.

“It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

Yes, well, one would think so. Our Attorney General gets his talking points from the President’s office who is trying to use the Arizona law to get Latino votes in the midterms and in 2012. Is it surprising Mr. Obama would be speaking negatively about a law he probably hasn’t read either?

The Arizona law’s backers argue that it doesn’t go beyond what federal law already allows, and they say press reports have distorted the legislation. They point to provisions in the law that specifically rule out racial profiling as proof that it can be implemented without conflicting with civil rights.

No one is allowed to stop you for no reason. If you are already being questioned for an infraction, only then can someone ask for identification. Just as you would have to offer in any other country.

Mr. Holder said he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

Soon.

Well, good for you, Mr. Attorney General. But by all means go on ahead and get on national television and act just like our President, criticizing something before you even know the facts.