Obamacare Chickens Coming Home To Roost

The themes from this recent O'Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo are not likely to go away. Health insurance rates are on the rise. The health insurance companies are blaming Obamacare for the rise in costs. This part in particular will prove politically deadly for President Obama.

As we stated Wednesday night, American health insurance companies are building in the anticipated costs of Obamacare. For the next four years until the Obamacare program completely kicks in in 2014, all Americans are going to be hammered as the insurance companies try to make as much money as they can before the federal rules are imposed.

I don't know about you, but I never heard this part of Obamacare. I was never told that my insurance rates were going to run wild.

Were you told that? Did President Obama mention that? I don't believe he did.

If you believe Dick Morris, the President wants rates to go up so that he can institute single payer in 2014. Of course, he won't be around in 2014 because his policies are all a colossal failure and we are seeing the beginning of that abject failure in real terms with Obamacare right now.

The fact is that Obama claimed that Obamacare would bend the cost curve downward and instead rates are skyrocketing up and the insurance companies are blaming Obama. So, the economy is horrible. Unemployment is near ten percent. The border is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. Now, health insurance premiums are skyrocketing as a result of the very policies that Obama claimed would make them come down. To add to that, both Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters may have their congressional trials in September. That's an unmitigated Democratic disaster. ob

Missouri Invalidates Health Care Mandate

Yet another state sent Obamacare a message.

Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama’s health care law — namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law.

“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they just picked up a megaphone.”

The legalities of all this are murky. The politics couldn't be clearer. The administration is on a collision course with dozens of states on this mandate and it will end up in the Supreme Court. It will pit individual states against the federal government. While this is happening, the Obama administration is on a separate collision course with Arizona and other states vis a vis illegal immigration.

The Ghettoization of Obama

That's a term that Dick Morris used on the O'Reilly Factor last night. First, a recent Bloomberg survey has found that Obama and the Democrats are on the losing end of nearly every issue.

A majority or plurality disapproves of Obama’s management of the economy, health care, the budget deficit, the overhaul of financial market regulations and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9- 12. In addition, almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause. The Senate is scheduled to begin voting on the financial regulation bill today.
Almost two-thirds say they feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction, an even more sour assessment than in March when 58 percent felt that way. Two-thirds of independent voters are pessimistic, while just 56 percent of Democrats offer a vote of confidence.
“They don’t see any solutions in sight,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “They have been hammered by the economy and there is a disconnect between the lives Americans are living and Washington. They seem to have lost hope.”

There are all sorts of theories as to why the Obama administration is so forcefully attacking Arizona over its anti immigration law, not prosecuting the New Black Panthers, and why the NAACP has recently called the Tea Parties a racist organization.
One theory is that all of this is part of a strategy of energizing minorities. With the country headed in the wrong direction, and the people generally unhappy, the administration may be looking to gin up racial tensions for the cynical notion of energizing their base. Now, that's only the theory but the perception is that the "post racial" President is now deep in the middle of race.
Not 24 hours before the NAACP censured the Tea Parties as racists, Michelle Obama spoke in front of the group.




Now, Michelle Obama's speech was about child obesity and had nothing to do with the Tea Parties, but the optics couldn't be worse.

Michelle Obama’s participation as keynote speaker could prove toxic to the Democrats in the run-up to the November elections—even though she confined her remarks to obesity and the like, and steered clear of references to the Tea Party. Many in America already believe that she is a black militant in mufti, and her headlining of a gathering which cast the Tea Party as racist will have been noted by a good many ordinary, non-radical, middle-of-the-road Americans—not to mention Tea Party activists, who will be sure (and who can blame them?) to put together little YouTube packages from the NAACP shindig, cutting from Michelle O to Ben Jealous, the NAACP president who was the resolution’s prime mover.

As if the optics of naked racial tensions weren't bad enough, there's the Black Panthers case. The idea that these guys aren't being prosecuted despite there being video evidence is simply head scratching. No one has been able to explain it. What it has done is put these guys in the spotlight and we've learned that the New Black Panthers traffic in racism.



Finally, there's the Obama administration's full frontal assault on the Arizona law. How else can you explain the administration going against public opinion, against any logical policy sense, but that this is a naked play to gin up the Hispanics? It's all part of the Ghettoization of Obama.

JUstice Department Responds Vis a Vis Sanctuary Cities

When the Justice Department first brought a suit against Arizona over its new anti illegal immigration law, Governor Jan Brewer said this.

The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of ‘sanctuary’ policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local ‘sanctuary’ policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

This became a common criticism of the suit. If the government believes that immigration is strictly a federal issue what are we to make of so called sanctuary cities, like Chicago, that refuse to enforce federal law. In fact, sanctuary cities openly flaunt their refusal to follow federal immigration laws. On the other hand, Arizona passed a law that would help the federal government enforce its law.

The administration stalled in responding. Robert Gibbs was asked once during his normal daily White House briefing and he said he get back on it. Now, the Justice Department has issued this statement.

There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. That's what Arizona did in this case.

That statement will be hyperanalyzed as it is totally without logic. In fact, it is sanctuary cities that actively interfere with federal law. Arizona's law mirrors federal statutes. On another note, fifteen states lead by Michigan have joined in the suit in support of Arizona against the feds.

Brewer V Obama

Talk about a visual. The sign says "Travel not recommended". That's the border that the Obama administration says it's done more than any administration to secure. It's so secure that parts are a literal war zone.

Yet, the president is determined to sue Arizona because that state dares to take on illegal immigration head on. This is a loser politically, electorally, and on a policy level. Governor Brewer has become the face of tough immigration enforcement and she challenges every half measure that the Obama administration makes as simply not good enough.

The Texas and Arizona governors criticized the Obama administration's border security plans Monday, saying not enough National Guard troops are being deployed to their states.

"What we heard wasn't anything what we hoped to hear," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer told reporters after a 90-minute briefing by federal officials sent by President Obama.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican like Brewer, said the deployment to his state was "insufficient to meet the needs of securing the Texas-Mexico border."

There's no politicking that will relieve Obama here. Until and unless Obama takes definitive steps to secure the border Jan Brewer will be there to point out just how badly the federal government is failing at it.

That will also keep this issue on the front pages. This might be the biggest loser for Obama of all his policy losers. He loses by at least 60-40 in all polling. He loses because he's wrong. Texas, California, and Arizona are under seige and the president is trying to figure out how to use this as an opportunity to legalize millions of illegals. That's the narrative and the more he confronts Brewer the more that's crystallized.

The Worst Week of the President's Term?

How many times have you heard a pundit make that proclamation about the president in the last year? I can think of at least five times in the last year when someone has made that proclamation. That doesn't say much for the president, but I also expect someone to make that proclamation again.

The nuclear bomb, pardon the pun, left by General McChrystal today has left the president with few options. If he doesn't fire McChrystal, he looks weak. Meanwhile, if he does, Afghanistan goes into even greater chaos. No matter what he does, McChrystal's words have left the impression that the Obama administration is in complete chaos.

Then, today a U.S. District judge ruled that the Obama administration's six month moratorium is illegal.

In a victory for drilling proponents, a federal judge struck down President Obama's six-month moratorium on

deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday, saying the administration rashly concluded that because one rig failed, the others are in immediate danger, too.

The White House promised an immediate appeal. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president believes strongly that drilling at such depths does not make sense and puts the safety of workers "at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."

The Interior Department had halted approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling of 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

The policy is already unpopular and now a judge has ruled it illegal. Just think about that. General McChrystal claims that Obama knows nothing about war policy and a judge says he knows about as much about the law.

The announcement by the administration that they'll sue Arizona, which went over about as well as all their policies, was immediately followed by Jon Kyl's shocking accusation that Obama is holding the border hostage to comprehensive immigration reform which is about as popular as Obamacare.

This all happened this week. It's yet another bad week in what is quickly turning into a disastrous Presidency.

Kyl V Obama

That video is in the process of going viral. It's going viral because of this comment.

The problem is, he said, if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform. In other words, they're holding it hostage.

The White House has responded in kind.

The President didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it. There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.

The White House renewed its commitment to comprehensive reform. Once again, the debate over illegal immigration has turned into something totally different. The only thing interesting is the assertion by the White House that the borders can only be secured through comprehensive immigration reform.

That of course is total nonsense. First, Congress passed into law in 2007 that a fence be built to cover the entire Southern border. That fence has been barely built. All the White House needs to do is put in more resources in building it and the entire Southern border would have a fence. Second, the president can put five thousand, ten thousand, and even fifty thousand national guard troops on the border right now if he wanted to. He needs no legislation to do that. None of these action require comprehensive immigration reform. Both would significantly improve border security.

Now Chic To Dump on Obama

This rant has become infamous and it may be viewed historically as the moment it was all right for natural supporters to begin to openly question Obama. While Carville's rant is the most compelling example, it's not the only one. Here's Kirsten Powers.

Politics as usual": To most Americans, it's be come a dirty phrase. To the Beltway crowd, it's the reflexive defense for the White House's dispatching of a former president to try muscling Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

Obama & Co. wanted to clear the primary field for Sen. Arlen Specter, who embodies everything Americans hate about politicians. A party-switching career pol, "Spineless Specter" holds no discernible principles, save his unshakable belief that he is entitled to hold power.

Sorry, but this isn't "change you can believe in."

Both Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have given Obama criticism but that's mild compared to this scathing critique by Peggy Noonan, an early supporter.

The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.

I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet the need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

Even Luis Gutierrez has had criticism for Obama, on immigration.

The top story in the Spanish-language press today is Saturday's march in Phoenix protesting Arizona law SB 1070. Criticism of the Obama administration from Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and a top Spanish-language newspaper and reports on how Arizona's Latinos are preparing for SB 1070 to go into effect also make the news.

Of course, Chris Mathews, who infamously had a tingle up his leg about Obama, is also now criticizing him.

He has not acted like (the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) is more important than something else like a fundraiser in California or an interview about basketball with Marv Albert, He doesn't seem to be taking ownership.

Now, some of this is the confluence of events. After all, Obama looks helpless on the Gulf, just as he looks hapless and corrupt on Sestak, just as nothing gets done on immigration. The rest of it is the realization that Obama's rhetoric was really nothing but rhetoric. He's not special. He's just a politician and not an altogether good one at that.

Representative Sanchez: Az Law Written by White Supremacists

That's not exactly what she said, but it's close.

A California congresswoman is pointing the finger at white supremacist groups, who she says have inspired Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., told a Democratic Club on Tuesday that white supremacist groups are influencing lawmakers to adopt laws that will lead to discrimination.

"There's a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups," said the lawmaker, who is of Mexican descent. "It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics."

Sanchez made this claim based on the theory of Andrea Nill of Think Progress. Meanwhile, Nill made her claim because an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) helped to write the bill and the Southern Poverty Law Center once labeled FAIR a hate group. Sanchez has since backed away from her comments and now claims that she was taken out of context.

This continues the trend, however, of the Arizona law being used as the centerpiece of a debate on culture rather than immigration. With such outlandish and provocative statements, there is blowback. This was no different. Here's how George Miller responded.

It's trying to find somebody somewhere you can accuse of something, It's red herring. (She's) trying to change the debate from what the law says.

Sanchez will likely take a hit for this but once again we're not talking about fixing our borders and instead getting into side issues.

Obama to Meet With Brewer

To be a fly on the wall...

President Obama intends to meet with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday, a White House official told FoxNews.com, after criticism mounted over reports the president wouldn't be able to meet her while she is in Washington this week.

Brewer had requested a face-to-face meeting with Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the former Arizona governor, as tensions rise between his administration and the Grand Canyon State over its controversial law clamping down on illegal immigrants.

Every time the president misspeaks and demonizes on this bill I wonder if someone will ever be in a position to challenge him. Now, Governor Brewer will be that person. No more can President Obama hide behind rhetoric and half truths on this bill.

The president has called it misguided, unconstitutional, and will lead to racial profiling. Now, he'll have to back up each and every piece of rhetoric.

Governor Brewer will be on Greta tonight. That seems to be the wrong day to have her on but I'm sure a full debrief will happen soon enough. This will be some meeting and all should watch.

AZ Lawmaker Appeals New Law to the UN

Arizona state Sen. Amanda Aguirre has appealed the new Arizona anti illegal immigration law to the United Nations?

Aguirre attributes her stands on immigration – a departure from how partisans in Washington tend to line up on the issue – to her “very interesting background.”

“I have a Mexican background,” she says, “I also have a great great father with a last name Hamilton who was here fighting against Mexico in the Mexican American war. I have a Hamilton blood and I have Mexican blood, too.”

Her take on the border fence – tarred as unwelcoming or even racist by many Democrats – may underscore the severity of the immigration crisis for states like Arizona, given the rampant drug war murders south of the state’s borders.

Ironically enough, the committee this would be referred to, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, include such stalwarts on human rights as Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. Furthermore, in order for the commission to issue a challenge there needs to be a specific case in which someone's human rights have been violated. Since the law hasn't taken effect, that's impossible.

Comprehensive Reform is Code for Amnesty and a Lack of Border Enforcement

If you want to know why those that want tough border enforcement are so weary of "comprehensive immigration reform", just watch that video. In it, Peter Beinart, a supporter of comprehensive reform, lays out his vision.

In the vision, he spends minutes talking about how to legalize those here illegally. Then, right before he finishes, he says, "and I suppose tough border enforcement as well". Does anyone believe that Beinart is really in favor of any serious border enforcement? That's how most of those that favor "comprehensive immigration reform talk about it. They spend an awful lot of time talking about what to do with the illegals already here and tough border enforcement is an afterthought.

To really close down the border, your heart has to be in it. Beinart's heart is in to making sure that illegals become legal but when it comes to border enforcement...that's another story, and the same goes for most that support comprehensive immigration reform.

Obama to Send Guard to the Border

President Obama will send 1200 National Guard troops to the border.

President Barack Obama is preparing to send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, amid growing concern about cross-border criminal activity and a simmering debate over illegal immigration.

Obama plans to submit a request to Congress for $500 million in supplemental funding to secure the border and enforce federal laws, according to an administration official.

Details are still sketchy however here's what we know so far. Today, there was a pow wow between the Republicans and the President and illegal immigration was the main topic of debate. Republican sources call this a contentious meeting. According to Republicans, John McCain was adamant that the border must be secured first. Republicans also say that the President wasn't all that receptive to border enforcement. The White House has said little about the meeting and so this has been a one sided analysis.

That said, this announcement came out hours after details of the pow wow came out. It's also nothing more than a token effort. To get serious, President Obama needs to send about fifty thousand national guard to the border and he needs to give them a directive to speed up building the fence the Congress authorized in 2007.

Instead, Obama sends twelve hundred. That won't do much of anything. It's a way to appease the border security without really doing much for border security. This will do little to appease anyone serious about border security. Given the polling recently, that's most of the country.

Discriminatory Authority: The Arizona Immigration Law and Financial Reform

President Obama has recently attempted to thread the needle in his criticism of the Arizona anti illegal immigration law. Now, he says it has the potential for discrimination and abuse.

I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Now, after it was initially passed, the Arizona legislature amended it and said that this should not be carried out in a discriminatory way. But I think a fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested. And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.

At the same time, Obama is pushing financial reform and in that reform is the ability for the federal government to take over any financial institution that they deem on the verge of failure and a "systemic risk".

Under the new law, the government would be able seize the wobbly firm, fire its executives, and fund its operations until it could sell them off in pieces. The proceeds from these sales would pay the government back; whatever was left would go to bondholders, who would presumably suffer some losses. The shareholders—the people who own common stock—would get wiped out entirely. (If the proceeds weren’t enough to repay the government, it would recoup the rest by levying a fee on the industry.) This is basically a scaled up (and stretched out) version of the way the FDIC handles smaller-bank failures.

First, every law has the potential for abuse and discrimination. Second, the standard "reasonable suspicion" has been part of case law for years. Meanwhile, systemic risk is a relatively new concept and it will be applied entirely by the federal government. So, isn't this law open to just as much abuse and discrimination as the Arizona law?

After all, what's to stop the Obama administration from liquidating a financial firm simply because that firm contributed to Republicans? There's little since "systemic risk" is a vague term to be applied by the Treasury Department. Here's how Dick Morris described the potential for abuse.

The bill authorizes the secretary of the Treasury — a political appointee — to seize any financial company (bank or nonbank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency.

This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding, or any other abuse bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive. It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

Yet, Obama has used every opportunity possible to sound the alarm about the potential abuse of the Arizona law. Meanwhile, not once has Obama even considered the possibility that the sweeping financial reform bill will lead to the same kind of abuse.

Highland Park Administration Runs Scared

As the whole world knows by now, Highland Park High School in suburban Chicago canceled an appearance in a basketball tournament in Arizona this coming winter. This set off a firestorm but the administration, mostly Suzan Hebron who made the decision, have been unwilling to explain themselves. The decision was going to be part of a school board meeting at Deerfield High School, the school in the town next door, at which this trip cancellation would be discussed. That has since been removed from the agenda.

Big crowds were expected at a North Shore school board meeting Monday over a proposal to replace grass football fields with artificial turf at Highland Park High School. But that was before former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin weighed in over the latest district controversy.

The district gained national notoriety last week for not allowing the high school's girls basketball team to play in an Arizona tournament.

Township High School District 113 officials cited student safety concerns because of Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration, initially stating the trip "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values."

Monday's school board meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. at the Deerfield High School auditorium. A school official said the meeting had been scheduled for weeks at the auditorium because of the turf issue.

The basketball team controversy will not be on the board agenda, Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent, confirmed.

The school has said that the team will play in a tournament in Florida instead though details haven't been set yet. The administration has a duty to explain themselves and every day they don't the story grows bigger.

Imagine if All School Administrators Were Like Suzan Hebson

By now most have heard that the Highland Park High School girls basketball team won't be playing in a tournament in Arizona because of their new anti illegal immigration law. Here's a part of the statement.

As you are aware, there has been significant media attention to Township High School District 113’s decision to not send the Highland Park High School varsity girls’ basketball team to a tournament in Scottsdale, Arizona scheduled for December, 2010. This decision is not a political statement regarding the State of Arizona’s recently enacted legislation regarding immigration.

Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. District 113 boasts a diverse student population and, as a school district, we believe in equal opportunity for each of our students. The selection of a girls’ varsity basketball team for the 2010-2011 winter athletic season will take place in November, 2010. The team has yet to be selected. When our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty. We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law. Our athletes will play in a competitive basketball tournament during their winter break.

Make no mistake, this is a political statement and an absurd one. There are tens of thousand state, county, and municipal laws. So, what happens when a superintendent decides that because they don't like one they won't send their kids to said area.

You can pretty much forget anyone going to Chicago. After all, our corrupt politics shouldn't conform to anyone's morality and ethics. So, the next time Highland Park has a game in city are we to expect that the Superintendent will also cancel the trip to protest the corruption in the city. Another superintendent will want to boycott California because they don't think the welfare state conforms to their standards. Someone else may boycott another state because legalized marijuana sends the wrong message to their students. This could be endless. That's what makes all this so despicable. This superintendent just picked this law out of tens of thousands to make her stand.

The rest of this is total smoke screen. You can't ever guarantee the safety of anyone but the idea that the new anti illegal immigration law somehow puts these girls in any more danger than normal is laughable.

What's really despicable about this latest protest is that it continues to make this debate all about culture. That's because opponents paint the law as racist and an affront to civil rights, and so proponents defend themselves from those charges. On and on we go, but the debate isn't about how to solve the problem.

First Health Care Now Immigration?

Does anyone remember when the public trusted Democrats over Republicans overwhelmingly on health care? It's true. Go back to 2000-2008 and you'll find a near two to one polling number on which party was favored on health care.

Then, we had a substantive health care debate and those numbers are just about mirror images. The public inherently believed that the president was promising everything to every body and he was promising everyone that no one would have to pay for it. The public believed this was simply impossible.

We are in the beginning stages of a national debate that will likely be as consuming on illegal immigration as the one we had on health care. This happened once before. That was in the summer of 2007. Then, the Republicans didn't just lose but were slaughtered. They came off as weak and wobbly to their base and racist to Hispanics. It played a not so insignificant role in their upcoming losses.

Republicans still seem like racists to Hispanics but things are turning around with their base. Take a look at this advertisement by John McCain.





















I have some electoral advice for President Obama. If he wants to improve his job approval by five points minimum, he needs to hold a simple five minute speech. In that speech, he needs to announce that he's calling up fifty thousand national guard troops to back up the border patrol on the Southern border and their initial task would be to fast track the building of the fence passed in 2007. That would immediately improve his standing.

Of course, that's not the tack that Obama is taking. Instead, he's criticizing the Arizona law as misguided, unconstitutional, and a violation of basic civil rights. Unless President Obama takes tangible steps to secure the border, that tack will cause the Democratic party to lose their advantage on immigration like they already lost it on health care.

Everyone from President Obama, the Los Angeles City Council, to an Assistant Superintendent in Highland Park, Il. have given the liberal perspective in illegal immigration. That perspective has been routinely rejected by polling in Arizona and nationwide. Every time this inconvenient fact is pointed out, liberals compare their stance to Jim Crow laws, Nazism, and even slavery. Thus, they've compared the majority of Americans to those that supported those acts.

Now, if John McCain can go from teaming up with Ted Kennedy on immigration to going way right, that's where the party is going as well. It's very simple. Back building the fence asap, putting the guard behind the border patrol, a national id card for immigrants, and serious sanctions against employers that hire illegals, and you win this issue. That's where Republicans are going and Democrats are calling them racists as they get there. As such, illegal immigration will flip to Republicans much like health care already has.

The Arizona Immigration Law, the MSM, and the Dick Morris Principle

Yesterday on the Factor, Bernie Goldberg and Bill O'Reilly discussed a recent Media Research Center study about the way in which the MSM has presented the Arizona anti illegal immigration law.

From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the "growing storm" of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law's passage -- 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.

The soundbite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law numbers, however, included many soundbites of Arizona public officials defending themselves against liberal charges that they were racists or in favor of racial profiling.

The study found that while the law is overwhelmingly approved by the public it has been portrayed overwhelmingly negatively by the MSM. If you think about it, this study shows how utterly worthless the MSM is. They have spent the better part of the last month mercilessly beating up on this law and all that's happened is that public opinion has hardenedDick Morris once opined that it doesn't matter how the MSM presents a story. All that matters is what story it presents. Back in 2007, Morris said that if the media is talking about the Patriot Act that's good for Republicans. If they are talking about health care, that is good for Democrats. That's because the Patriot Act then polled well for Republicans and health care did the same for Democrats.

Now, the media is fixated with illegal immigration and that clearly helps the Republicans. The public favors tough illegal immigration policies a la Arizona. The MSM is fixated on hammering home that this law intrudes on civil rights, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what narrative the media presents. Instead, it only matters what overall story they focus on. To focus on illegal immigration helps the party that stands for tougher illegal immigration.

Demonization and the Arizona Immigration Bill

Here's one thing I am absolutely certain of regarding the new Arizona anti illegal immigration bill. No one's civil rights have been violated yet. I know this because the law doesn't go into effect until August and so it would be impossible.

That's an important statement of fact because opponents of the bill are certain that this bill will trample on civil liberties. Furthermore, when pressed to back up these assertions, they make claims that aren't in the law. For instance, they claim police officers will be able to stop anyone of Hispanic descent and "ask for their papers". Of course, the law only allows for police to ask for identification during the course of another stop for another violation of the law. It's also alleged that this allows racial profiling. In fact, the law specifically prohibits racial profiling.

In fact, this law does nothing that federal laws don't already do. I know this because the authors of the law were careful not to violate the "Supremacy clause". That's the portion of the constitution that states that any federal statute overrides a state statute and thus makes said state statute unconstitutional. So, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional, then what does that make federal law?

In fact, opponents have gone so far as to suggest that this will give Arizona police license to abuse the law. Of course, not only is that a totally uncalled for indictment of the police in Arizona, but wouldn't any law be open to abuse by those that are corrupt.

The one thing that this law has done is opened up a much needed debate on illegal immigration. On the other hand, there has been so much demonization of the law and its supporters that the debate has been entirely rudimentary. We aren't debating the best way to seal the border, stop companies from hiring illegals and what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. Instead, one side accuses the other of being racist. The other responds in kind and the debate is about culture and not illegal immigration.

The Long Strange Trip of Mario Benitez

Jerry Lemaine is facing an immigration nightmare. A bust for possession of marijuana and a subsequent conviction that wound with the penalty of probation may cost Lemaine the ability to stay in America. Lemaine is a legal resident alien that came here from Haiti as a youth. Yet, this pot bust may lead to his deportation.

When a police officer in this Long Island suburb found a marijuana cigarette in Jerry Lemaine’s pocket one night in January 2007, a Legal Aid lawyer counseled him to plead guilty. Under state statutes, the penalty was only a $100 fine, and though Mr. Lemaine had been caught with a small amount of marijuana years earlier as a teenager, that case had been dismissed.

But Mr. Lemaine, a legal permanent resident, soon discovered that his quick guilty plea had dire consequences. Immigration authorities flew him in shackles to Texas, where he spent three years behind bars, including 10 months in solitary confinement, as he fought deportation to Haiti, the country he had left at age 3.

Under federal rulings that prevailed in Texas, Mr. Lemaine had lost the legal opportunity that rulings in New York would have allowed: to have an immigration judge weigh his offenses, including earlier misdemeanors resolved without jail time, against other aspects of his life, like his nursing studies at Hunter Business School; his care for his little sister, a United States citizen with a brain disorder; and the help he gave his divorced mother, who had worked double shifts to move the family out of a dangerous Brooklyn neighborhood.

It's a fate that Rigo Padilla also almost faced when a DUI conviction also nearly lead to his deportation. Like Lemaine, Padilla was a legal resident alien in the States and he'd come here as a youth. Following his arrest, he too was summoned in front of an immigration judge and faced deportation.

Padilla was arrested for drinking and driving in January. He admitted to police that he had "a few beers" while watching a football game with friends. He planned to only drive eight blocks from a friend's house to his own. He w

as stopped before he made it home after rolling through a stop sign.

Nobody was hurt in the incident and Padilla was given supervision, which under Illinois law wouldn't even result in a conviction, according to his immigration attorney Beatriz Sandoval.

But Padilla was reported to immigr
ation officials and now the young man faces deportation to Mexico, a country he hasn't visited since he left more than 15 years ago.

Padilla was given a reprieve not only by DHS but by the Supreme Court. His case could turn into a landmark for others in his position. The Supreme Court ruled that because Padilla's attorney didn't forewarn the immigration consequences of his pleading that he was denied "competent representation." In writing the majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens likened deportation to banishment.

Mario Benitez, currently serving time in Brevard County Florida, is now also getting a taste of our immigration system. On May 7th, 2007, Benitez, following an evening of binge drinking, broke into his neighbor's home and stole his change change jar totaling just over $100. He was arrested the next day and subsequently confessed. For the next year, Benitez attempted to work out a plea agreement with prosecutors. He had no other criminal record. He eventually paid back the money to his neighbor.

He also hoped the circumstances that lead to his crime would weigh in his favor. He had moved to Florida from Chicago about a year prior. In the months leading up to his crime, his business tanked, he broke off his engagement with his girlfriend, and this lead to a serious drinking problem. The prosecution wouldn't agree to any plea and his fate was left in the hands of the judge.

Even walking into his sentencing on the 31st of January 2009, Benitez was still hoping to avoid jail. The judge was having none of it. He said that Benitez showed no remorse. He said that Benitez' action had violated the safety that everyone should feel in their homes, and the victims would never feel safe again in their home. The judge gave Benitez a sentence of 22 months. The sentence was eventually reduced to sixteen months and he's scheduled to be released on June 18, 2010.

Within months, Benitez received notice from the Department of Homeland Security of a motion to have him deported. Benitez arrived in America with his parents from Mexico in 1972 when he was four years old. His family came here initially just to visit but then his parents overstayed their Visa. His entire family would eventually straighten out their legal status. The rest of his family even eventually became U.S. citizens however Mario was going to school at the time and he's been a legal resident alien. That said, aside from a few vacations in Mexico, Mario Benitez has lived in America full time since he was four years old.

Now, because of his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security is attempting to deport him to Mexico. Benitez no longer has any family there. He has no friends or contacts and so he'd be deported to a foreign country with no resources.

In his last correspondence to me (for full disclosure I consider Benitez a friend), he called the Padilla decision akin to hitting the lottery. Like Padilla, Benitez claims that he wasn't made aware of the fact that a plea of guilty would lead to his deportation. Now, Benitez is hoping that the recent Supreme Court decision will pave the way to his own case being given another look.

Lemaine was arrested in New York and incarcerated for more than two years in an ICE detention center in a room with dozens of others facing deportation. He lost fifty pounds during his incarceration. Benitez is in the hands of Brevard County and reports to be in good health. Yet, he's forced to mount a defense pro se against his deportation order. He tells me that he needs some legislator somewhere to speak out on his behalf. That's no easy task. He's now a convicted criminal. The law states that a non citizen guilty of a felony will be deported. So, the clock ticks on his uncertain future.