Trying to Make Sense of the Arizona Ruling

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s temporary injunction apparently satisfies those who love the (nearly) status quo.

There are a few new wrinkles…citizens can sue any community in Arizona community that openly adopts a “Sanctuary City” status – although a community can continue to simply take a hands-off  stance. There is increased opportunity to stop and arrest anyone suspected of transporting illegal aliens.

And, peace officers can still make legal stops and, if they wish can call ICE if someone does not have a license or insurance just as they always could, and ICE can say, “Sorry, we are busy” and go back to their Yatzee game just as they always could.

Obviously, illegal aliens in Arizona are even more in the spotlight than ever and that makes them nervous. That is a good thing. People who break the law SHOULD be nervous.

In effect, the pressure has been ratcheted up on illegal aliens, and the legal authorities have slightly more power than before but not as much as they would like to have as SB 1070 grinds through the courts.

The Arizona farmers will still find field workers willing to work for some years to come, the police will still have full employment and healthy retirements, and the protestors will have another venues to protest at when the G-8, IMF and G-20 meetings are not in session – although Tucson in the summer is not as hospitable as Toronto or Paris.

This is a long struggle, and battle wins and losses are not important except in the cumulative sense.

Advertisements

Maxine Waters? Next, Please…

“Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has chosen to go through an ethics trial, like the one lined up for New York Rep. Charles Rangel, rather than accepting charges made by an ethics subcommittee, a source familiar with the process tells POLITICO.

The back-to-back trials of a pair of black lawmakers represent an unprecedented use of an ethics adjudication system that has rarely been used by House members accused of breaking House rules.

Waters’ case revolves around allegations that she improperly intervened with federal regulators to help a bank that her husband owned stock in and on whose board he once served.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40489.html#ixzz0vDZzfj2l

Daft! Absolutely Daft!

My duty is to save the world: Prince Charles believes he was born for a purpose

The Prince of Wales says he believes he has been placed on Earth as future King ‘for a purpose’ – to save the world.

Giving a fascinating insight into his view of his inherited wealth and influence, he said: ‘I can only somehow imagine that I find myself being born into this position for a purpose.

‘I don’t want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, “Why the hell didn’t you come and do something about this? You knew what the problem was”. That is what motivates me.

‘I wanted to express something in the outer world that I feel inside… We seem to have lost that understanding of the whole of nature and the universe as a living entity.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299099/Prince-Charles-My-duty-save-world.html#ixzz0vDWddInC

Who the heck is the Libertarian candidate for Governor?

That candidate, whomever he or she is, is very likely to get my vote.

Having lived through Jerry Brown’s last Governorship, he is a non-starter for my vote, but…

Meg Whitman is an AWFUL candidate. First she ran from the press for many months in the primary, and now she is trying to be “nuanced” in her illegal immigration policy having Pete Wilson assure us she was hard on the subject.

Well, she isn’t, and she is plying the Latino community with a different story than she is telling the rest of the voters – saying her immigration policy does not widely different from Jerry Brown.

Then I heard her say that, while she understands the reason for Arizona SB 1070 on Arizona, but such a law would not work in California (she said) because California is so much larger. (“We have a much bigger state, with much bigger geography.”)

Now I do not know of any law that is size based – a law that is enforced if the area or the population is larger than or smaller than some number.

But if anyone in the Whitman for Governor Campaign knows of one, perhaps they can inform me.

The Libertarian candidate, whomever and whatever is looking good just being there.

Nevada has a “None of the Above” on their ballot.

California needs it

ROYALTY as practiced by the Nuevo Riche

If there ever was an event that warranted a “Let Them Eat Cake” label, it is the wedding for Bill and Hillary’s only child.

$11,000 for the wedding cake? Perhaps $3 million for the wedding? In a recession with millions of Americans out of work?

Absolutely a “Let them eat cake” moment!

It should be noted that Bill never made more than $40,000 a year before becoming President, but, like LBJ before him, “Shazam!” is becomes an instant multi-multi millionaire in “public service.”

And this wedding is the “in your face” moment for Bill Clinton – having been “poor” (if you can call Governor of a state “poor”), he revels in being rich. That would be fine had he ever produced anything other than government work, and trading on the public persona as a result of that public work.

And that would be still be fine, were it not for flouting – and that is what this wedding is. We are talking an air ban enforced by the government so that planes cannot fly anywhere near the event, a $150,000 food bill, and God-only knows what the dress costs.

If Warren Buffet, a Democrat, wanted to spend $1 billion on his daughter’s wedding, I would applaud it – but Bill Clinton (a successful President by any measure) was only a government bureaucrat. This is an ostentatious event done by someone who was simply the City Manager of Bell, California on steroids.

(And if you think this is bad, just wait until President Obama is the former President – even today the First Lady is booking 30+ rooms at a five-star Spanish hotel for her personal vacation, without the President

We are talking ROYALTY as practiced by the  Nuevo Riche.)

If it appears unseemly it is because it is unseemly.

Say Goodbye Gracefully, Charlie! (Unlikely)

I have to admit my absolute pleasure at seeing Congressman Rangel brought up on ethics charges.

I have long compared Republican corruption to Japanese corruption, where the Japanese apologize, cry and resign; and Democrat corruption I compare to Filipino corruption where their politicians deny, deny, deny even while being fitted for striped suits.

In this case, Charlie reminds me that the Democrats elected Mayor Curley a Mayor of Boston while he was in prison…I think that when we think of political corruption we think of Louisiana and New Jersey and Chicago – all Democratic bastions.

So, when the Republicans were accused of “A culture of corruption” in the last election (a charge that had a lot of validity), I knew that the Democrats could not sustain their “Holier-than-thou” attitude.

When it comes to political corruption, Democrats win hands down – not that it is any solace to those inflicted by Republican corruption, which certainly does exist.

It’s just that Democrats revel in corruption. The entire Bell City Council are Democrats. I almost made a living writing about the corruption in Hawaii about the Broken Trust of the Bishop Trust and every member of that trust were Democrats, appointed by Democrats.

So, Good Time Charlie is not an anomaly and neither is his attitude to fight, and deny, even though it will severely damage his Democratic Party in the upcoming election. With an Ethics Committee evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it requires a consensus to indict – and they got just that. It would have required a consensus to accept a “deal” from Rangel also, and they could NOT get that – at least not yet.

Charlie, true to his political party intends to deny right until the day of conviction, and beyond – but his political party wants him to settle even if that means his resignation.

They already made him resign from the chairmanship of the House tax writing committee. His tax problems, after the Administration had used all of its tax-cheating cards to protect Tim Geithner. You may recall that others in this administration suffer tax problems as well.

Charlie is in trouble. Republicans do it too – who can forget randy Cunningham – but they have a bit of a different attitude about it.

I doubt the Republicans will cut a deal, unless the deal is for him to resign in disgrace – a price Charlie is unlikely to accept unless the President himself weighs in. The political issue is too dear for the Republicans – to hang him out to dry right before the November elections.

Great political theatre.

How Long Have You Owned a Car?

One of my friends who shares my love of fine automobiles sent me an e-mail about a man who, as a graduation gift from college, was given a Rolls Royce by his father.

He drove that beautiful machine for 82 years, and gave it upon his death at the age of 102 to a museum – in perfect running condition.

It reminds me that I wanted to do that upon my graduation from Annapolis. I mentioned that to my soon-to-be wife because I thought that over our lifetime we would save a fortune.

My wife, said she didn’t like the looks of the 1957 Rolls-Royce, and asked if I could have a custom body put on it. I said, of course – in those days a company called Park Ward was doing beautiful custom bodies for Rolls.

She said she wanted the Rolls to look just like her (admittedly) beautiful 1955 Chevy Bel Aire Convertible – red with white upholstery.

I said I would be damned if I would make a Rolls look like a Chevy, and that ended that.

I bought a British Racing Green Jaguar XK 140 MC Drophead Coupe.

Loved that car, but traded it in for my racing machine: A British Racing Green Twin-Cam MG.

Loved that car, also.

The only other car I loved was a Ford Taurus SHO, stick-shift, which i loved for 10 years.

Nothing we have ever owned since matched the love of those cars — until my current Lexus SC 430 I have driven for seven years. Now that is one fine car…but I still dream of that potential Rolls.