[tsomer]

Obama citing the AZ SB1070 law in his report on Human Rights is not the same as hauling Arizona in front of the U.N.

Sorry, I'm one of the knuckle-dragging neanderthals who frequent this site.

I'd appreciate if you could explain-- and please consider our deficient mental capacity-- how "citing the AZ SB1070 law in his report on Human Rights is not the same as hauling Arizona in front of the U.N."

And also, please explain why it is any of their Goddamn business.

Enlighten us.

Many thanks.

[the_Watchman]

First, I did not denigrate anyone who frequents FR. I usually like the articles posted at Free Canada. If you choose to drag your knuckles, you should remember to wash your hands more frequently! :) However, this article is not up to the standards of either site.

For attempting to do that which the Obama refuses to do (his job under the US Constitution—not George Soros and friends), the tyrant has now turned Arizona and the twenty-two other US States trying to protect their citizens over the patently corrupt (Obama’s kind of organization) United Nations as “human rights violators.”

Note that this drivel isn't even an English sentence. Good writers do not interject so many phrases into their sentences that they neglect to complete their thought.

On an analysis note, in what sense has Obama "turned over Arizona" to the U.N.? That is not what happened. He simply cited Arizona in front of the U.N.

As others have noted, this is certainly over the top, unprecedented, unwarranted. It probably warrants censure from the floor of the House and Senate. But it will not induce U.N. blue hats to invade the state.