get it here
Posted on 05/19/2010 12:28:10 PM PDT by JohnRLott
Members of the Obama administration, who soundly condemned Arizona's new immigration law, are now admitted that they have never even read it. Could President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón find themselves in the same boat based on comments they made today at their joint appearance on the White House lawn?
Let’s review. The first person who had to admit he had never read the Arizona law Attorney General Eric Holder made his admission last week. On Monday, it was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's turn. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley revealed that he, too, had not read the bill, despite commenting on it. Given how inaccurate these officials have been in their descriptions of the law, maybe members of President Obama’s team simply had no option but to plead ignorance.
After all, how do you take a law that clearly states the following: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin,” and then claim that it is racist or could lead to racial profiling? . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“He could probably read it if they put it on a teleprompter.”
LOL
My video dedication to Obama for today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBV5GwmBb38
Someone today made the comment that 0bama sounds like
Yogi Bear is his speech coach.
‘uh... letmebeclear... uh... thisisabadlaw.... uh’
If you want 0bama to read something, you’d better translate it to Arabic and put it on a TelePrompTer.
His grasp of American culture and society does seem like something learned from watching cartoons.
Anyone who doesn't want that to happen had better start hollering and hollering loudly.
Hussein read the law? What would be the point? Leftists on the Supreme Court may have read portions of the Constitution, but their decisions never REFLECT it!!!
“Obama and Co. (including Holder and Napolitano) know damn well the AZ law is a virtual copy of federal law, and that racial profiling is strictly forbidden.”
Why do conservative leaders allow Obama to control the argument when he is on the wrong side of the law and Constitution EVERY time.
OF COURSE he knows the Arizona law mirrors the Federal law, yet there he stands beside the president of a foreign country taking sides with him against his own country and his own Federal law -— by any standard, traitorous and lawless behavior.
Talking point: By siding against the Arizona law that mirrors the Federal law he refuses to enforce, Obama makes his clearest statement to date that he is above the law.
It is a matter of what judgement trumps what other judgement.
Leftists see a written law as the judgement of someone in the past, so it is inherently of less value than a judgement made by someone here and now.
This is how they look at it.
That way they can talk in generalities and not discuss the facts of the bill (like they did with healthcare). They also imply they are above reading it - the bill is soooo bad, Janet Napolitano admitted she did not read it and then said I would never sign a bill like that.
The Constitution says that the electors of a state are selected according to state law. If the legislature of Arizona passed a law against electing electors pledged to Obama, or even against the party which Obama represents, maybe THAT would convince Obama that the states can pass their own laws!
Ping!
“And then there’s this. It now turns out that the Obama administration has even been apologizing in private to foreigners for Arizona’s law.”
Nice article, thank you!
Please, everyone, don’t fall for John McCain’s sudden campaign conversion, “I-give-a-damn-about-the-border” posturing.
Can you post a link to the law as it stands (amended)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.