Patterico's Pontifications

Brewer should set up a golf course around the sign and post a video asking if that would help get Obama’s attention.

This is outrageous. Arizona’a borders are not as safe as they have been, and the 1986 amnesty is a major reason why. It’s not just that Obama’s not doing his job here and around the gulf or with Afghanistan. It’s that he’s going to make the border even worse than before.

Let them take her to court.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:14 pm

ARIZONA GOVERNOR JAN BREWER: “Washington is broken, Mr. President. Do your job. Secure our borders. Arizona and the nation are waiting.”

Here’s an idea–tell the feds to go f*ck themselves and use your own resources to solve the problem.

Gawd, even when passing statutes as a message for the feds to do the job they are supposedly paid to do, these politicians still can’t get shake their addiction to federal dependency crack. If Brewer is that serious about securing the border, she needs to stop begging Obama for resources and just take care of the problem herself, and remind people that she’s doing it because Obama doesn’t want the responsibility.

Same goes for the governors in the Gulf states–if this oil spill is really that dire, they need to tell the feds to pound sand if these agencies aren’t going to do the f*cking job the taxpayers are paying them to do, rather than beg Obama for resources to contain the spill.

Obama is not going to help you. He doesn’t care–and by taking ownership of these issues they would show just how impotent and worthless a President he really is. Begging this milquetoast for aid only reinforces his authority, so reach down, find your nuts, and do the job the residents of your states elected you to do–lead.

Another Chris (121ff0) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:40 pm

I’m a fan of that, too, Another Chris. But I think some of the lands where these signs were posted are federally-owned or federal park lands, and the state can’t patrol them.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:51 pm

mobilize the unorganized militia specified under the USC.

i’m sure she’d get lots of volunteers, and attention. 😀

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:53 pm

I wonder if Jan has been notified that her tax returns are being audited yet?

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/25/2010 @ 11:54 pm

Goddamn. I can’t believe that’s what the DHS considers border protection. Amma changea my mind about Arizona’s new laws.

Dale Gribble (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:00 am

I have a girl crush on Gov. Brewer!

Patricia (160852) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:00 am

I have a 54-year old man crush.

And … err … Dale Gribble is nk.

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:02 am

But I think some of the lands where these signs were posted are federally-owned or federal park lands, and the state can’t patrol them.

All the more reason, IMO, to do it anyway.

What’s Obama going to do? Have Brewer and/or the police/National Guard troops/volunteers arrested? I’d be amazed if Obama’s got the stones to go that far, and I guarantee he’d set off a political firestorm if he actually went through with it.

Sue them again? If Obama’s not going to enforce the law (which is his constitutional responsibility), why should Brewer or the State of Arizona respect any lawsuit they bring against her?

It’s like Brewer’s holding an ace-high straight and is acting as if Obama’s got a royal flush, when all he’s really holding is a pair of sixes.

Another Chris (121ff0) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:05 am

I’d worry about sending State law enforcement onto federal lands. I’m sure the officers could handle any situation, but my worry is they would be exposed to legal liability. I’m not sure their commission/authority is valid on federal lands, just as a Texas law enforcement officer wouldn’t be authorized to act on Arizona lands.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:08 am

Hmm. I don’t know how to research that at 2:00 a.m. but it seems to me that only Indian reservations are off-limits to state authorities. Federally-owned is not exclusive of state authority, I don’t think.

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:15 am

The Secretary of the Interior can designate state police officers as “special policemen” and they will be protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/usc_sec_16_00000001—a006-.html

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:21 am

And … err … Dale Gribble is nk.

not to worry: we won’t gribble over semantics.

😀

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:34 am

how about they seize the land under eminent domain and then police it, on the grounds that the current owner has created an attractive nuisance and allowed their current tenants to engage in ongoing criminal conspiracy with their tacit approval.

hell, you might be able to seize it under the drug laws and sell it: instant budget surplus!

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:38 am

Supremacy Clause.

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:43 am

Santa Clause.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:44 am

besides, i think you could make a solid argument that Arizona took over jurisdiction in loco parentis.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:47 am

Seriously,

I’m regretting my opposition to Arizona’s “got papers” law, if this is all Washington’s doing.

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:51 am

hell, you might be able to seize it under the drug laws and sell it: instant budget surplus!

Fun fact–Andrew Jackson paid down almost all of the national debt at the time by selling off public lands.

Another Chris (121ff0) — 6/26/2010 @ 1:00 am

They should put a gigantic $20 billion dollar floating sign in the Gulf of Mexico.

‘WARNING: Oily’

Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/26/2010 @ 1:22 am

I fully support changing that one comment of nk’s to say it came from nk and then editing that other comment of nk’s (and later comments by others) to delete the other information if nk and admin are amenable.

And I don’t have to change my mind about AZ’s new law or about Obama or Pelosi or Harry Reed or Los Angeles or that smart chick up in Laverne and Shirley’s stomping grounds.

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 6/26/2010 @ 1:33 am

Lobster Clause

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/26/2010 @ 6:57 am

That’s “lobster craws”.

Hey, I’m not doing anything for a while. Let’s all go to AZ and help clean up Big O’s mess. BYOFP. (Bring Your Own Fire Power)

PatriotRider (8d9a6f) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:22 am

must move pebble beach
on truck to Tucson AZ
get O attention

ColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:36 am

Not craws, craws.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:45 am

O redistribute
more money to hamas that
stick in haiku craw

ColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:55 am

Last time I ate lobster, the claws were included.
But they were from Maine. Not sure what Arizona lobsters taste like. Probably too sandy.

More seriously–mining the website I found the other day, I noticed that, almost across the board, crime rates were as bad, or sometimes worse, than they were in 2007 (the last year included on that website), during the mid 90s, meaning 1994-96 (possibly before–1994 is the earliest year included), with a marked decline in the late 90s and very early 2000s, before climbing back up in the mid2000s.

Anyone know of a reason why crime was high in the mid90s and then declined sharply for several years?

Meanwhile, anyone who claims that most or all illegal immigrants are drug mules without some serious evidence behind them can be safely suspected of grandstanding whenever allowed.

kishnevi (8faf8f) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:07 am

This was a time when many states were passing their right to carry laws and seeing drops in crime rates. I don’t know Arizona but it would be worth looking at.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:15 am

Brewer is doing this exactly right. Obama has declared war on Arizona, at least as far as he is willing to fight any war. She is running for election because she was the LT Governor until Big Sister was appointed DHS honcho. She is running against Obama.

The Arizona Democrat delegation has asked him to back off. They are dead meat if he doesn’t. As Phil Gramm once said about Hillarycare, they will be hunting Democrats with dogs in Arizona by November.

Mike K (82f374) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:16 am

Although the legalities and the liabilities (already pointed out) are a concern, I’m with another Chris when he says to Brewer and Jindal; Stop bitching and actually DO something about it. Let the Federal government enforce their own laws. Isn’t that what we’re being told about the immigration laws; it’s the Fed’s job? Well then let the Fed’s enforce the stopping of building dikes/berms in the Gulf and let the Fed’s stop Arizona from policing it’s own border.

That’s what the National Guard is for. Declare a State Emergency and call’em out. Let’s see the Fed’s enforce their rules.

Jackson had it right when he said “… now let him enforce it!”

Make Obama enforce the LAW, ALL THE LAW.

jakee308 (9471e1) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:54 am

Now that’s entertainment!

Gesundheit (cfa313) — 6/26/2010 @ 8:54 am

Anyone know of a reason why crime was high in the mid90s and then declined sharply for several years?

study statistics
lower number of young men
who commit most crime

ColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 9:04 am

Letting the dogs out against the Democrats would be great!

But even better would be turning the governors loose to actively work around the lousy federal policies in immigration, border defense, federal health care, and the oil spill clean-up. I wonder if Jindal could have instructed clean-up barges to remain at work until each of them, one by one, was called in by the Coast Guard, inspected, and returned to duty – instead of them all being shut down until they could do their stupid check for life jackets and fire extinguishers.

If that giant “A Whale” clean-up ship doesn’t have permits yet, or an exemption from the Jones Act, then they should make sure it’s parked beside the spill so that the news can take pictures of it just sitting there.

If there are 2,000 oil skimmers in the US, the Gulf coast governors should bring in as many as possible, even if the feds don’t give them permission to operate. Let them be photographed sitting at the docks. Interview the sailors on them as they sit playing cards.

And mobilize and send the National Guard to the borders. I thought the governors were in charge of the National Guard in their states. For pity’s sake, why else do they call it the National Guard if not to guard the nation???

The photo op in front of the sign is outstanding. I thought I was well informed about the issue, but it shocked me to learn that the danger zone extends 80 miles from the border, and it’s only 30 miles from the state capital!

Obama ought to be made to eat crow over all of this!

Gesundheit (cfa313) — 6/26/2010 @ 9:08 am

This is how vigilantism starts and grows – they’re going to have a much bigger problem on their hands if they keep demagouging AZ.

Dmac (cfe27e) — 6/26/2010 @ 9:26 am

I’m regretting my opposition to Arizona’s “got papers” law, if this is all Washington’s doing.

Latching onto a bit of common sense may take time on occasion. But hopefully one will eventually manage to do exactly that. In the case of Obama? He’ll need major surgery on his cranium to force more than a sliver of logic into that mind of his.

Meanwhile, I’d love to see the anti-Arizona folk required to take a long, long vacation in some of the wonderful, safe, prosperous border towns of Mexico.

I won’t say anything about such people also being required to send their dear, precious children to public schools on this side of the border that represent decades of the “undocumented” flowing in happily and unfettered.

Hello, all you limousine liberals on the city councils of Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc!

Mark (411533) — 6/26/2010 @ 9:28 am

Kishnevi: All the illegals might not be drug mules, but the problem is being able to differentiate between the good and the bad.

Not really sure about gun laws in AZ (AZ people can correct me) but I occasionally see a man with a gun on his hip, just like in the old west. And concealed carry is legal after taking a short course.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2010 @ 9:41 am

Also Kishnevi: Illegal is still illegal, drug mule or not.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2010 @ 9:48 am

I love this little public information message. A simple fact with pictures that can be remembered. I’m sure there are people trying to spin this to negate the damage, but there is not much there to spin.

I think I read where there is the budgetary issue, that if the feds authorize the National Guard, they pay, otherwise the state pays. That stimulus package money could make a lot of jobs for less than $250,000 each if it was invested in border patrol officers.

They could make Arizona a national training site for National Guard troops or Reservists prior to going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Live fire, but the enemy and terrain probably not as dangerous.

MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 6/26/2010 @ 10:12 am

machinist and Pat–thanks for the suggestion; what I’m actually trying to focus on is any possible linkages between illegal immigration and the rise in crime in the last few years. Was there a shrinkage in illegal immigration in those years?

And in fact, since supposedly the economy is shrinking illegal immigration all on its own now, is there a shrinkage in those crime rates in the last year or so? I have no data on that point.

To tell the truth, as someone who lives in a metropolitan area, the crime stats on the border counties, even with this rise in the crime rate, are, with one exception, laughable–the exception being, I think, the county in which Tucson is located. I suppose that’s one of the differences between the city and the country–we call normal what they may consider to be a crime wave. (But that still leaves the fact that in the late 90s and early 2000s they had even lower crime rates.)

I think the border violence is not caused by the illegal immigrants themselves but the coyotes, and by the drug smugglers, which is an entirely different problem. Until you get a rational immigration system in place (and you guys already know what I mean by that) you’ll always have the smugglers, no matter how well the border is guarded. And even if you solve that problem, you’ll still have the drug smugglers.

[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

kishnevi (bd6c91) — 6/26/2010 @ 10:27 am

haiku simply say
do not follow leaders and
watch parking meters

ColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 10:32 am

PatAZ, recent changes in Arizona law make it unnecessary to obtain a permit for concealed carry – similar to Alaska.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2010 @ 10:45 am

Christie & Brewer in 2012

“We’ve Got ~~Huevos~~ Balls!”

PC14 (4a4ed3) — 6/26/2010 @ 10:57 am

The outrage happened when folks like Brewer stole Arizona from the very people she now wants to keep out.

Paen (c760c1) — 6/26/2010 @ 11:12 am

The outrage happened when folks like Brewer stole Arizona from the very people she now wants to keep out

who stole it from the
natives they continue to
mistreat own country

ColonelHaiku (181d1a) — 6/26/2010 @ 11:21 am

Paen – Yeah I know exaclty what you are talking about, we stole the half of Mexico with all of the good roads.

Have Blue (854a6e) — 6/26/2010 @ 11:53 am

Folks like Brewer stole Arizone from illegal aliens? When?

Seriously, Paen, you need to review your history with a less biased eye if you truly believe Arizona was “stolen”.

Some chump (e84e27) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:35 pm

Thanks for that info, SPQR. I don’t own a firearm. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Kishnevi: I understand your point exactly. But why don’t you try telling that to the rancher recently killed near the border. I don’t think he would agree with you. And why don’t you come down and do a ride along with the Border Patrol. Might open your eyes to not only the criminals coming across but the mess they leave behind in passing.

PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2010 @ 12:45 pm

SPQR–do you happen to know if there were any changes in the gun laws from the mid 90s to the late 90s?
PatAZ–realistic immigration procedures and quotas (which we don’t have now) would cut down, if not eliminate, immigrant smuggling and the coyotes, and therefore cut down the violence–and with less smuggling, would be easier to enforce.
Unrealistic immigration procedures and quotas (which we have now) simply lead to more smuggling, and if you attempt real enforcement, simply allow the more violent elements to dominate, the folks who are making war with the Mexican government now.
And if they stop them at the border–Laguna Madre, on the northeastern coast of Mexico, is a relatively short trip by boat to Padre Island and Laguna Madre on the southeastern coast of Texas; and there are several places on the Baja coast that could serve as transhipment points for illegals going by sea to California.
Point being, they will find a way.

kishnevi (07cf78) — 6/26/2010 @ 1:18 pm

kishnevi – Does your definition of realistic immigration procedures and quotas necessitate that we expand legal immigration from Mexico or can we fill quotas from other countries?

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/26/2010 @ 1:39 pm

Paen, like many, thinks anything near Mexico belongs to a race. Just because.

They truly are classic democrats.

Mexico was and is a terrible place and lost lands, not really so much Arizona as Texas, for very good reasons. They can go to hell if they think they are entitled to racially refill areas just because some natives were here before Europeans were.

If a person wants to immigrate to America, one very critical requirement should be that they want to be an American. They should hae allegiance to our constitution rather than some neanderthal concept of tribe. That’s what separates us from Europe… this idea that we are a people because of anything but ideals is backwards.

I’m happy with those Mexicans who wish to become Americans following the laws and becoming us. But this reconquista crap is just dumb propaganda for dumb people. Those folks need to stay in their hellhole rather than turn the USA into another one.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:00 pm

–realistic immigration procedures and quotas (which we don’t have now) would cut down, if not eliminate, immigrant smuggling and the coyotes, and therefore cut down the violence–and with less smuggling, would be easier to enforce.

That is at best an unproven premise, and most likely completely wrong. The only thing short of completely open borders would stop immigrant smuggling. As long as Mexico’s (and the rest of Central America’s) economy is so horrible that people flee the country for jobs, there will be more people wanting to come to the US than there are spots available in the quotas. And demand creates its own supply: if more people want to get in than are allowed in legally, they will be smuggled in.

Some chump (e84e27) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:04 pm

oops…make that “There is nothing short of completely open borders that would stop immigrant smuggling.”

Some chump (e84e27) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:04 pm

They can go to hell if they think they are entitled to racially refill areas just because some natives were here before Europeans were.

What’s interesting is that most of the few colonists who settled in the southern Arizona mission forts were European-descended Hispanics, not the Mexican mestizos that make up most of the immigrant population now. This Aztlan fantasy promoted by MecHA-ites never really existed because the Pima and the Apaches had no problem killing and kidnapping the few colonists that settled there.

If these Chicano activists really wanted to put Arizona back in the hands of its original races, they’d had to leave the state because it was never theirs to begin with. The irony is that until “people like Brewer” moved into the territory after the Civil War, the few Hispanics that were in Arizona lived a pretty precarious existence.

Another Chris (121ff0) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:12 pm

“There is nothing short of completely open borders that would stop immigrant smuggling.”

Some Chump – I think that’s what kishnevi means by realistic quotas, but he has not defined his terms.

daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:14 pm

kishnevi, I think Arizona went “shall issue” around 1994.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:15 pm

yeah well Jan sending Meghan’s illegal immigrant-loving coward daddy back to Washington is kind of an outrage too why don’t you work on doing something about that?

happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:16 pm

kishnevi is correct that illegal immigrants will always find a way, but that does not mean that they can find a way that will allow the immense numbers, nor does it mean that we cannot make it difficult enough to live illegally here that they are not incentivized to head back home ( something that the recession has done in some serious numbers ).

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:17 pm

Oh BTW, kishnevi, the new AZ permit-less carry law takes effect at the end of July.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:18 pm

SPQR is right. Make it harder, more expensive, and more rare.

I also think we should fundamentally reform legal immigration. Tall walls and wide gates. Law abiders who are not going to go on disability for at least ten years or they face deportation. People who want to assimilate into an English speaking culture and have or will gain a skill.

Whether that means 99% or 1% Mexicans is not relevant to me.

Before we can do that, we need those tall walls to minimize the influx which is causing some problems like Brewer’s sign.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:31 pm

#55 “kishnevi, I think Arizona went “shall issue” around 1994.”
Comment by SPQR — 6/26/2010 @ 2:15 pm

Thank you, SPQR. The mid to late 1990s is also when Sheriff Joe Arpaio was getting national attention as being tough on criminals.

kishnevi, as states have passed “shall issue” laws they have seen crime drop. Even Illinois saw this except in Chicago which was exempted from the permit provisions and continued to compete for murder capital of the country with Washington DC.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:40 pm

Florida led the way in this fight and I think 39 states, about half the population of the country, now have these laws. The drop in crime has been enough to offset the rise in those areas where the government still sides with the criminals against the victims, or it was for some time. I am not sure if the increase in criminal alien activity has changed the trend other than locally. Perhaps someone knows?

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:44 pm

Even Illinois saw this except in Chicago which was exempted from the permit provisions

?

Statute reference please? I didn’t think there were any “permit provisions” in Illinois and Chicago was certainly not exempted from the no prosecution rule for use of a firearm in self-defense, or in defense of another person, on your own home, land, or fixed place of business.

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:46 pm

Concealed carry permits in Illinois are not valid in Chicago I believe. My understanding was that they had to agree to this to get “shall issue” passed. I was not referring to the other things you mention. The right to carry concealed has a dramatic effect on criminals. That old man is no longer the safe and easy mark for a pumped up ex con.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:50 pm

I am seeing Illinois as a “no issue” state so I was wrong. I was misinformed or misunderstood and I apologize.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 2:57 pm

No apology necessary. If you are a City of Chicago Alderman, you can carry concealed. Or if you are a precinct captain, you can become a “part-time deputy sheriff or deputy coroner”, and carry any way you want.

But, otherwise, there’s a state law that preeempts local ordinances the way I said above.

In any case, the Supreme Court will read us its decision in McDonald on Monday. Bite me, Mayor Daley.

nk (db4a41) — 6/26/2010 @ 3:12 pm

My memory was quite specific since it involved Chicago so I was dead wrong. I don’t remember where I read it as it was years ago. I stated it it as fact and clearly didn’t know what I was talking about.

California politicians do those things as well. Feinstein made a big show of surrendering her permit but did not say she had herself made a deputy marshal so she could continue to carry, even on planes then, I think.

Don Perata carried a Glock to protect himself from NRA members but I think more California politicians were killed by other politicians than by NRA activists.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 3:48 pm

How can I forget the immortal Dorothy “The Hat” Tillman, the alderwoman who bragged about carrying a concealed weapon and was only too happy about showing it off to anyone who didn’t strike her fancy. There will always be some people who don’t deserve that privilege, unless they can prove they aren’t insane.

Dmac (cfe27e) — 6/26/2010 @ 4:42 pm

“The outrage happened when folks like Brewer stole Arizona from the very people she now wants to keep out”

Nah.

Nobody’s trying to tell Navajos or Apaches they can’t be here.

Just Spanish invaders.

Dave Surls (b23ce7) — 6/26/2010 @ 5:18 pm

My idea of reasonable immigration reform would be in line with Dustin’s, except that I don’t think the “tall walls” will work unless you put the “wide gates” in place at the same time. I might add in the requirement that they have a job waiting here or family that can support them without the aid of government welfare.
(Of course in Kishnevi world, there would be little or no government welfare.)

There will of course be always immigrant smuggling, but the numbers would be small enough that it would be much easier to deal with, and since in Kishnevi world the only people who would be automatically kept out would be known criminals and possible jihadis, there would be every reason to put them in jail for a while if we find them here. And it would apply to everyone–Chinese, Haitian, Nigerian, what have you; not only Mexicans.

Meanwhile, on the subject of crime statistics in Arizona, I went through some of the info I found the other day, which broke down crime stats by county and type of crime, and summarized the results at my blog. You can read it here:
http://kishnevi.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/on-the-recent-carnival-of-crime-in-arizona/

Summary of findings: At least through 2007, which is the last year of data the site made available, there was no increase in crime along the border compared to the rest of the state. In fact, the crime rate really was lower for some of the border counties than it was for the county which contains the Grand Canyon–and lower in 2007 statewide compared to 2006.

If you want to examine the statistics yourself, you’ll find the link as part of my post.

Final thought for this comment: never mind the National Guard; what can Brewer do with Arizona’s State Police, and what has she done with them?

kishnevi (9e06eb) — 6/26/2010 @ 6:08 pm

I’m working on the statistics, too, kishnevi. (I really meant it when I promised to post, but you’re faster than I am.) We can have dueling posts.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/26/2010 @ 6:10 pm

Not faster. You’ll notice I don’t post very often to my blog. Also I was on vacation this week and had nothing better to do while watching my air conditioning being repaired yesterday.

kishnevi (9e06eb) — 6/26/2010 @ 6:57 pm

Unbelieveable. Going to blog this tomorrow. The gist of it:

Great new developments in anti-theft protection that you can try in your own home! No, not a big fence around your home, not new door locks. In fact, you don’t have to lock your doors at all. Just put up a big sign: “Burglars, go ‘way!” Just as the Obama administration is doing on Arizona’s borders.

Amy Alkon (6146c8) — 6/26/2010 @ 6:57 pm

Amy Alkon,

The signs don’t tell the criminals to go away. They tell the legal citizens to stay out. That sign from the government would tell the homeowner to get out so they don’t bother the burglars.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:01 pm

Good post, kishnevi. We may not have many areas of disagreement but I think I’ll still chime in. As for the A/C, I hope you were having a cool spell at the time.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:04 pm

The Feds are are taking action against the Americans and in favor of the criminals. The flow of future Democratic voters must not be impeded.

Will troops be sent in to assure there is no interference by state or local LEOs? That would be interesting to see.

Machinist (497786) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:05 pm

Speaking of illegals, The brand new $1 billion LA County hospital is Severely overcrowded. “If you build it, they will come.” How many are legal ? They have closed the old hospital which had a capacity of 3500 beds when I was an intern, and replaced it with a 600 bed hospital because it was all they could afford.

In fact, they could have kept the old hospital and added a service building for about half of what they spent. Why did they do it ? So they could name the new hospital for Ed Roybal, a former Congressman and father of a present Congresswoman.

The present hospital is far too small and the only solution would be to stop illegal immigration. That will not happen.

I notice that this scandal may delay the naming of the hospital for him.

Mike K (82f374) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:25 pm

No one notices how incompetently LA County is run because they have LA City incompetence for distractions.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:30 pm

The new LAPD Metropolitan Detention Center is empty. Maybe they could work out a deal.

DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:32 pm

Thanks, DRJ.

I live in South Florida, you may recall.
The morning lows have been about 82 F all week.
I was very glad when the AC came on yesterday…

kishnevi (fb5b3b) — 6/26/2010 @ 7:48 pm

my translation of “speedy” got filtered because “speedy” is swearing

[Probably a drive-by, but cleaned it up anyway. Thanks. –Stashiu]

John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 6/28/2010 @ 9:56 pm

6/25/2010

Brewer to Obama: “This is an Outrage”

80 Responses to “Brewer to Obama: “This is an Outrage””

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out