This time, if Congress cooperates, Obama will temporarily allow businesses to write off capital investment expenditures immediately rather than over a 3 – 20 year period. He also proposes to expand the business tax credit for research and development. These cost-saving measures are intended to lure businesses into spending money now in the hope that the cash spent will stimulate the economy. But, according to DNC Chair, Tim Kaine, the R & D tax incentive will be the ninth business tax credit since Obama took office. The first 8 didn’t work. Who thinks number 9 is the charm? And who’s willing to wait for more than a year to find out if either one has any effect at all?

Even if these moves don’t do any good, why not try? Because doing things that don’t work wastes time that could be spent on something productive instead. They also raise false expectations that the government action is beneficial. By the time taxpayers figure out what’s happening, politicians are firing off another solution, full of excuses about why the last one missed the mark.

The tax incentive solutions aren’t going to bag the recovery either. To begin with, small businesses employ over half of the private sector workers. When the Bush tax cuts end next year, the owners responsible for generating 48% of the net income will see a tax increase. So, they’ll have less money to grow their businesses in ways that make economic sense. To attempt to recoup some of it, they must spend their money as Obama dictates.

But, government is only good at piling up huge debts, not judicious management. So, forcing growth choices on the private sector by substituting government judgment for that of business owners is highly unlikely to spur a recovery. It would be one thing if we had a robust economy and the government wanted to influence some aspects of business spending. In a recession, it should ensure a level playing field and let business run with the ball, not micromanage the plays.

An even bigger problem is the uncertain economic climate. The uncertainty exists because of both overreaching and undefined administrative regulations in bills passed by Congress. And the constant political promises to do a lot more of the same. Not that there shouldn’t be regulations. But, the failings are generally not for lack of rules. They’re due to the lack of enforcement. A lean set of effective regulations beats hog-tying businesses with rules that do not permit them to function. We’re at the latter point right now.

The issue really comes down to whether government should control the private sector. The control ball started rolling during the Great Depression and it’s picked up speed ever since. During our current Great Recession government has grabbed more power over business, and the rest of us, than ever before. But, political dominance has never worked to our economic benefit.

Franklin Roosevelt spent ten years spinning his wheels trying to pull our economy out of the Great Depression ditch. He implemented lots of heavy-handed government works programs and erected the social spending piggy bank. None of it worked. According to Christina Romer, Obama’s recently departed Council of Economic Advisers Chair, the Depression ended because of currency devaluation and monetary expansion.

Thanks to the Fed, some monetary expansion is already in place. Congress’s part is no-strings tax cuts and fewer regulations. Then politicians can step aside and let our economic forces repair themselves. But, that will take a government with a different mindset than the one we have now. Which will you favor at the ballot box in November?

See you in the mirror.

The answer, which, by the way, applies to the entire Park51 Center, is no, it should not be built there. Anyway you look at it, right side up, upside down or even sideways, the Center, placed near Ground Zero, is a significant national security concern. Under those circumstances, it shouldn’t be permitted. I know, I know. “National security” has been used a lot in the last few years to get away with even more. But, before you reject it in this case, read on.

For months, Daisy Kahn and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the determined duo behind the Center, recited the same two motivations for its construction: a gathering place for the Muslim community and a wonderful gesture of cultural détente to America. A gathering place could be built almost anywhere in Lower Manhattan making the current choice inconsequential to the Center’s community purpose. However, spurring cultural détente between Islam and America is much better served by the current location. Or so Daisy repeatedly claims. But, it takes two willing participants to do the détente tango. It doesn’t happen when one of them is being dragged around the floor by the hair, caveman style, which is what’s happening now. With no reasonable possibility for détente, the reason for the location evaporates.

Other justifications for the Center’s location have sprung up. Like, Obama’s freedom of religion claim and Ron Paul’s property rights clarion call. But, we know that our rights, constitutional or otherwise, are not absolute. Not the right to life or the right to liberty, property or even the practice of religion. Superseding interests can exist that justify the restriction of any of these freedoms in particular contexts. The police power of the State exercised as capital punishment, conscription, zoning ordinances, etc., serves to curtail or even deny them under appropriate circumstances. So, asserting a right is just the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

That end here is national security, which compels the Center’s construction at a different place. An Islamic Center located within spitting distance of Ground Zero will be a beacon for radical Muslims. A place to celebrate the fall of the twin towers and an incitement to do more of the same. Feisal, the Center’s primary fundraiser, has spent this century blaming the U.S. for September 11. At the same time, he refuses to denounce Hamas, the Islamic terrorist organization. It is no wonder that Hamas supports the construction of the Center. One of the backers did recently state for the first time that construction funds would not be sought from Iran. However, we have yet to hear the same promise from Feisal who, so far, has been noncommittal.

An even greater encouragement to extremists is the strong support the Center receives from the appeasing mouthpieces among our political leadership. What a boon to terrorists everywhere that the mayor of the devastated City invites them back to party. Then there’s Obama and Nancy Pelosi. In sponsoring Feisal’s goodwill tour of Muslim countries, even our State Department is seen as sanctioning the Center’s location. These trips give him a platform to pitch the Center, among other things. While he’s prohibited from directly soliciting funds, only the stunningly naïve believe his State Department speeches do not have that effect.

Of course, the national security concern may be assuaged in another way. Instead of using part of the Center’s space as a 911 memorial, the backers can rent it to the FBI and all the other interested alphabet agencies. You can bet they’ll be all over it once construction is complete.

When Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid and Sarah Palin line up on the same side of an issue, believe there’s something to it. The alternative on this one is to join the Obama-Pelosi-Hamas bandwagon. You choose.

See you on the left-side.

So why is he making premature constitutional pronouncements? Evidently, trying to bluster an end to the debate about the mosque in a show of support for the Muslim community. What he should have done was encourage a frank discussion of the bottom line issues between the opposing sides. But, he punted and a whirlwind of political damage has been cutting a wide swath ever since.

One of Obama’s big agenda items is improving relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World. From his inaugural address, to his speech in Cairo, to his political appointments and beyond, he’s been a prodigious promoter of Islam. And, that’s not necessarily bad. Other things being equal, getting along is obviously a lot better than not. But, Obama’s single-minded purpose blinds him to virtually everything else, causing him to miss the mark too often. In this case, pulling a false trigger to force people to cozy up was bound to blow up instead. Right now, we’re suffering the fallout that political leadership may have prevented.

According to Daisy Khan, one of the two main initiators of the Islam Center project, its purpose is to celebrate diversity and detente. Since 2005, she’s spoken of it as a place of community fellowship for Muslims, and, as importantly, an overture to American-Muslim harmony. Through interfaith programs and other outreach efforts, she believed the Center would help repair the breach created by the 911 attacks. Driving a constitutional stake in the ground was not one of her talking points.

It’s not surprising. Two Mosques have existed in lower Manhattan for decades, located four and twelve blocks, respectively, from Ground Zero. Non-muslims do not protest the presence of these houses of worship. True, they are low-key, but the Islam Center won’t look like a mosque either. A thirteen-story glass and chrome structure, it will house a large auditorium, theater, performing arts center, sports center, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, 911 memorial and the mosque.

How did a brawl of disagreement breakout over this idyllic purpose? In an article published before Obama opened his mouth, the New York Times listed several bridge-building missteps taken by the Center’s backers. They boil down to one thing: a failure to recognize the possibility that the Center could be viewed as a monument to the ideology that felled the twin towers.

There are several major dividing points that the article failed to discuss. Although now called Park51, the original name for the Center was Cordoba House. The effort to build it is called the Cordoba Initiative. For Muslims, Cordoba refers to Cordoba, Spain, the Muslim capital during centuries of political and military domination over that part of Western Europe. Then there’s the backers’ refusal to rule out terrorist sources of funding for the Center. Chief among them is the Iranian government, which, according to our State Department, is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism.

Lastly, Daisy’s husband and the Center’s co-founder, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has an unfortunate habit of making very explosive, anti-American allegations. Take his September 2001 60 minutes interview and his 2005 Australian interview. He accused the U.S. of being an accessory to the 911 crimes, directly responsible for bin Laden and worse than Al Qaeda. Now days, Feisal says his 60 Minutes statements were “edited out of context”. But, for the past nine years, he’s gotten a lot of favorable mileage out of them in the Muslim World.

How this will ultimately play out is anyone’s guess. Following Obama’s initial religious freedom speech, the mosque builders dug in their heels and refuse to budge. Talk of rapprochement has been replaced by a mute determination to claim constitutional rights that were never the issue. Obama botched an opportunity to engage both sides in a dialog that may have resulted in an amicable resolution. Instead, he poured gasoline on a smoldering flame, exploding it into a white-hot election year issue. Where is the cool head of effective leadership?

See you in the mirror.

These pieces of legislation represent sweeping changes in their respective areas. Arguably, they are the most important Acts of the 20^th Century. Together, they add up to 212 pages.

Fast forward to 2010 and its comprehensive reforms. Our brand spanking new Obamacare bill is 2,074 pages, or 28 times longer than the Civil Rights Act. The new Finance Reform law breaks the scale at 2,319 pages. It’s 75 times longer than the Federal Reserve Act. And more than 10 times longer than the four seminal pieces of legislation from the past century combined.

This year’s explosion in size of our Federal laws speaks volumes about what’s wrong with our current pack of “leaders”. But, the implications of size alone pale in comparison to the yawning chasm of undefined processes and regulations cutting deep within the voluminous pages. Into this void of uncertainty rides the future of health care and finance in our Country.

How uncertain is it? In creating each law, it’s as if Congress and the President gambled our fate on a single spin of a giant roulette wheel. A straight up bet that the marble will stop in the desired slot. Trouble is, instead of having less than 40 slots, each wheel has thousands of them. We have virtually no chance that the marble will drop in the one labeled, “rational implementation”.

Take Obamacare. Wait. You can’t because you don’t know what it is yet. When Nancy Pelosi crowed that Congress would have to pass it so we could know what was in it, she was being overly optimistic. For example, while the law requires insurance companies to spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on “benefits”, it does not define the term. So, a few heavily lobbied regulators are plugging that hole by picking and choosing from a list of tens of thousands of medical services.

There’s more. Way too much more as it turns out. The Congressional Research Service, Capitol Hill’s independent policy arm, issued a report this month excoriating the unknowable extent of Obamacare’s convoluted bureaucracy. The number of agencies, boards, commissions and panels is impossible to estimate. Attempts to tally them stop at 159, but there’s no certainty in that small of a number. And, the scope of their responsibilities is ill defined and appears to overlap in certain areas.

Even worse, some agencies are empowered to spawn more agencies at their discretion. Raise your hand if you think spontaneous generation of expanding bureaucracy is a good thing. Whether and how many of these entities will be funded is not known. But what is known is that Obamacare is a bungled bureaucratic mess of the highest order. And its mangled mug is the face of our new health care reality. A great big Bronx cheer to the hundreds of politicians who had a hand in spinning that wheel.

And then there’s Finance Reform. Or, as it’s come to be known, the Lobbyist Full Employment Act. In its 2,319 pages, the Act affects every facet of the financial services industry. Yet, it leaves most of the truly difficult decisions to agencies, empowering them to regulate on a scale never before seen. Like Obamacare, the industry will be defined by nameless, faceless bureaucrats unrestrained by public accountability.

The Act leaves to regulators alone the job of formulating 243 new rules of finance conduct. Well, not exactly alone. Since last year, nearly 150 lobbyists registered to work at financial agencies in the executive branch. Many of them are former government employees who will now be lobbying their old colleagues regarding the new rules. So much for Obama’s campaign promise to shut that revolving door.

In science and economics, new theories are tested with vigorous verification and validation methods. Wide ranges of sample inputs churn through simulated models to determine the worth of new ideas. But, when this Congress creates comprehensive reforms, it runs no simulations. It tests none of its assumptions. It just spins a giant wheel. It makes you shutter to think about what’s coming next.

See you on the left-side.

In fact, we’ve known it for years. Way before the Obamacare cost burden. Entitlements are sinking us. But, we’re also told that reducing them is politically impossible. We can’t afford them but we can’t escape them, either. So taxes have to get higher, a lot higher, at least for the rich. Trouble is, you can tax them only so much before they go extinct, and then where will we be? Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when he said we’ll always have the poor with us. He could see 21^st Century U.S.A. when everyone became poor trying, in vain, to finance increasing entitlements.

About that “we can’t escape them” thing. According to “experts”, reducing entitlements is just too politically dicey. No U.S. politician wants to be like his Greek counterpart. There, mere legislative debate of entitlement reductions led to riots in the streets, fire bombings and civilian deaths. Of course, we’re no where near any of that now. But, there are signs of increasing rancor and division within our Country. Much of it is spurred by politicians pushing class and race disunity and general prejudice within their power bases. The resulting political climate is a significant impediment to fiscal responsibility. It’s also one of the great disservices of our elected representatives. So, except for one guy, our Congress people run for cover if the entitlement paring knife even starts to come out of its sheath.

But, they don’t have to worry much about the knife right now. Barack Obama, former community organizer, has a supremely well-developed sense of entitlement himself and that’s not about to change. Put in the White House mostly on a promise of hope-filled bipartisanship, he has become the Great Divider of class, race and cooperation. The community organizer gig was, according to his wife, the defining moment of Obama’s life. It, and a stint as an Illinois state senator, instilled an abiding purpose: permanent social change forced through the politics of social division.

As President, Obama’s biggest weapons of social change are comprehensive reforms and the tax code. With them, he forces wealth redistribution from those who earn it to those who support his social agenda. Business has been under heavy fire from the start. Today, its being attacked for ‘hording’ cash that, as Obama sees it, could jump start the economy. So, he wants to take it from companies through higher taxes and let the government spend it for them. Never mind that the economy is so weak, and the latest government regulations so stringent, businesses can barely inch forward. After all, Government knows best. Except for the other fact that all Government spending has gotten us is a very temporary, and expired, uplift. And a ton more debt.

Through it all, Obama never even eludes to a sense of individual responsibility. You know, self-reliance. Work hard and achieve. Live within your means. He acts as if John Kennedy’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you”, was about raising taxes. Speaking of which, rich folks are in Obama’s crosshairs, of course, because they have money. Regardless of how they achieved “wealth”. Regardless of the choices they made that precluded some of life’s finer benefits. Regardless of how hard or long they worked or what they denied themselves in the process. They must be taxed because, to paraphrase the bank robber Willie Sutton, that’s where the money is. And Obama needs money. Trillions and trillions of dollars to permanently shift the economic balance in the U.S.

So the rewards don’t go to those who earn them. In Obama’s normal, those folks are on the wrong side of the new social divide. And will be as long as he has the Congressional majorities to sustain one. Or until the spider finishes its destructive work. At least something works.

See you in the mirror.

But, most of it has gone to increase social benefits rather than effectively fight the Recession. The result is a looming economic disaster. Our debt will equal 62% of GDP by the end of this year, a ratio increase of more than 50% since Obama’s inauguration. Increasing debt won’t end with the stroke of midnight on December 31, either. Under his forecasted budgets, the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to 90% by 2020. That does not include the spiraling cost of Obamacare or the money the Government borrowed from the Social Security fund, which stands virtually depleted.

Shortly after that the economy will be toast and our quality of life mere cinders. We’ll be buried, not just by debt, but by the interest owed on it. So, by continually digging deeper, we’re just Greecing the skids for the jump into economic oblivion without so much as a threadbare parachute.

But, surely, Stimulus spending will fix things. Unfortunately, its sustaining affect on the economy is nil. The proof? GDP is falling quarter by quarter while our persistently high unemployment sets new records. Consumer confidence, and spending, is plummeting. In the face of an economic stall out, Government economists can’t substantiate a long-term benefit commensurate with the Stimulus cost. Or any, actually. The most they can say is, “things would have been worse without it”.  But, temporary up blips in the economic graph are worthless. Even worse is the prospect of double-dip ripping through the economic landscape.

How about the private sector to the rescue? Right now, Obama is sitting on the sector’s back, slowly breaking it with crushing piles of new regulations and higher taxes and fees. And business itself is catching the blame, which is being used as an excuse for still more Government control.

Won’t increasing taxes on the “rich” bail us out? Other than creating income distinctions, all it’s ever done for Federal tax revenue is decrease it. Why? Those highly paid tax attorneys and accountants simply kick into an even higher gear and shift their clients’ money to more obscure shelters. Which also means it’s not being spent so the economy loses out on those dollars as well. Meanwhile, the debt continues to grow.

Can’t anything be done? European countries in the deepest debt also have higher tax rates than the U.S. Greece is not a point off the data curve. Its smack dap in the middle of it. These high tax/deep debt countries made the conscious decision to trade economic growth for social benefits doled out by their governments. And their economies are slowly slipping off the precipice. Taxes just can’t keep pace with spending and most of the countries have maxed out their borrowing from the neighbors. This year, Europe’s leading nations vowed to cut their deficits in half by 2013 through spending reductions. They’re trying to rein in the public dole before it gallops over the edge dragging them with it.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., our Government has chosen social benefits over economic growth, too, putting us on Europe’s well-worn path to economic annihilation. And they’re doing it during an economic downturn and without our permission. Yet, we’re the ones who will pay the heavy price unless we hastily reverse course. So, it comes down to whether there’s a chance for a competent, honest Government in our immediate future.

We could try being like Switzerland. That Country holds the enviable position of having the lowest tax rate on average workers in the world and the 7^th highest per capita GDP. The Swiss have a high standard of living, an educated work force, an unemployment rate of 3.9% and a low national debt. Of course, the Country also has a relatively small population and the Government runs very efficiently. It is actively luring businesses with low tax rates and pro-growth regulations.

Rather than sending our businesses there, let’s send our politicians in trade for theirs. A big win for us and a hearty “good luck” to the Swiss.

See you on the left-side.

If life were like a free Disneyland, it would be magical indeed. There’d be all kinds of gravy trains, running every which way, taking people wherever they want to go. But, we don’t live in a fairy tale Magic Kingdom that can support everyone who wants to live here. We’re in a Country with national debt careening out of control like a runaway freight train. With the highest level of persistent unemployment since the Great Depression. With an economy so slow in recovering that, right now, it’s stalled on the ragged edge of double-dip.

Part of the not so magical picture is the $100 billion annual net cost of illegal immigrants to our taxpayers. And it’s not going to change because the illegals are unskilled labor. They’ve been likened to 10 million high school dropouts. That may have a harsh ring to it, but it’s also the truth. Here’s another truth: immigration should be about what’s good for the Country, not what’s good for the people who want to immigrate. What’s good for reducing our skyrocketing debt problem is shutting down the illegal immigration launch pad.

But, how about just one more wave of amnesty? How about, no way. Amnesty begets amnesty. Grant it now and there will be a next time. Guaranteed. Just look at recent U.S. history. Amnesty to millions in 1986, a worse problem today. Why? Two reasons. First, amnesty removes the pressure that motivates politicians to act. Once the special interests are satisfied, the best interests of the Country, its citizens and economy are forgotten. You don’t think so? You don’t have to look as far back as 1986 for an example. Look at the past 18 months. Congress has turned itself into a slaughterhouse creating all the special interest pork in our new ‘reform’ laws. And the majority of taxpayers? Gone begging.

Plus, you can’t reward illegal behavior and expect the behavior to end. The 1986 amnesty inspired four times the number of illegals to immigrate to our Country. It continues to entice people to act illegally in the belief that the next amnesty wave is just around the corner. To permanently derail the gravy train, it has to stop.

This means deporting people who are here illegally. To the claims of “social injustice”, I say let’s talk about reality rather than firing off emotionally charged words designed to disengage the brain. People here illegally know their status. When they entered our Country, they consciously took the risk that they would be caught and deported. They made the decision to become line cutters, crowding ahead of people waiting to immigrate legally. Now, they go to the back of the line to fill out their papers and take their turn like everyone else.

If you want to be upset about something or someone over a deportation solution, try aiming your guns at the Mexican Government. If that bunch did not keep most of its people in abject poverty, they wouldn’t opt for illegal entry into the U.S. If they had jobs and decent living conditions, they’d be happy at home. After all, do you see U.S. citizens streaming illegally into Canada for work? If you really want to help illegal immigrants, join Amnesty International, and similar organizations, and fight the problem at its roots.

If we want to do something else in the best interests of the Country, we could enact a righteous guest worker program. One that is not a pathway to citizenship but is a way for people temporarily in our Country to work “above ground”. No families, just workers. Employers pay taxes and fees for them similar to those paid for citizen employees. An economic win-win-win for the workers, the employers and the Country. Now, that’s a change we can believe in.

See you in the mirror.

This is not an endorsement of somebody’s political position. We don’t care what politicians say. But, like the blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut, even they can be correct once in a while.

As a practical matter, if we don’t secure the border first we’ll be in a far worse position down the road. I mean, look at us. We’re living in 1986’s future – and we’re much worse off today than back then when amnesty was granted to less than 3 million illegal aliens. And promises of border security were thrown around like rice at a wedding. But like the rice, border security was swept into the garbage bin after the celebration was over.

The result of the empty security promise? In 2010, we have almost four times the number of illegals than in 1986. The combined net cost of illegal immigrants to federal, state and local taxpayers is $100 billion annually. The big price tag items are education, incarceration and healthcare. With entitlement programs to our own folks drowning our Country in debt, we can no longer afford to pay the costs of people here illegally. How do we turn off the tap? Secure the border to stop the flow.

To our politicians who say the border will be secured but only as part of a larger solution, we don’t believe you. We do believe that you’re all about securing your own political future. The 2,000-plus pages of Obamacare and of Finance Reform are gorged with pork just to get you re-elected. You even threw costly programs into those bills that were so far outside their scope a good hunting dog can’t pick up the scent. You admit ignorance about how those laws will shake out and what the actual costs will be and you don’t care.

How could a bunch like you be believed about a promise you’ve welched on for decades? You regularly break your word because you just can’t disappoint Hispanic voters, one of the fastest growing special interest groups in the Country. In trading the interests of all you serve for short-term political advantage, you’re driving a wedge through the social fabric of our Country. This must end. So, Immigration Reform starts with you reforming yourselves first by keeping the 1986 promise to secure the border.

If the border can’t be completely secured with physical restraint then genuine legal deterrents become necessary security components. This doesn’t mean Obama’s “silent raid” policy on businesses that employ illegals, imposing weak sanctions on companies and letting illegals find work in other locales. Or his Justice Department taking on Arizona for enforcing federal law while letting the three “sanctuary” states, that violate it, skate. What is the message in that?

Legally deterring unlawful entry requires a different, and effective, message. Stopping the flow means making the downside of illegal behavior much less attractive than its perceived rewards. Since deportation is a revolving-door and business sanctions only hurt the local economy, how about this instead? Put the guy who owns or runs the company in a detention facility right alongside his illegal ex-employees. And keep them there for a good, long time.

That message couldn’t be clearer: if you choose to enter illegally or employ illegally, be prepared to pay a steep price. If this sounds harsh, perhaps it’s because we’ve gotten so far away from fairness and justice for all that they’re no longer recognizable.

I know, I know. Detention centers are not built or maintained for free but they are cheaper than the cost of illegals in our Country. Cheaper than the cost to our taxpayers at all governmental levels. Cheaper than the cost to the integrity of our Country. And much cheaper than the price we’re paying for the politically-driven rending of our social fabric.

Next week, Riley writes about another round of amnesty.

See you on the left-side.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed into law an immigration enforcement bill known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. It sought to prevent and combat the entry of illegals into the Country and the availability of fraudulent immigration documents. It permits state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law. The agencies must be trained and supervised by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

How has the enforcement of the 1986 and 1996 Acts worked out? Three states have declared themselves “sanctuary states”, meaning they refuse to obey federal immigration law and openly harbor illegals within their borders. There are over 100 cities in 24 other states that are also “sanctuaries” for illegals. Tough business sanctions are scarcer than hen’s teeth. There are almost 4 times the numbers of illegals in the Country now than there were in 1986, the vast majority from Mexico. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the U.S., thanks to the unfettered presence of the Mexican drug cartels.

Obama’s place in this sorry landscape? For starters, the upcoming DHS budget reduces money for border security. Yet, with less than one American agent per mile along the border today, there is already a shortage of protection. If you played dare base or steal the flag as a kid, you’d want to be on the Mexico team. With these kinds of odds, you can’t lose. You’d be across that border and in a nearby sanctuary in a hot flash. Olly, olly oxen free. What a great game for kids.

But, who are the game masters really trying to kid? Against the collapse of immigration enforcement, Obama is demanding another amnesty law while suing a state that’s been thrown to the border wolves. What’s the fuss really about? Arizona has embarrassed Obama by focusing the public spotlight on his formerly low-key immigration agenda, which is to punt on enforcement against workers.

His new “silent raid” policy allows ICE-verified illegals to walk away. And, while he cuts border security funding, he rewards sanctuary hangouts by turning a blind eye. Arizona’s law has forced him on the offensive to win back eroding support of Hispanic voters who want more. So, Arizona is now facing big federal guns for its sins of mimicking existing federal law and of preempting Obama. Of course, according to the latest opinion polls, Obama is suffering for his own sins.

If that were the end of it, it would be shabby enough, but it’s not. The most shameful episode in recent congressional history was the standing ovation given by many of our politicians to Mexico’s President as he castigated Arizona. In fact, Mexico is so high on Amnesty International’s list of human rights violators that you need a ladder to reach it. And the U.S. should sue Mexico for failing to stop its murderous drug cartels from storming our Country.

Instead, Mexico has joined one of the lawsuits against Arizona. So, arrayed in opposition to the State is Mexico, with its human rights violations and invading cartels, and the President of the United States. How did it get this wrong?

If Obama and Congress have any stomach for more reform this year, they should reform themselves. Live up to the commitments in the legislation already on the books. Truly secure the border. Truly penalize businesses that employ illegals. Politicians have to stop asking us to believe that they’ll do this time what they didn’t do the first two times. We can be gullible for only so long.

See you in the mirror.

Because, if you’re a politician, thinking voters are dangerous people. When voters think, politicians need reason and substance in their corner. But, those things are hard for them to come by. It’s much easier to pulverize whatever stands in the way of their agenda with crushing marketing blows. To make sure we keep our brainpower in the locker room, our leaders don’t just rely on throwing a flurry of punches themselves. They get as many organizations as they can doing the same thing. The idea is to overwhelm us with so much pounding that we eventually accept their phony line, hook and sinker.

Let’s look at some disinformation specifics in the immigration reform/anti-Arizona law barrage. This week, I’m going to examine the fancy footwork in Obama’s flowery immigration reform speech. Next week, Riley will review the constant hammering on the Arizona law, including the law suit filed against it yesterday by the Justice Department.

Obama delivered his hallmark speech last Thursday. It was the first of his Presidency on the subject and it had been so long in coming that we expected more. It was painfully short on detail and very long on rhetoric. That’s because the purpose was to shore up eroding Hispanic voter support. And Obama was at his flowery best. He used several of his fancy footwork disinformation bobs and weaves. One of Obama’s favorite moves is to confuse facts with effectiveness. He did that a couple of times on Thursday: “We have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in our history.”  And, “The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.”

Those statements, even if true, are meaningless in and of themselves. “More boots” doesn’t equate to enough of them or to effective use of them. “More secure” does not mean that it’s secure at all. Without actual success, “more” is merely a costly gesture. And for Arizona, it’s just that. Phoenix is now the second kidnapping capital of the world thanks to the unfettered expansion of the Mexican drug trade across the Arizona border. And that trade translates into more than drugs flooding our streets. It also means violence in our streets and the eventual disintegration of civil order. Welcome to Mexico’s newest northern state.

And how about those eloquent Obama whoppers about Lady Liberty designed to bring pro immigration reform tears to our eyes? Like, “[T]he Statue of Liberty…was funded in part by small donations from people across America.” In fact, the Statue, at a cost of 2 million francs, was paid for entirely by citizens of France. Americans picked up the tab for the pedestal after the French bankrolled the Lady.  But, no one is going to get all choked up over a pedestal so Obama revised history to support his histrionics.

And then there’s Emma Lazarus. Lines from her poem, “The New Colossus”, grace the Statue’s pedestal. To emphasize the importance of immigrants to our country, Obama places Lazarus among them: “Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants.“ The truth is her folks first landed on the continent in 1654, over a century before the birth of our nation. But, claiming the poet’s ancestors immigrated to our country made Obama’s point so much stronger he just couldn’t resist. In fact, he doesn’t seem able to resist much of anything in pushing through his agenda.

If we’re so out of shape that we can be done in by this kind of disinformation, we deserve to be decked.

See you on the left-side.