In today’s Morning Jolt, I do a walkabout of the Obama administration’s three recent walk-backs: the Gulf Coast pledges, the Arizona-bashing, and the Sestak affair.
Walkback Two: We’re Doing Everything We Can to Secure the Border
So, Arizona’s law is racist and xenophobic and when a foreign leader comes to the U.S. Capitol and denounces it from the floor of the house, our social betters applaud, but we’re also going to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to act as additional watchdogs.
I’ve adjusted to living under a governing class that’s megalomaniacal and egomaniacal, but the schizophrenia is hard to keep up with. Noting that the 1,200 guys aren’t empowered to arrest or take action, and are essentially acting as additional pairs of eyes and ears, I’m not quite sure how this helps that much.
John Hinderacker, writing at Powerline: “So is Obama now prepared to admit that Arizona was right all along? That its complaints about lax federal enforcement were legitimate, and not motivated by racism or hysteria? And that if National Guardsmen can enforce immigration laws without resort to unwarranted racial profiling, so can Arizona law enforcement personnel? Of course not. Obama is just trying to get out from under one more bad decision that has caused him to take a thumping in the polls. It would be nice, though, if he learned a lesson about slandering his fellow Americans.”
Mary Katherine Ham seems to enjoy re-using some recent talking points a bit too much: “You know, I think the administration’s latest move on the border is reflective of a“troubling trend in our society.” The plan is “fundamentally unfair,” and “invites profiling.” It’s “misguided,” the basis for “real concerns” that make it “fundamental” to a human-rights discussion with the Chinese. I’m pretty sure it’s unconstitutional and certainly “unfortunate,” and should be challenged with a lawsuit as soon as possible. Protesters should probably get out there and decry the “police state,” “fascist,” “Nazi” proclivities of the Obama administration, and add some vandalism for good measure (all in the name of civil debate, of course).”
At Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson is trying to get his head around the response from south of the border: “Literally, Mexico told Obama what to do with the national guard troops Obama just ordered to the border. Not kidding. Mexico told Obama what to do with the national guard troops Obama just ordered to the border. You may not understand. Mexico did not make a profane suggestion, as in, ‘put those troops up your . . . .’ No. Mexico issued a statement telling Obama that the troops should stop gun traffic and organized crime, and should not be used in connection with stopping illegal immigration.”
Michelle Malkin concludes it’s less than meets the eye: “The most glaring sign that President Obama’s announcement of border funding and National Guard troops is one big, phony charade? He apparently didn’t even bother to let the governor of besieged Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, know about it.”
Fausta sees a political motive: “What it looks like is that the troops at the Arizona border will be the ornamental carrot for the amnesty stick to follow, which will be referred to as “immigration reform”. Or, in plainer terms, a switch-and-bait.”
The Addenda takes a look at the clichés of another recently concluded show, Law & Order.