SHOCKING VIDEO: AZ SEN. KYL REVEALS OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION STRATEGY

This one is unbelievable. Fast forward to the 3:00 mark to get to the good stuff. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that Arizona Senator John Kyl revealed this much to the participants of his June 18th town hall meeting. Note that just before he delivers the goods, he says he asked everyone to leave the oval office so he and Obama could have a private one-on-one conversation. What he and the president discussed was immigration.

What Kyl alleges, basically, is that Obama was engaging in a little "pay-to-play" negotiations with immigration. The deal? No border security until immigration reform is passed. We have it straight from the horse's mouth. The reason the Obama administration is not enforcing existing immigration law is that it doesn't like it and wants a new one.

Meanwhile, Obama has announced that a lawsuit will be filed against Arizona for having the unmitigated gall to actually follow the process, pass a bill, and sign it into law, with plans to enforce it. Take note of the gasps in the audience as Kyl reveals what Obama told him.

Take note of the guy in the bottom left-hand corner of the video. Free Barrackaid number to anyone who can tell me what his hat is made of.

via Gateway Pundit



I can't help but wondering if Kyl is defending his state's governor in that video. This week, Hillary announced Obama would be suing Arizona. Two days later, Kyl reveals the contents of his private discussion with Obama. Here's the video of Hillary in Ecuador. Take note that she says Obama believes the Federal government should determine immigration policy. That statement in particular is a window into the level of arrogance in this administration. There's a big difference between "policy" and "law". What Hillary is actually saying here is that Obama is choosing what laws he wants to enforce.

BP INFORMED MMS OF WELL CONCERNS IN FEBRUARY

The talk track for many of the politicians in congress as well as the Obama administration has been that BP is solely responsible for the disaster in the Gulf. Lost on them are the government regulations and eco-wacko lobbyists who put BP so far off shore that capping a well after a disaster like this is proving next to impossible. Nope, the bureaucrats just want to point the finger at BP exclusively while abdicating all responsibility.

Courtesy of Bloomberg, we now have evidence that the Materials Management Service (MMS) had enough information from BP to warrant preventive measures as early as February:

On Feb. 13, BP told the minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast, drilling documents obtained by Bloomberg show. Investigators are still trying to determine whether the fissures played a role in the disaster.

Then we have this:

In early March, BP told the minerals agency the company was having trouble maintaining control of surging natural gas, according to e-mails released May 30 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the spill.

Then, courtesy of even further detail, we have this:

On March 10, BP executive Scherie Douglas e-mailed Frank Patton, the mineral service’s drilling engineer for the New Orleans district, telling him: “We’re in the midst of a well control situation.”

The incident was a “showstopper,” said Robert Bea, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has consulted with the Interior Department on offshore drilling safety. “They damn near blew up the rig.”

I am far from being a BP apologist. In fact, based on what's being discovered, they had a reputation for being somewhat careless, cutting corners routinely, almost as a part of doing business. BP also had a track record that included at least two mini-disasters. Perhaps most disturbingly, its leadership has adopted a bit of a bunker mentality when it comes to talking to the press. Bloomberg reports that BP didn't respond to requests for comment. That's what we call lack of transparency, which often translates to having something to hide. It's a mentality that is as helpful to BP as Hayward saying he wants to get his "life back".

BP is culpable but what is even more maddening is the U.S. government's attempt to abdicate. Instead of indignantly pointing the finger at Executive Tony Hayward, Bart Stupak should be pointing the finger at the body he represents - Congress. The MMS - an agency overseen by the Obama administration - was clearly in the loop when it came to the red flags warning of the disaster that happened on April 20th; MMS is culpable as well.

The decision to alienate Hayward was calculated. It was also overdone, obviously so because the committee that Stupak chairs, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, had to overcompensate in order to gain its political footing. The U.S. government is not without culpability here, regardless of how badly they want to give it all to BP. It's attempt to do so should enrage every American. Unfortunately, there are blind ideologues who simply love the red meat that is the demonization of BP exclusively. Those people will just jump on the Stupak bandwagon (and you thought that was an oxymoron).

h/t to Hot Air

BP EXPLOSION USED AS REASON TO REGULATE INTERNET

Talk about a leap. We're all familiar with the shared belief of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel that a crisis should never be allowed to go to waste. We saw that play out recently, when the Obama administration decided to exploit the BP oil rig explosion by having president teleprompter resurrect the mantra of calling for Cap and Trade legislation as a means to help the country move toward green energy - yeah, we also know it's a big scam but at least the logic was apparent. Exploiting the disaster in such a way seemed like a natural fit in the liberal mind.

Now, thanks to a piece by the Prowler in the American Spectator, the BP crisis may end up being used to help the FCC implement internet regulation:

The commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, and his staff have insisted that imposing federal regulations originally written in the 1930s for the telephone is the only way the Obama Administration can gain the "kind of oversight and control that we need," says an FCC staffer with ties to another Democrat commissioner. "Look at the Gulf oil spill, that's what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can't allow that to happen with the Internet. We won't allow it."

Hang on. Let's work through this argument for a minute. The BP explosion occurred on a rig that was drilling 5000 ft. under the Gulf of Mexico. Has anyone asked why they are doing that? The answer is government regulations brought on by the Eco-wackos. The premise of this unnamed staffer is simply faulty - completely so. The premise is that because BP is allowed to operate without restriction, they got careless and caused this entire disaster all by themselves.

Uh, perhaps this staffer should probe into the reasons why BP is drilling so far out from shore. In fact, the argument could be made, quite logically, that the this disaster is as big and far reaching as it is because the government interfered and placed insane restrictions on oil drilling in the Gulf.

Read it all.

CATHOLIC SCHOLAR WANTS ARPAIO DENIED COMMUNION

If there was a hypocrite of the millennium award, a man named Anthony Stevens-Arroyo would definitely be a frontrunner. Arroyo writes on things Catholic for the Washington Post. On June 16th, he calls for Catholic bishops to deny communion to anyone associated with passage of Arizona's Immigration bill - SB 1070 - as well as those who enforce it. Arroyo specifically singles out Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a Catholic who should be denied communion.

Via Wapo:

Will any of today's bishops deny communion to Catholic officials who vote for this bill and its spawn of imitators in other states? Has censure been voiced against the local sheriff Joe Arpaio (a Catholic) who has led raids on Latinos? These are strategies used in the past by bishops.

Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix, has been forthright in signing documents detailing the Church's objections to this new law, but he has been criticized for not treating this issue with the same vigor as other public matters counter to Church teaching.

Now for the hypocrisy that is so thick, you'd have to sharpen the teeth on the chainsaw used to attempt to cut through it. Notice how Arroyo's reason for going after Arpaio is what he perceives as an immoral law - just prior to singling out Arpaio, Arroyo primes the pump by comparing immigration enforcement to Gestapo tactics.

In the interest of determining if Arroyo is consistent in his views that following what he believes to be an immoral law is reason enough to be refused communion, I decided to see what his take was on Nancy Pelosi receiving communion despite being pro-abortion. It turns out that we don't have to go back all that far - less than a year. Let's take a look at Arroyo's words from December 8th, 2009:

Michael Sean Winters rails against Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, telling all that she is "not pro-life." He sets himself up as judge and executioner of a Catholic woman who honors her role to uphold the law of the land that allows choice about abortion. (Does "pro-life" mean that one must be a subversive advocating civil disobedience?)

Ah, so in the case of Nancy Pelosi, the morality or immorality of the law is not at issue; Simply following it absolves her from any form of censure. Pelosi is allowed to be pro-abortion because the law prevents her from being culpable. However, Joe Arpaio isn't afforded the same luxury. He isn't even responsible for passing laws - unlike Pelosi. Yet, he should be denied communion for following one Arroyo doesn't like. Conversely, Pelosi should be allowed to continue receiving communion because she's just following laws he does like.

That may sound a bit confusing so let's just break it down to the truth that Arroyo isn't telling you. The truth is that Arroyo is pro-abortion and pro-illegal amnesty. As such, he will make any argument, regardless of hypocrisy or inconsistency to push his agenda. Perhaps Mr. Arroyo should check out his local confessional. Unlike communion, no one's banned from that.

Watch Arpaio's response to Arroyo's wish - via Fox 10 in Phoenix:



h/t to Hot Air Pundit