Category Archives: Arizona

Diversity, at any cost: “Pool hiring Lifeguards based on Skin Color, rather than Ability to Swim”

It’s like I’ve said numerous times before: locating examples of Liberal Lunacy today is as easy as opening the morning paper.
s-SWIMMING-POOL-GERMS-large

Phoenix, Arizona-area public swimming pools have been making waves in the news recently over a new hiring practice. Test yourself and see if you can spot why some folks might find fault with their initiative.

Courtesy of NPR:

After noticing that most of the lifeguards at the public pools used by Latino and African-American kids were white, the Phoenix aquatics department decided to try to recruit minorities.

More than 90 percent of the students at Alhambra High are black, Latino or Asian. On a recruiting effort there over the winter, the city’s Melissa Boyle tells students she’s not looking for strong swimmers. Like many under-resourced schools, Alhambra doesn’t have a swim team.

We will work with you in your swimming abilities,” Boyle says.

Continue reading

Better Interpretation of new SCOTUS ruling: ‘Sanctuary Cities illegal, too’

It appears that Obama and his minions are completely willing to see the divide on illegal immigration devolve into chaos, since his Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has already indicated that they won’t be taking any calls from Arizona going forward.

It takes a small, petty man to make such a small, self-interested decision. President Populist is just such a man.

From the Examiner:

On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency suspended the federal program known as 287(g) for Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status after an arrest had been made for any offense. The program has been highly effective in identifying criminal aliens at the local level.

The decision came only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision to let stand the portion of Arizona’s immigration law which requires local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is here illegally.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, 287 (g) agreements are “not useful” in states that have enacted SB1070-type laws. So, even if local law enforcement arrests an illegal alien, their requests to ICE are likely to fall upon deaf ears and the suspect will simply be released.

This has been discussed quite a bit in the last 24 hours, and by folks several orders of magnitude smarter than me. BUT: there is a factor missing. I want to highlight it, because I made this exact point months ago with a couple of my buddies. And it’s something that I haven’t heard from anyone else other than Levin last night.

Hey, if I have to agree with someone, I’m happy to have the “Great One” on my side.

From the Daily Caller:

On his Monday show, conservative radio host Mark Levin explained why  yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the controversial Arizona  immigration law, could pave the way for legal action against “sanctuary” areas  that welcome undocumented immigrants.

Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” first  expressed his disappointment in Chief Justice John Roberts for signing on with  the decision, which dismantled much of the Arizona law while upholding a section  that allows law enforcement to force suspected immigrants to show documentation  that proves their legal residency.

“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not  incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in  the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him  to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for  documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal  activity.”

However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with  someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find  themselves in hot water.

“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power  in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and  sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal  immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have  standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to  be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional  authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”

Now obviously I’m no lawyer, but this point seemed rather obvious even to little ol’ me. That’s why I was surprised that no one else seemed to be making it. It’s also why I didn’t dwell on it for awfully long: I just figured there must be more to it which my non-lawyerly brain didn’t properly comprehend. That may still be the case, but it doesn’t change the fact that Levin’s law firm, Landmark Legal Foundation, also reached the same conclusion in a brief published earlier this year,  noting a decision similar to the one yesterday would create “chaos and  confusion”.

If the federal government’s politically motivated challenge of SB 1070 is  successful, rather than bring consistency and certainty to immigration on a  national level, it will create even more chaos and confusion. The federal  Executive Branch’s selective and inconsistent application of field preemption in  immigration law must not be given this Court’s imprimatur. Otherwise, lawless  state and local governments that have adopted sanctuary policies that directly  violate federal immigration law and have not been challenged by the Executive  Branch will continue to be lawless. Conversely, law-abiding governments that  help enforce federal immigration law will be without direction.

The illegal immigration issue (and it’s important to remember to include the word ‘illegal’ here) is only going to grow more rancorous and divisive, as a direct result of Obama’s actions. However, Arizona didn’t pick this battle: they just decided to fight back. I have sided with them from the start, and my reason is simple: the Arizona law is a direct outgrowth of that state’s frustration over our own Federal Government’s failure to secure the border. This law would be superfluous if that were to happen. ALL other methods they choose to rationally deal with this issue need to be viewed through the prism of being told, point-blank, by Uncle Sam, “No, the US gov’t won’t protect you, and you can’t protect yourself, either”.

Well, they are protecting themselves, and God Bless ‘em for having the spine to do so.

I’m not from Arizona, but I can certainly understand their plight. In the face of an increasingly hostile Federal Government, I am completely on the side of the State, any state, which is merely trying to fulfill their obligation to protect their legal citizens.

Arizona vs. the United States Government — again

Have you noticed that Arizona seems to get just a weeeee more attention from the Federal Government than anybody else? It’s almost like they’re being told, “Hey, nice state youse got here. Be a shame if sumthin happened to it….”

Several weeks back, we covered a totally wacko case where the Federal Government wouldn’t allow Tombstone, AZ to use modern technology to repair damage to the town (“Have a Nice Day!“). We’ve all watched the ongoing immigration battle. Plus President Thin-Skin isn’t exactly best buddies with Governor Jan Brewer. And there’s the whole Fast N’ Furious thing. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio is probably not on the White House Christmas Card list, either.

And even with all that, …..this is crazy.

From tusconcitizen.com:

A new state law and a bill introduced in Congress are meant to defend Arizona agencies from being punished for federal dust-pollution violations stemming from massive natural dust events, such as haboobs.

Failure to prove compliance with federal air-quality standards could jeopardize federal funding for transportation projects in the state.

The new law ensures each city, town and county documents whether they are in compliance with EPA standards.

…U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake has (also) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives intended to help states prove more efficiently and effectively that their violations of dust-pollution standards qualify as “exceptional events” — meaning that while proper controls are in place, violations still occur because of natural events beyond a state’s control.

——-

“It’s pretty severe,” Flake said. “This is something that I think everyone recognizes — Republican or Democrat — that it’s just bureaucracy run amok. And we’ve gotta fix it.”

OK, so Arizona, which is largely made up of desert, is having to defend itself from our oh-so-benevolent Federal Government, which is trying to cite them for…..dust violations???

DUST violations?

The massive dust storms that rolled through the Valley in 2011 have led to a record number of dust-pollution violations at air-quality monitors across Maricopa County. In many cases, multiple violations happened on the same day, but at different monitor locations.

Just when I think they can’t shock me anymore, they do it.

So what’s next: the Feds punishing Colorado because their mountains are too tall and they aren’t Americans with Disabilities Act compliant? Or maybe finding Montana excessively forested (exceeding Federal forest fire risk tolerances)? Or maybe Kansas should be punished next, since they don’t have enough trees, and thusly aren’t “doing their fair share” in the fight against CO2?

Really, I have only two concerns at this point.

  1. That Arizona will somehow lose this battle against this idiotic regulation, and
  2. That if Arizona does manage to win, the Feds will then find them in violation of their soon-to-be-released regulations monitoring Excessive Canyon Size.

Hey, it’s no crazier than trying to regulate dust storms.

**Courtesy of johngalt & the boys, over at YouViewed/editorial**

YouViewed/Editorial

From the pen of Michael Ramirez :

View original post

Food Freaks

I had sooo many things to potentially discuss today:

  • President Genius and his Wizards of Smart deciding that kids on farms shouldn’t …work on the farms. You know, like has been going on since, basically, the invention of farms.
  • The ongoing battle between Arizona and this Administration. 3 guesses which side Check Schumer is on…?
  • Tony Robbins (yes, THAT Tony Robbins) coming out on video against our Populist Prez’s strategy of Eat The Rich.

NO, no, …with all of that and more at my disposal, I chose instead: food. Or, rather, the people who are complete FREAKS about food, and are ruining it for the rest of us.

—————————————-

When I say FREAKS, I am not talking about your normal, everyday person who likes food. I’m not even talking about the person who enjoys the Food Network, or who has their kitchen looking like it’s ready to handle tonight’s dinner crowd at the Four Seasons.

Nope. I’m talking FREAKS, such as the ones discussed in the following letter/response on the cooking website ruhlman.com:

Dear Michael,

I am the mother of the bride. My daughter is a third culture kid, having grown up outside the US for her teen years. Consequently, she has been exposed to a wide variety of cultures and cuisines.

Her one request for her wedding day was to have a small luncheon for close friends and family to celebrate the occasion.

Our problem is my husband’s siblings “special diet” issues. They embody the evangelical wacko dietary fads that consume a certain slice of the upper middle class. We have every variation of diet extremism from the paleo-diet to variations of the casein/gluten/lactose/sugar-free philosophies which means they are limited to brown rice, some grilled meats, and some fruits/vegies. Apparently they are worried about leaky guts and fingers swelling from gluten exposure. To compound the problem, there are quite a number of them who follow variations of this extremism—10 to 12 people out of a party of 75 or so.

Since we are hosting our luncheon at an Italian restaurant, we will embrace cheese, pasta, gelato (and wedding cake) etc. with gusto. My husband wants to include his siblings in our celebration. However I have no desire to pay hundreds of dollars for meals that will be picked at, ignored or otherwise snubbed because of their food fascism. I will not have them ruin my daughter’s day by taking up space refusing to eat. If it were a matter of vegetarian vs. meat eating–that’s easy to accommodate. However this dietary demand goes beyond mere plant vs. animal.

The letter-writer goes on to ask if there is a tactful way of getting these folks to self-select out of the meal, without being rude. And, the advice given seems solid.

—————————————-

But, seriously, was this ever a concern in YOUR family when you were raised? Ever? A conversation along those lines would simply never have happened: “Hey, Ma? Rocky, Kell and Zan are all coming over for dinner, but just to remind you, Kell only eats brussels sprouts FROM Brussels, and Rocky is on that 1,452 hour cleanse, so right now he can only consume 3-day-old goat cheese and/or rainwater that was retrieved from a catch basin in the Himalayas. Zan has relaxed his diet, and is completely fine with organic, cage-free, summer raised, white meat/chicken breast, ….grilled only. And well-done, too: not soggy. You remember last time, right? He’ll have his own rub and spices, like normal.”

C’mon…… When we had meals that didn’t require a pair of scissors to access them, we were pretty pumped. And that was that.

—————————————-

Where did this come from? I know it seems to be a metropolitan, elitist, over-educated thing, but even THEN it’s ….a tad overboard.

My suggestion? Round ’em all up, lock ’em in a hockey arena, put Gilligan’s Island up on the Jumbo-tron (all 3 seasons), and feed them nothing but grilled cheese, spam, Campbell’s soup, and cold cereal. Maybe some beef jerky, too.

Tap water; not bottled. And coffee: Folgers or Maxwell House; totally their choice.

Either that will recalibrate their brains-&-taste buds back to “socially acceptable human” level again, or their heads will explode.

Win-win, I say.

Have a nice day!

You may wish to sit down for this one.

Last year, southern Arizona fell victim to a natural disaster. Dubbed the Monument Fire (since it started in the Coronado National Monument), it claimed roughly 30,000 acres in a two-week period.

 

From WND.com:

(The Monument Fire)…denuded the hillsides of vegetation. After the fire, record-breaking monsoon rains hit the region, triggering huge mudslides that left boulders the size of cars tumbling down hillsides.

The slides crushed Tombstone’s mountain spring waterlines and destroyed reservoirs for the town’s main water supply network.

And from kvoa.com:

Tombstone’s main water source are springs bubbling up in Miller Canyon, but the recent flooding after the fire has messed it all up.

Jack Wright, Tombstone’s Water Operator said, “It’s moved some boulders through here. You have seen caverns that didn’t exist. This was a drivable road a month ago.”

And then, …the real disaster happened. A Federal Government agency showed up.

From the dailycaller.com:

George Barnes, Tombstone’s city clerk and manager, explained to The Daily  Caller that since many of the pipelines are in a “wilderness area,” the U.S.  Forest Service will not allow the mechanized equipment needed to fix the  water-lines into the area for environmental reasons.

“We began working with the Forest Service but then we realized and found what  an incredible boondoggle that could be, even though we are very confident we  have a special status because our rights there pre-existed the Forest Service  and even the BLM [Bureau of Land Management]. We were there long before anything  and all we are asking is to fix our stuff,” Barnes said.

And perhaps my favorite quote:

……instead of allowing repairs as has happened in the past, “federal bureaucrats are refusing to allow Tombstone to unearth its springs and restore its water-lines unless [city officials] jump through a lengthy permitting process that will require the city to use horses and hand tools to remove boulders the size of Volkswagens.

Got all that?

A town, here in the United States, in the year 2012, needs to get their drinking water back, and a Federal agency says, “Sure, but please use machinery from ….the 1800’s, okay? Have a nice day!”

Tombstone is fighting this in court, but they need to win quickly, since a slow victory will still be a loss for whatever townspeople are left.

—————————————————

This whole fiasco is eerily reminiscent of the California case back in 2009 with the San Joaquin Valley vs. the delta smelt, the main difference being this time the concern isn’t people’s livelihoods but rather their lives.

I have no idea whether this is merely typical, everyday environmental extremism, or just the latest example of federal overreach gone mad. And I really don’t want to consider the possibility that it has anything to do with President Petulant’s previous issues with the state of Arizona.

That would be impossible……wouldn’t it?