That’s exactly what it was yes­ter­day and today with “Pres­i­dent” Obama and “President” Felipe Calderon of Mex­ico, regard­ing ille­gal immi­gra­tion and the Ari­zona anti–ille­gal immi­gra­tion law.  (That’s what it is, folks — NOT anti-immigration.)

Obama said this:  “We’re exam­in­ing any impli­ca­tions espe­cially for civil rights because in the United States of Amer­ica, no law abid­ing per­son — be they an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen, ille­gal immi­grant, or a vis­i­tor or tourist from Mex­ico — should ever be sub­ject to sus­pi­cion sim­ply because of what they look like.”

And Calderon said this:  “We are and will con­tinue to be respect­ful of the inter­nal poli­cies of the United States and its legit­i­mate right to estab­lish, in accor­dance to its Con­sti­tu­tion, what­ever laws it approves,” he said, “But we will retain our firm rejec­tion to crim­i­nal­ized migra­tion so that peo­ple that work and pro­vide things to this nation would be treated as criminals.”

Crim­i­nal­ized migra­tion?  CRIMINALIZED MIGRATION????  It’s ILLEGAL to come into this coun­try with­out the proper pro­ce­dure and papers.  HEY OBAMA — I have a news flash for you:  A per­son, if they’re com­ing into this coun­try ille­gally, is NOT a law-abiding per­son!!  This law passed by Ari­zona, S.B. 1070, re-affirms what is in our fed­eral law, and does NOT dis­crim­i­nate NOR encour­age racial pro­fil­ing.  It is quite appar­ent that no one that has come out crit­i­ciz­ing this law (i.e. Eric Holder, Janet Napoli­tano, Obama, Calderon, etc.) has actu­ally read said law.  Do your­self a favor before mak­ing an ass out of your­self:  READ THE $@%& LAW!!

I stand by Ari­zona, and from now on I will buy every­thing I can that is made there.  I will sup­port this state whole­heart­edly, and I am hope­ful that my own state and other states will fol­low suit soon.  As per the United States Con­sti­tu­tion, “The Con­gress shall have Power To lay and col­lect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and pro­vide for the com­mon Defence and gen­eral Wel­fare of the United States”.  Also, “The pow­ers not del­e­gated to the United States by the Con­sti­tu­tion, nor pro­hib­ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec­tively, or to the peo­ple.”  The right to secure the bor­der of the State is not pro­hib­ited by the Constitution.

Oh, and another thing:  The AUDACITY of our so-called Pres­i­dent, allow­ing noth­ing but a glo­ri­fied drug dealer to address OUR Con­gress, is despicable. S.B. 1070 is noth­ing but a re-statement of the FEDERAL LAW, which Obama and his pre­de­ces­sors have FAILED to uphold, giv­ing the Ari­zona law enforce­ment the abil­ity to ENFORCE the law. I’m so sick and tired of our topsy-turvy gov­ern­ment. Obama’s speech with Calderon yes­ter­day was sedi­tious, and he ought to be thrown out on his..err, ears. It’s high time Obama be impeached for his crimes against the United States.

Some def­i­n­i­tions for you:

Harangue:  a scold­ing or a long or intense ver­bal attack; diatribe.

Ille­gal:  for­bid­den by law or statute.

Impeach­ment:  Impeach­ment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, pro­ceed­ing by a leg­is­la­ture for the removal from office of a pub­lic offi­cial charged with mis­con­duct in office. Impeach­ment com­prises both the act of for­mu­lat­ing the accu­sa­tion and the result­ing trial of the charges; it is fre­quently but erro­neously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused pub­lic offi­cial. An impeach­ment trial may result in either an acquit­tal or in a ver­dict of guilty. In the lat­ter case the impeached offi­cial is removed from office; if the charges war­rant such action, the offi­cial is also remanded to the proper author­i­ties for trial before a court.