TUCSON, Ariz. – Gov. Jan Brewer is dismissing the threat of an economic boycott over the new state immigration law she signed last week.

Appearing Monday at an Arizona Town Hall in Tucson, Brewer said she doesn’t believe the law is “going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think it might.”

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Tucson Democrat, has called for a boycott of convention business for the state and other calls have come for a boycott of Arizona goods, services and tourism because of the nationally controversial immigration law.

The Arizona Daily Star reports that Brewer says outrage over the ability of police to ask people for citizenship documentation will fade. She recalled how another uproar faded when she was secretary of state and rode herd over a requirement that voters show ID at the polls.

One of my favorite communists, Al the “racist” Sharpton is ready to ride the freedom train to Arizona. Bring it on Al.. 70% of the voters in Arizona agree with this immigration bill.

Did you catch JD Hayworth on Geraldo debating Al Sharpton? It was great! JD was cool and collected. I am excited. I really think JD has a good chance of beating John “McAmnesty” in the general election.

In other immigration news, some of the talk show liberals are trying to say that the new law in Arizona is going to drive tourists away. Actually, I think it will help tourism in Arizona. Arizona is going to be a much safer place to bring your kids this summer as the “illegals” will be running for the hills. I gotta tell you folks, this immigration law in Arizona is BIG news! It has the liberals all in a big tizzy.. the battleground lines are being drawn and the “good guys” are looking strong!

by Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker has angered Georgia Republicans to the point that some have called for his impeachment. Mr. Baker refuses to join other state attorneys general filing suit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. He’s become the darling of the left by his refusal to file suit.

Based on praise by the liberal media, you’d think General Baker was the model of fiscal responsibility and restraint on judicial activism.

That bastion of fiscal responsibility, The New York Times writes, that Mr. Baker “has rejected such lawsuits as ‘frivolous’ and ‘a waste of taxpayer money.’”

AlterNet reports on Mr. Baker’s appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC conservative smear show:

“It’s impossible to have a lawsuit where there are no inherent costs,” Baker said. “Every time you are pulling employees away from their appointed duties to file a lawsuit and to engage in this counter-activity, there’s going to be cost. Lawyers don’t work for free, not even lawyers who work in house. So I’m not aware of any way that a lawsuit can be filed, even if we do it in house, where it doesn’t cost the taxpayer some money.”

If only Mr. Baker had been consistent throughout his career. You see, Mr. Baker was given a grade of A from ACORN in 2008 precisely because he is an activist attorney general who spent taxpayer money in pursuit of ACORN’s legislative and judicial agenda. Mr. Baker’s grade of A is shown on page four of ACORN’s report.

ACORN’s highest grades were awarded to attorneys general “pursuing cutting-edge cases.” ACORN’s favorite attorney general did not worry about frivolous cases, because “in the near future as more legal theories get tested in different states, there will be additional case law established to provide a guide for attorneys general to take legal action.”

Concern for taxpayer money being spent by attorney general? That was obviously never a concern to ACORN’s AGs such as Mr. Baker who were praised for “putting their offices to work for distressed borrowers,” and “devoting additional resources to the issue.”

ACORN knew to rely on activist AGs such as Mr. Baker. In its report, ACORN wrote:

While Congress and some governors have grabbed headlines for some of their modest reactions to the foreclosure crisis, there is another critical and largely untold story of the innovative and impactful leadership that many states’ attorneys general have demonstrated in their diverse responses to the crises in their states.

I wonder how much taxpayer money General Baker spent pursuing ACORN’s agenda rather than protecting the Constitution?

By Chelsea Schilling

36 legislatures fight for citizens’ rights to opt out of health-coverage demand

At least 36 state legislatures are considering legislation that would allow citizens to opt out of a key component of President Obama’s health-care “reform” – an “individual mandate” requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person’s income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher. Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.

“The president’s proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured,” a White House plan released in February states.

States rejecting ‘individual mandate’

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, formal resolutions or bills have been filed in opposition to the individual mandate in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

read the rest of the story here…

Old Dominion Watchdog.org
By Paige Winfield Cunningham

Virginia delegates are shaking their fists at the federal government by adding to a crop of anti-government legislation sprouting around the country.

A bill aiming to duck out of federal healthcare reform has been approved by Virginia’s general assembly, while similar legislation has been filed in at least 30 other states, according to the Washington-based nonprofit American Legislative Exchange Council. The Virginia House and Senate, along with Gov. Bob McDonnell, are poised this week to approve a final version of the bill, which says citizens cannot be required to have medical insurance.

But that’s not the extent of the anti-federal initiatives. Dozens of states are trying to assert independence from the U.S. government by resisting regulation of firearms, commerce and currency.

Supporters of the bills say they’re defending states’ rights under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves those powers not expressly granted to the federal government for the states.

The Virginia House has approved bills aimed at protecting firearms and commerce within the state.

more to the story here…

hat-tip: News.TheRightSideofLife.com