Jon Stewart Skit: the Race Card is Maxed Out

I found this on Betsy's Page. You have to see it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Race Card Is Maxed Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

When Jon Stewart knows they have gone too far, they have surely gone too far.

Medicare Fraud

This is from the MSNBC website but it is by  AP newswriter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar.
I will quote the pertinent paragraphs, if you want to read it all in context go here. 

They don't seem that interested in hot pursuit. It took private sleuths hired by Medicare an average of six months last year to refer fraud cases to law enforcement.

According to congressional investigators, the exact average was 178 days. By that time, many cases go cold, making it difficult to catch perpetrators, much less recover money for taxpayers.

A recent inspector general report also raised questions about the contractors, who play an important role in Medicare's overall effort to combat fraud.

Out of $835 million in questionable Medicare payments identified by private contractors in 2007, the government was only able to recover some $55 million, or about 7 percent, the report found.

Medicare overpayments - they can be anything from a billing error to a flagrant scam - totaled more than $36 billion in 2009, according to the Obama administration.

More news on the Science Blacklist

Here are some links with more discussion of the blacklist of scientists who are skeptics on  AGW. They are at the Examiner.com site and all are by Thomas Fuller who describes himself as Liberal Skeptic.

Climate Change and Energy Policy: Joined at the hip, but not the same

Global warming: Debunking the Blacklist Paper, Part 1

Debunking the Blacklist Paper, Part 2: The results were rigged

Global warming: The Blacklist Paper violates every ethical standard

Or just go here to see all the links in one place.

Have you heard of the Broken Window Fallacy?

I had not.  I first saw it on Wizbang, followed the source to Fausta and then to the original source of Cubachi.  It is a great little video but to understand it better be sure to read the whole of the post on Cubachi where this is explained:

The video titled “The Broken Window Fallacy” is a play on Frédéric Bastiat’s 1850 essay Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illuminate the notion of hidden costs associated with destroying property of others.

Now go read the parable.

The Administration doesn't like Alaska anymore than it likes Texas

Wonder Why? Well, read this maybe it makes sense to you. As I see it, it is a power grab of land.

Habitat designation won't help polar bears, but will kill Alaska's jobs
by Sean Parnell

Imagine a federal agency listing a species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act even though that species is stable and shows no evidence of decline.

Now imagine that agency setting aside an area larger than the state of California as "designated critical habitat" for that species, and subjecting all activity in that region to federal review, skyrocketing costs, endless delays and certain litigation, despite the agency itself admitting that the critical-habitat designation will do nothing to benefit the species.

Unfortunately, this isn't a hypothetical situation. This is exactly what is occurring in Alaska as the federal government strives to appease environmental advocacy groups.

 Read it all.

In Case you were wondering about the dispersants....

The Washington Post has this.

Chemical dispersants in Gulf of Mexico not hurting seafood, FDA says

By Lyndsey Layton

Chemical dispersants sprayed into the Gulf of Mexico to break up the massive oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon disaster do not appear to threaten the safety of seafood in the affected waters, the Food and Drug Administration said this week.

In a letter sent in response to questions from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the agency responsible for ensuring the safety of seafood said that chemicals used to break up the slicks are not as dangerous to human health as the oil itself.

FDA scientists do not think that the chemicals accumulate significantly in the tissue of fish and shellfish; even if fish absorb the chemicals through gills or other ways, the fish do not retain them, Jeanne Ireland, the FDA's assistant commissioner for legislation, wrote to Markey. That means the chemicals are not passed up the food chain to humans and are not considered a public health concern, according to the FDA.

Read the rest, it does explain more fully the makeup of the dispersants.

To the Taliban it is a Religious War

This depressing article is from the Washington Post.  We have fine Christian doctors who devote their time to many places around the globe, the Taliban is against that.  I'm wondering how many children were orphaned, how many widowed for the killing of these medical missionaries.  I also wonder how many Afghanies will not be helped because of this.

Attack kills U.S., foreign doctors on medical mission in northern Afghanistan
KABUL -- An attack on a caravan of American and European medical personnel in a remote area of northern Afghanistan has killed 10 people, officials said on Saturday.

Afghan officials said the group of doctors, traveling through northern provinces to provide medical care, were found shot to death and robbed of their belongings on Friday in Badakshan, a relatively peaceful mountain province which has nevertheless suffered from deteriorating security and a growing Taliban insurgency in recent years.

The group, which included foreigners and Afghans, appeared to be the same one that was working with the International Assistance Mission, an organization that has operated in Afghanistan since 1966. The organization confirmed in a statement that "it is likely" the dead are members of their eye camp team, which had been in Nurestan province at the invitation of the communities there.

Read it all here.

Climate Science Credibility

It “used to be” a maxim that if your case was without merit, all you could do is blame the messenger. Used by politicians and others in the legal system, I have experienced this a couple of times. Along this line the United States National Academy of Sciences has published in its proceedings a paper-- "Expert credibility in climate change," available in their open access option, reserved for a set of papers they think important enough to have wide circulation. Otherwise non-subscribers are limited to abstracts and a few other features.

The authors divide climate scientists into two groups, unconvinced (UC) and convinced of the evidence (CE), but start the paper with the statement that “....surveys of climate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...”, which are that it is real and we have largely done it, making carbon dioxide a demon that we need to and can control. The authors make the logical error of concluding what they set out to prove (confirming the antecedent). In the same paragraph they state “A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream (emphasis mine) scientific assessment...” This is a contradiction because their data shows roughly similar numbers in both categories, so by definition the UC group is in the mainstream, at least of their sample. The reasoning is circular. How could an editor miss this?

They produce two arguments. First, credibility is established by the number of papers published in the field and second, the number of citations of those papers. This is an appeal to the authority of popularity (Argumentum ad Populum), which by itself is a poor judge of quality. The paper presents no merits about Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), formerly called AGW (Global Warming) before the data was called into question, and arguing there is good reason, with some caveats, that their hypothesis (lack of credibility based on poor numbers) has a basis. They present no alternative hypotheses, but clearly others are worth discussing. Most striking is their Figure 2 showing numbers of papers of the top 50 researchers (again by numbers) in each group. With a small exception all of the UC produced less than the CE, almost completely separated, with the split near 250. The groups are so segregated that the data seem too well ordered to be true.

Noteworthy, they found that the first group of climate scientists is a decade older, not factoring in changes in publication practices such as a possible increase in multiple authorship.

A very recent paper found that a quarter of citations sampled from research papers in marine biology journals had some degree of error. Twenty five percent error in a physical system would fail after a few iterations, but this would be more complicated. Nevertheless the paper’s authors thought this “alarming.” They cite similar studies in other, all medical, professions, ranging from very good in nursing to significantly less than either marine biology or the similarly rated ecology, to the worst--in emergency care. As a marine biologist poor citation attention is consistent with my experience, a point discussed with colleagues and librarians. Apparently no data exists for climate science.

Both the National Academy and the Royal Society of London are advocates for action, joining the many past groups of now discredited authoritarians. Even if they are correct, not likely, they have lost their credibility by producing a blacklist, perhaps towards censorship, by attacking credibility, not on the merits, but on numbers. Significant discoveries in science have largely been announced by few or even single papers, some which took a long time to develop.

Some have taken this in the context of a joke, like “where do I sign up to be a denier.” Sophomoric as this blacklist seems, it may be more serious.

More follows, but no doubt comments on this essay will be on the merits.

Our State has been A Bad Boy and the Senate is telling us to shape up

UPDATE:  This was instigated by Representative Lloyd Doggett (D - TX).  What a lousy thing to do to your own state.  You might want to let him know what you think of this action he has taken against his own state. Click on his name to go to his website.

This is from Redstate:

“No Distribution Shall Be Made to the State of Texas”
posted by Hogan

If I hadn’t already mentioned this before, this may come as a shock to some of you - but yesterday, the United States Senate actually voted to single out Texas to send a message that it better get in line.

You see, the Governor of Texas had the audacity to tell Washington, “no.” No to education funding that came with Washington strings and that would cost Texans more in the long run. No to unemployment insurance funding that would have come with similar strings and cost. And recently, along with other Texas state officials, no to federal government interference with traditional state authority to regulate oil and gas exploration.

Heaven forbid. Because, don’t you know, Washington is the fountain of all wisdom and virtue - and we must jump when Washington says “jump.” But when we don’t… oh, no… when we don’t, the powers that be along the Potomac decide to proceed like this:

1. Play politics with a War supplemental by including $10 billion in education funding in it;
2. Attach a requirement to that education spending that the Governor of Texas, because he has been out of line and not doing what he is told, must certify (unlike any other state) that the $800 million Texas could receive would not replace state funding, and thus would be additional funding;
3. When the education funding is stripped from the supplemental, proceed in a separate measure to pass it - leaving the same onerous, anti-Texas, arrogant, anti-federalism unprincipled power play.

No thank you. This should be just the beginning. States need to start telling Washington “no,” a lot louder and a lot more often.

Below is the offensive language:

(11) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS.–The following requirements shall apply to the State of Texas:
(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(B), funds used to support elementary and secondary education shall be distributed based on local educational agencies’ relative shares of funds under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year which data are available. Funds distributed pursuant to this paragraph shall be used to supplement and not supplant State formula funding that is distributed on a similar basis to part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
(B) The Secretary shall not allocate funds to the State of Texas under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the Secretary that the State will for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 maintain State support for elementary and secondary education at a percentage of the total revenues available to the State that is equal to or greater than the percentage provided for such purpose for fiscal year 2011 prior to the enactment of this Act.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (8), no distribution shall be made to the State of Texas or local education agencies therein unless the Governor of Texas makes an assurance to the Secretary that the requirements in paragraphs (11)(A) and (11)(B) will be met, notwithstanding the lack of an application from the Governor of Texas.

Thanks to Jim H Little for the link to this post.

Tom McMahon says Justice Denied

Tell him thank you at 4 Block World.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.......

How thankful we are that we live in America.  Granted, this is not the America we grew up in so long ago, but now we may be regainning some of our blessings. Make no mistake our pledge can be  counted as a blessing.  Did you hear about this? It is from Gateway Pundit.

Mass. School Kids Now ‘Allowed’ To Say the Pledge of Allegiance
by Warner Todd Huston
What sort of nation have we become when it takes monumental efforts by a kid to get a school administration to “allow” them all to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?

Nonetheless, that is the nation that liberals have turned these great United States into as after two months of wrangling Arlington, Massachusetts High School student Sean Harrington finally succeeded in getting his school administrators to allow the Pledge to be recited by students in class.

Arlington High School Principal Charles Skidmore told FoxNews.com that the policy has now been changed. “All principals in the district must ensure that the Pledge of Allegiance is said every school day in all classrooms,” he wrote in an email to the news channel.

Young Sean said he is pleased with the outcome.

“As a result of the controversy, I heard from many people both across the country and in our community who wanted the Pledge restored to our school. That’s all I was ever looking for on this issue — widespread community buy-in so that students would feel that they wanted to say the Pledge, not just that they had to,” he said.

After decades of schools being scared silly by left-wing lawsuits trying to stop them form allowing displays of religion and patriotism in the classroom, many schools have summarily removed any possibility that they might be sued for such displays.

Then you add to this idiotic situation the fact that many school administrators and teachers fully agree with the anti-American and anti-religion agenda of the left in our schools.

In any case, congratulations to young Sean Harrington for sticking to his guns and proving that he is a true American.

Lobbyists Back Reid

This is from Politico:
K Street bets on Harry Reid
by John Bresnahan & Manu Raju

K Street has placed a big bet in the Nevada Senate race, putting a bundle of cash behind Harry Reid.

During just a few weeks, the Senate majority leader racked up $56,000 in individual contributions from registered lobbyists, according to an analysis of his latest campaign fundraising records, which cover the final days before the Nevada primary through the end of June.

Republican Sharron Angle’s haul: just $500 from a single lobbyist in Washington.

Read more here.

Jobs Creation for Someone, Somewhere

This  is from American Thinker Blog:

GM announces major investment in auto plant (in Mexico)
Cindy Simpson

That's Government Motors gratitude for you! From the Wall Street Journal:
U.S. automobile giant General Motors Co. said Tuesday it plans to invest close to $500 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle...

"We estimate that these technologies allow for a 9% improvement in fuel efficiency from current engines," Lieblein said, adding that the investment will directly create 390 jobs in Coahuila state, where Ramos Arizpe is located.
Another $215 million will go toward upgrading the factory's production lines to build a new vehicle for the domestic and international markets, she said, noting that the investment will be key to maintaining 400 jobs.

Assembly of the vehicle, which wasn't named, is set to begin in the last quarter of 2011. GM plans for it to "give long-term viability to this plant by gradually substituting some production volumes."

Lieblein said General Motors has invested $4.1 billion in Mexico over the last four years.

US taxpayers bailed out GM, next came the Volt, and now this is the payback.

On the bright side, at least there may be fewer Mexicans crossing the border.

VD Hanson on Relative Prosperity or Improverishment

I have often remarked that I would believe it was a deep recession when I stopped seeing so many people out shopping  with cell phones in hand. Victor Davis Hanson did the same thing and took it to his excellent level.

A Weird Sort of Depression

Bad and Not Bad

Economic statistics paint a pretty grim picture: annual growth coming out of a recession at an anemic 2.4%; unemployment rising at 9.6%; and foreclosures again on the rise.

Here in California the jobless rate is 12.5%. And where I live in Fresno County it hovers at 16%. Bleak.

I can see some of that general depression when my son’s friends gather out here at the farm. About 5-6 guys he knows are in their mid-twenties. Like him, all have BAs and skill sets (accounting, teaching credentials, computer degrees, bio certifications, etc.); all are “semi” working at part-time jobs (no benefits); and living at home. None have been able to find the sort of job we used to count on — a full-time entry position at about $30K that invariably leads to both advancement and higher salaries, along with retirement and health benefits. Higher education does not lead to a good job; no higher education leads to even less.

Great Expectations?

And yet, I don’t sense Dickensian poverty, in that the half-employed somehow through parental support, or cheap Chinese goods, or exemption from income taxes, seem to have plentiful appurtenances and even fairly nice cars. So what’s going on?

I was curious about this. So equipped with rough statistics, I decide to write down what I saw over a few days. Warning note: I live in southern Fresno County, rated, in per capita income, 49th out of California’s 56 counties.

Read it all here.

Instapundit's take on the JournoList scandal

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee law professor and author of the  blog, Instapundit.com.. He wrote this in the Knox Sentinel.

Controversy proves collusion among liberal journalists

Conservatives have long claimed that the media is biased against them and tries hard to shape stories in ways that help Democrats and hurt Republicans. This has sometimes been dismissed as paranoia - as in my former MSNBC co-blogger Eric Alterman's book, "What Liberal Media?" - but it turns out to be truer than they imagined.

If this were a Hollywood movie, there would have been clandestine meetings in basements or bars or parking garages. But since it was real life, it was just an e-mail list, called "JournoList," set up by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. It had over 400 members, including reporters at top publications like the Post, the New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, PBS, Time, etc.
 
Like most email lists, much of the content was profane or sophomoric - like Alterman's reference to Bush supporters as "f***ing Nascar retards," public radio producer Sarah Spitz's expressed desire to stand by laughing as Rush Limbaugh expired from a heart attack, or blogger Spencer Ackerman's fantasies about shoving conservative pundits through plate-glass windows. Such explosions might raise doubts about these figures' objectivity or ability to cover news honestly, but overall they are more embarrassing than incriminating.
 
But there was worse. Some JournoList members talked about getting the FCC to shut down Fox News, or about denying web traffic to rivals deemed too conservative. And, most troubling, there were concerted efforts to choose a storyline and spread it across the outlets for which they all worked, so as to manipulate the public's perceptions. When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, JournoList participants coordinated their attacks.
[.............}
......No doubt publishing these never-intended-for-publication remarks is, at some level, unfair: The list members were just venting to their friends. But, of course, so were lots of other people whose off-the-cuff remarks have been blown up into national stories by journalists over the years. And efforts to covertly shape the news, hurt competitors, and influence elections (JournoList members referred to themselves as the "unofficial Obama campaign") aren't the sort of thing that journalist think deserve privacy the rest of the time when they're done by people who aren't journalists.

Let this be a warning to those who forget that in today's digital world, the only way to have a private thought is not to write it down. You'd think that journalists, of all people, would have figured that out by now.

You can read the rest here.

Is the Internet a "Committee of Correspondence?"

I think that is a pretty apt term.  This article is from Investors.com

Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?
by Ernest S. Christian and Gary A Robbins

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

Read the rest here.

Arizona, a gift for the conservatives?

Arnold Ahlert thinks so. This is from Jewish World Review.

The Arizona Ruling: a Gift for November

Rejoice conservatives, rejoice. We have been given a gift that will keep on giving right up to November. The travesty of Clinton-appointee Judge Susan Bolton's decision blocking key components of the Arizona immigration law is a Godsend: it will be up to Democrats to explain why they stand on the side of border-busting lawbreakers--against citizens of the United States. They thought people were angry when Democrats rammed an unpopular health care bill down their throats? They ain't seen nothin' yet.

This is just a taste of what he says, read the rest here. Enjoy.

Governing - by my friend Annie Kitay

How often have we heard those running for office say they will vote their conscience. Look at the mess that's gotten us in. I say - ask yourself - is it granted or supported by the Constitution? That should be your conscience talking to you - if not question who is whispering in your ear!

I say - you have not been elected (chosen) to be 'in charge' of anything - rather you have been chosen / charged with serving this country according to the Constitution and that is your sole responsibility. You are not 'in charge' of anything - zilch!

Metaphor: the shoe you are trying to shove our foot into doesn't fit.

If there is one thing I cannot abide aside from liars it is junkies - our so-called leaders are hooked! They are power junkies. I guess a lot of them are liars too. Obfuscators. Cowards hiding under the umbrella of it's just 'politics'. Picture if you will the great men of power today sitting in the same room with the likes of Daniel Boone, smelly backwoodsman, who actually had a passion, a real sense of justice, the instinct to serve and the common sense to go home to earn his living!

I am so proud of and in awe of the men who came together and poured their ideas on the table and sorted through them repeatedly, trying with all their might to make them fool-proof (That's a good word for it). They were extraordinary ordinary men - they argued, drank, probably spat a lot - look at all the spittoons laying around - smoked, fornicated, fought duels, while running the farm or business or were just out flying a kite! Some were gourmands who indulged every chance they got. They were plotters, planners, dreamers - they were fighting for their own State to get the larger piece of the pie - in the final analysis - reconciled. They were not entirely happy with the document so they wrote amendments. They labored - think of that word - roll it around in your mouth - when was the last time we "labored" over anything. The majority of them were self educated. Most were considered ordained ministers. Sunday services being held in the same house they built to house the Congress they'd created. It was after early Washington and the largest place to gather. Prayers under the dome! Oh but that I could have been there!

Actually they sound like the kind of men I could understand, would like to hang out with - even the kind of men I could fall in love with. Men who dared to dream hugely yet keep their feet solidly on the ground. annie on a monday morning -y'all be real careful which rock you turn over, okay?

I received this as an email from Annie this morning. I often get words of wisdom from her attached to something she thinks I shoud read.  This is an original. She is a great thinker and from the looks of this, a great writer. 
Thank you, Annie, I'm expecting more of the same! 

There is nothing like a Royal Visit - well, except maybe a visit from Obama

This is from Scripps News Service, it's old (March 31, 2009) but a good reminder of who we are dealing with, or who is dealing us:

Editorial: An entourage more royal than the Queen's
An editorial By Dale McFeatters
The heads of government in London for the G-20 summit are discussing serious and weighty issues, which in time will be duly reported on, but right now the British press is entranced by the sheer size of President Obama's traveling entourage. And no wonder.
Obama arrived with 500 staff in tow, including 200 Secret Service agents, a team of six doctors, the White House chef and kitchen staff with the president's own food and water.
And, according to the Evening Standard, he also came with "35 vehicles in all, four speech writers and 12 teleprompters." For sure, our president is not going to be at a loss for words.
The press duly reported on Air Force One and all its bells and whistles but also on the presence of the presidential helicopter, Marine One, and a fleet of identical decoys to ferry him from Stansted airport to central London.
Among all those vehicles is the presidential limousine, which one local paper mistakenly called Cadillac One, but is universally referred to as the Beast. The limo, reinforced with ceramic and titanium armor, carries tear gas cannon, night vision devices, its own oxygen and is resistant to chemical and radiation attack. It is, marveled one reporter, a sort of mobile panic room. The Guardian called it "the ultimate in heavily armored transport."
The president is entitled to all the security, communications and support he feels necessary to do his job but surely, when we're trying to project a more restrained, humble image to the world, the president's huge retinue could be scaled back to something less than the triumphal march from "Aida."

Think about this while he is out running around campaigning to help the "little guy."

Have we lost ALL knowledge of the Constitution?

This is from Canada Free Press:

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
By Publius Huldah
Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.
The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you
In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!
So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.
2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.
A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

....the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”...(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped - by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.
For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.
Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors - Go for it! PH