Amid brewing campaign intrigue, Dan Quayle’s son Ben unveils a provocative new spot, outing Barack Obama for the fraud that he is.

Rep. Michele Bachmann tells Newsmax that the financial reform bill recently signed into law is a “disaster” that will immediately have a negative impact on average Americans, and should be repealed if Republicans regain control of Congress. She talks of her plans for the new Tea Party Caucus in Congress and plans to probe the Obama administration.

Pentagon officials are warning about potential dire consequences if Congress doesn’t pass a spending bill. Plus, TSA has tips for servicemembers returning from deployment.

Defense officials say some Army and Marine Corps accounts could run out of money next month without passage of a supplemental funding bill by Congress.

Congress hears emotional testimony from family of service members who committed suicide. Plus, a look at a new film on PTSD that shares some personal experiences.

Seems like Barack Obama is making it plainer by the week that he a union shill as he asked lawmakers to approve $50 billion (that’s billion with a “B”) in aid that is earmarked for state and local governments. His reason for requesting this money?

He says that it is needed  to avoid “massive layoffs” of teachers, police and firefighters and to support the tanking economy.

Obama even went so far to write a letter to the lawmakers in Congress, claiming that last year’s stimulus package helped stem the economy’s free fall and also argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. The Washington Post (who else?) says that economists say that more spending could help being down chronic high unemployment.

Just like a box of donuts, Obama’s pleading for more money has lots of holes in it.

First and foremost, how does more spending on union-based jobs (in this case, police, firefighters and teachers) spark this economy? If I remember anything at all, you cannot spend your way to a healthy economy. Especially in light of the fact that the current federal deficit is around 13 trillion dollars – 90% of out GDP.

In the letter, Obama goes the contradictory route, asking for more money; yet at the same time, espousing some financial restraint. That in and of itself tells anyone with a lick of sense that you cannot have it both ways.

You don’t have to be an economics major to know that anytime that you spend funds that essentially are not there, that adds to the debt.

I’m only speaking for myself in saying that if Obama is serious about helping our economy recover, he should center his efforts by making cuts on programs that are non-essential to the economy, of which there are many.

Let’s not forget that when Obama mentions the police, firefighters and teachers, it is his way of providing payback to the unions that represent the aforementioned professions. Think of the SEIU and any other unions representing the three professions in this case.

So if anything, this is more about political payback than it is about helping the national economy improve.

Any bills that are advocating this stance need to be struck down immediately. Like the vast majority of Obama’s initiatives, this is yet another idea gone bad.

But with the Obama administration, this par for the course. Incompetency never trumps common sense – which the POTUS is illustrating in spades.

It is rather interesting that because the federal government does not want to beef up its borders that it takes the state of Arizona to take the bull by the horns and do the dirty work themselves.

If anything, it is by necessity that Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into law – and will take effect on July 29 – legislation that allows law enforcement agencies to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally.

The funny thing is that because of all of the drug smuggling, violence and all of the related things that seem to cross over our borders, that is the straw that broke the camel’s back in Arizona. It was done out of necessity more than anything else.

Which brings up another issue that’s somewhat related: What about Mexico’s immigration policy?

Mexico repeatedly has been cited by human rights groups for abusing or turning a blind eye to the abuse of migrants from Central America. Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense — anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are “required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues.”

All of this coincides with Mexico president Felipe Calderon’s visit to the White House and subsequent address to Congress on Thursday. Calderon found it in him to deride the U.S.’s immigration policy while conveniently not mentioning the poor excuse of an immigration policy that exists south of the border. 

Of course, Barack Obama did not help matters any by deriding the policy we have in the States. This isn’t the first time that Obama has been the apologist-in-chief and more than likely it won’t be the last time, either.

Anyone who listened to Obama speak probably noticed that he basically misrepresented the law while at the podium. Let’s also factor in the fact and irony that Janet Napolitano is the head of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona – who, by the way never really did anything of substance in terms of making Arizona’s borders safer when she was Governor.

And what has Attorney General Eric Holder done up to this point? *crickets chirping* Exactly – not a damn thing.

What I envision here is Obama trying to put up a legal challenge on the Arizona statute, in which I expect the courts to uphold the law in Arizona. Obama’s base argument will go along the lines of, “I find this law appalling and unconstitutional.” Kind of a rather lame argument for him to use, but with his vast experience as a community organizer, that argument makes perfect sense to him.

Meanwhile, there is the address Calderon gave to Congress Thursday. Who is he to chide a legislative branch of the U.S. government about their laws while the Mexican government isn’t exactly the second coming of the Bill of Rights?

Calderon’s scolding of Congress isn’t much different than when Obama had his State of the Union address in which he derided the Supreme Court.

But the two of them getting together makes a lot of sense for both as Obama, if he had his druthers, would allow every illegal Mexican or any other illegal alien to pursue and obtain amnesty. There’s plenty of political motivation for Calderon to be here as he is, whether he knows it or not, helping Obama in his quest for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.

A man has to get his voting bloc from somewhere, right?