Posts Tagged ‘immigration’

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

May 15, 2010

This is how you can know that an issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with facts or principles or justice, and everything to do with political opportunism and blatant demagoguery.

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly appeared on national television to denounce and demonize the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but never bothered to read the ten-page law for himself (a total of sixteen pages, counting all footnotes and addendums!).

Instead he relied upon mainstream media accounts.  Which is another way of saying, instead he relied upon leftwing propaganda, to make his determinations.

Apparently, the highest law enforcement official in the land will arrest you on the basis of some liberal loon’s opinion.  That is beyond incompetent; it’s dangerous.

Youtube video of Holder admitting he hadn’t read the law he demonized and threatened to use the full weight and power of the federal government to attack:

Here is a transcript of that encounter:

REPRESENTATIVE TED POE, (R-TEXAS): So Arizona, since the federal government totally fails to secure the border desperately then passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. Seems to me the Administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the Administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had a chance to, I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the healthcare bill which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s Constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.

Later during his questioning, Poe further challenged the Attorney General:

POE: You have some concerns about the statute. It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being un-Constitutional if you haven’t even read the law. Seems like you wouldn’t make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you hadn’t read the law. So, can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that, but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s Constitutional or not?

Holder’s response will even FURTHER amaze most Americans on both sides of the aisle:

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made, made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in the position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Eric Holder relied on wildly inaccurate and biased news reports, and then went out and made several wildly inaccurate and biased statements to the press.

On April 28 Holder stated that the Arizona law is an “unfortunate one that I fear is subject to potential abuse” (video).   On May 9, Attorney General Holder was on Meet the Press and said the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” And on May 11, he said “I certainly think it’s divisive. I don’t think there is any question about that” (video).

And none of those demonic denunciations were based on the actual facts.  Eric Holder is reading the muckraking journalists and deciding to go to war on their urgings.

Meanwhile, the same Eric Holder who denounced and demonized Arizona refused – even after several requests – to acknowledge that radical jihadist Islam was even among the factors contributing to the terrorist attacks we’ve seen.  Which have ALL had radical Islam as the primary motive.

I just wish that Eric Holder had a tiny fraction of the respect for the rights of the citizens of Arizona that he has demonstrated for the radical jihadist Muslim terrorists who would gleefully murder every single one of us if they could.  Just a tiny fraction would do.


The only thing that there isn’t any question about is that Barack Obama’s attorney general is shockingly incompetent and partisan.  This is not about law, but about the rabid pursuit of political power and demagoguery of the worst kind.

Here is the entire text of the Arizona law (SB 1070).  I defy anyone to actually cite a passage that is racist, or which actively endorses any racist policy.

Nancy Pelosi LOVES Mingling Church And State – As Long As Church Worships Liberal State

May 12, 2010

The constant hypocritical double-standard parade otherwise known as “liberalism” continues full steam ahead.

Pelosi to Bishops: Talk Up Immigration
Monday, 10 May 2010 10:34 AM
By: Dan Weil

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is telling Catholic bishops who want her to pass immigration reform that they must speak out in favor of the reform in their churches.

“The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’” Pelosi, who is Catholic herself, said Thursday at the Catholic Community Conference.

“And I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit.’”

This is the same Pelosi who drew strong rebuke from Catholic Church leaders in 2008 by arguing that the denomination’s doctrine is unclear on when human life begins. She made that contention in defense of abortion.

As for immigration, Pelosi said last week that, as a practical matter, the United States can’t say to 12 million illegal immigrants, “’Go back to wherever you came from or go to jail.’”

And she was quite clear as to what she expects out of bishops.

“I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is — the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a ‘manifestation of our living the gospels,’” Pelosi said.

“Our patron saint of San Francisco, St. Francis of Assisi, he said, ‘Preach the gospel — sometimes use words.’ We need the words to be said because it isn’t being picked up automatically.”

In the 2008 dispute, Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” show: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition [when life begins] . . . The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”

An array of bishops blasted those remarks, with Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., saying, “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the church place themselves outside full communion with the church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

Other than the fact that Nancy Pelosi was a dishonest liar (as well as baby killer) over her statements about abortion, and is probably lying about immigration as well…

Speak out from the pulpit!  Unless you say something against liberal ideology – then we’ll come after you quoting the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by screaming “Separation of church and state!”

Black churches have openly politicked for decades.  And it’s been fine because they politick for liberalism.  But if you’re a conservative, evangelical church, you might as well play with lit dynamite as do the same thing liberal mainline denominations do as a matter of routine.

You know what I’m looking forward to?  The day we can finally have the separation of Nancy Pelosi and state.

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

May 8, 2010

Laura Ingraham’s site details the basic facts regarding what Obama said and why it isn’t true:

Obama attacks again: AZ law would ‘single out people because of who they look like’
Posted by Staff

At a Cinco de Mayo reception at the White House Wednesday evening, President Obama launched another attack on Arizona’s new immigration law. “We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress,” the president told the crowd. As he had in earlier criticisms of the law, Obama ignored the law’s specific stipulation that any check on a person’s immigration status can only come after a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” when a person is suspected of breaking some law — that is, as Arizona lawmakers explained in a footnote to the bill, it must come “during the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

And even after meeting that standard, the law directs that police meet a “reasonable suspicion” standard before “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” The phrase “reasonable suspicion” means that there must be a number of specific factors that an officer can cite before taking action, and the law specifically says that prosecutors “shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

And even with those safeguards, the law specifies that if the person involved produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other forms of identification specified in the law, then that person is immediately presumed to be in the country legally. In other words, the whole question of legal or not legal becomes moot once the person produces a driver’s license — a common experience for nearly every American, regardless of his or her race or ethnicity.

So there’s the fact that Obama is simply wrong on the facts.  And he’s not only wrong, he’s demagogic.  He uses his lies to slander and demonize his opponents.

But there’s another aspect to this story that comes out of something else that Obama recently said:

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

So, okay, we’ve got Obama saying that we shouldn’t distrust government, or view it as inherently bad (like conservatives are out there demanding that all government be abolished and we live in total anarchy – which is to say that Obama is yet again being the slandering demagogue here).  But let’s take Obama’s statement here at face value.

Isn’t what Obama says we shouldn’t do exactly what he’s in fact doing?

What is the cornerstone of our society if not our laws and our justice?  And what is the cornerstone of our system of justice if not our police who are out on the streets enforcing our laws?

But Obama and liberals – even as they decry the right as being “anti-government” – are patently anti-government when it comes to the Arizona law.

Because they demagogue the police who are the ones at the very forefront of our system of justice.  They claim that the fact that the law specifically says that police can’t just walk around saying “show me your papers,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Why?  Because these guarantors of our system of justice are inherently evil, inherently biased, and inherently racist.  You can’t trust the American police officer.  And you can’t trust the government to enforce its laws fairly or honestly because it’s those same dishonest, biased, bigoted, and deceitful police officers who would do it.

Now, as a laughably hypocritical matter, it doesn’t matter to liberals that most Americans are compelled to “show their papers” to their government as a matter of routine course.  It’s okay all the other times when government demands proof of our identities; it’s only evil this time, when Arizona tries to deal with a population that Democrats regard as “their” race who will vote for them.

A Politico article understands Obama’s racial polititicking quite straightforwardly:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Which makes another of Obama’s remarks beyond asinine:

On April 28, while speaking in Iowa, President Obama denounced Republicans who “exploited” the immigration issue “for political purposes.” President said Arizona’s new immigration law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” He painted an alarming picture: “local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

Just who’s exploiting immigration for political purposes?  How on earth can Obama possibly claim that it isn’t anyone other than himself?!?!?!

And why are these legal immigrants going to be harassed?  Because, to put it in terms that Obama has made in the past, “police act stupidly.”

What a profoundly anti-government thing to say.  If Obama is right, and our police – who are all-too-prone to “acting stupidly” or in a racist and bigoted manner – are fundamentally incapable of being honest or fair, then on what possible basis do you want to grow the size of government, so that there are more laws for more police to enforce in a fundamentally unfair and bigoted manner?

Let me put it bluntly: if I can’t trust the police – the guys who go out to your house and arrest you for disobeying all the laws that increasingly big-government will pass – then why in the freaking world would I want MORE government that will pass MORE laws for the dishonest police to maliciously and falsely roust me over?

Just who are the ones out there referring to “when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity”?

By Obama’s own logic, YOU SHOULD BE ANTI-GOVERNMENT.

Obama and the Democrats – who falsely charge that conservatives are “anti-government” – are therefore the ones who are themselves profoundly anti-government.

They are also anti-truth, and pro-race baiting:

So, do all these politicians have a point or is it just scaremongering? Unlike the couple thousand plus page laws passed in Washington that are filled with very complicated legalese, the Arizona law, along with the minor clarifications passed last week, is only about four pages long and is written in pretty straightforward English. Anyone reading the law will clearly see that the claims made by some Democrats are false.

As a matter of fact, Arizona legislators themselves didn’t want the police to have the power to simply “ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers.” So they set up not just one but two requirements. First, police must have “lawful contact,” meaning officers must already have detained an individual they suspect violated some other law.

Even then, authorities must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal alien. This “reasonable suspicion” standard has regulated police behavior since the 1960s and is a rule that police nationwide already deal with every day. “Reasonable suspicion” requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of “reasonable prudence” that a crime has been committed.

Opponents of the law claimed “lawful contact” was much boarder than the legislature intended and would allow police who were simply questioning an individual to ask for an ID. On Friday, April 30, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill clarifying the point, replacing “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

We can look at the actual language used. After Friday’s bill signing, the new Arizona law reads: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin.” Before Friday, the bill said that police could not just consider race, color or national origin. But this was also superfluous, as every police officer who arrests someone or stops them for a traffic offense requests identification.

Democrats are playing with fire by misleading the nation to stir up racial tensions. Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano, Rep. Rangel, and President Obama are all lawyers. They know what legal terms such as “reasonable suspicion” and “lawful stop, detention or arrest” mean. To quote Congressman Rangel, the distortions are “outrageous.” The new law is so short, just four pages, and written in such plain English that they must hope that no one else bothers reading it. And the worst part of all this? The racial animosity Democrats are creating will last for years.

Barack Hussein: the demagogic, anti-government race baiter-in-chief.

Obama Calls SWAT To Combat Dangerous Tea Party Radicals

April 30, 2010

We’ve seen the video of astonishing violence from pro-illegal immigration protesters that was characterized by the media as “mostly peaceful.”

This is what a “mostly peaceful” leftist protest looks like:

Mind you, it was a “mostly peaceful” protest in which a rabid mob pursued police and threw hundreds of rocks and water bottles at them as the police fled the scene.

Well, all that’s fine, of course.  Violent leftist protests are expected and welcomed.

Meanwhile, the Nazis left their mark:

PHOENIX — Investigators are looking into a case of vandalism at the state Capitol, sparked by the newly signed anti-illegal-immigration law.Capitol police arrived on the scene at about 6 a.m., after a swastika was found smeared on the glass doors of the House and Senate buildings.

While it first looked like mud on the doors, it turned out be refried beans.

But that’s just the National Socialist Mexican Workers Party. They are leftists in the honored example of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara.

Obama is on the violent Hispanic pro-illegal immigration protesters’ side.  He is using racist and racial politics of division in a manner that is every bit as cynical as Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” to create a race-based political power base.

It’s the dangerous rightwing faction we need to be truly fearful of.  Every card-carrying “journalist” in the mainstream media knows that.

So Obama called the SWAT Teams to be out in a massive show of force in Quincy – and the media showed up to record the violent clash between heavily-armed law enforcement and violent tea party mob.

.

Thank God that Obama is protecting us from these dangerous rightwing radicals.  Otherwise I truly believe we’d all be dead.

These old ladies are clearly so much more dangerous than those out-of-control swastika-loving pro-illegal immigration protesters it is absolutely unreal.  At least they are to the Obama regime.

This isn’t a joke, by any means.  The SWAT team marched into this rally and left little girls and their mothers frightened and in tears as this video via Gateway Pundit shows:

A little girl at her first tea party rally saw the storm troopers marching in in their military precision and repeatedly asks her mother, “Mom, mom, what’s going on?  What are we doing wrong?  What are we doing wrong?”

I could have answered that little girl: “We have beliefs that differ from the regime’s, sweetheart.”

In the most terrifying fascist and Marxist totalitarian regimes, the government used all the propaganda it could muster to make those who protested their atrocities the villains and those who carried out the atrocities the heroes.

And our totalitarian big government regime is doing it even as we speak – aided and abetted by the most openly partisan and ideological mainstream media in American history.

Poll: If You Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, You’re A Leftwing Loon

April 27, 2010

From Rasmussen:

Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status
Monday, April 26, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

I wonder how many likely voters favor the president of the United States playing racially-prejudiced identity politics as he demagogues the Arizona law and other issues:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

As for you white and Asian males, just shut the hell up.  You SUCK!!!

Still, 60% of Americans.  Who would have guessed that 3/5ths of America was composed of white and Asian males?

Somewhere between thirty and forty percent of the country would cheer Obama even if he were to lead us down to the level of Kim Jong Il and North Korea.

But pretty much everybody else supports Arizona and its illegal immigration policy against Obama and the federal government.

Update, April 29:

Let’s see, a few days ago seven police officers were murdered in Juarez, Mexico.  Just yesterday, eight men were shot in the back and killed outside a nightclub in Juarez, MexicoFifteen people were murdered in 11 hours in Juarez.  And at least 300 people were murdered just this month in that hellhole.

In Pinal County, Arizona, a sheriff’s deputy was shot with an AK-47 by a group of illegal immigrants and left for dead.  And that just today.

This is the kind of crap that is going on every single day in Mexico.  But liberals demand that Arizona and other border states just grin and bear it.

Also, when Janet Napolitano was governor of Arizona, she “implored Congress to fix the nation’s broken immigration system.” Governor Napolitano also demanded that the federal government pay her state $350 million every year for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant Mexican nationals.  She said that the cost of doing the federal government’s job “could pay for all-day kindergarten for every 5-year-old in the state.”  But now she’s part of the Obama administration, part of the problem, and suddenly everything is just fine.

Let me say this again: If you think Arizona is “racist” for trying to deal with a nightmarish problem that the federal government is utterly failing to even begin to TRY to deal with, you are a leftwing loon.

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

April 27, 2010

Nancy Pelosi didn’t need actual incidents of violence to demonize the tea party movement; all she needed was pure distilled demagogic rhetoric when she said:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

As I pointed out, that terrible violence in 1970s San Francisco was committed by DEMOCRATS.

Basically, the actual substance of Nancy Pelosi’s diatribe against the tea party movement is this: “I’m afraid that the right is becoming so angry against the totalitarian government-is-god rule we’re trying to impose on them that they could become as hateful, as vile, as loathsome, and as violent as the Democrat Party and its progressive allies have been for the past forty years.”

Nancy Pelosi also had her take on swastikas as symbol:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

She proceeded to demonize the tea party movement as “simply un-American.”

I dealt with those demagogic and frankly hateful charges, too.

Nancy Pelosi told a crowd of supporters, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”  What she really meant to say was that she’s the kind of hypocrite who doesn’t mind pouring gasoline on the fire one day, and demonizing those who oppose her party-line agenda the next.

The AP had this story:

PHOENIX (AP) – The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The measure – set to take effect in late July or early August – would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

And how did the protesters “speak out”?  By throwing rocks and debris at police officers as they tried to escort a man who had himself been physically attacked by the mob.  Rocks and bottles full of water were hurled at the retreating police by what is clearly a mob of hundreds who are pursuing them:

The mainstream media depicted this as a “largely peaceful demonstration,” and then subsequently pointed out that it was just a “small” riot as video of the violence began to appear. Well, “small” riot my butt.

The problem from my perspective isn’t “police abuse,” but “liberal protester abuse.”

Swastikas.  Violence.

Where’s San Fran Nan?

She’s with the people who are smearing all the swastikas and assaulting the police officers, that’s where she is.  She and her fellow San Franciscans are trying to boycott the peaceful people of Arizona to show their solidarity with swastikas and violence.

The same Nancy Pelosi who demonized peaceful tea party protesters as “simply unAmerican” also said last March that anyone who basically tried to enforce our borders and our national sovereignty were likewise “unAmerican.”

HotAir put it this way:

Frankly, the rioting seems to do nothing except bolster the argument for why this bill was needed. The federal government has failed Arizona residents. Despite growing numbers of crime — drug smuggling, assault, rape, kidnapping, murder — nothing has been done to secure the borders or crack down on illegal immigration. While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals or drug smugglers, they are all criminals. Even if our borders aren’t well-enforced, it is still a crime to cross them illegally. The federal government has just sat back and let it happen. The state of Arizona responded to the overwhelming crime… and the protestors of this bill responded to the state with violence.

Kind of just proves the whole point of why this bill was needed, doesn’t it?

And what are people so angry about? The bill requires law enforcement officials to basically do nothing more than aggressively enforce our immigration laws. Arizona voters overwhelmingly approve of the bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats and independents. Something has to be done in Arizona, and if the federal government won’t step up, then the state absolutely should.

Nancy Pelosi loves disruptors.  And Al Sharpton is prepared to take “civil disobedience” “on the streets” to fight the new law.  These were the people who demonized the peaceful tea party rallies.  You know, the ones where there was no violence, and where the protesters left the parks where they protested cleaner after they left than they were before they showed up.

And do you remember the constant demagoguery over the whole “party of no” thing?  Whose the damn “party of no” now?

Just another charge that only matters when it’s being employed by liberals to demonize conservatives.  Never the other way around.

The charge doesn’t even have to be true.  The evidence now clearly shows that tea party rallyers did not use the “n-word” or ominously threaten to assault congressional Democrats who did their own version of the “Nazis marching through Skokie march,” as Democrats maliciously claimed.

Speaking of Skokie, we have Obama’s National Security Adviser telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy swindlers even as Obama proves he’s the most blatantly anti-Israel president in U.S. history.  But that’s another story.

Now we’ve got Barack Obama directly race-baiting and calling upon blacks and Latinos “to stand together once again” and oppose the white honky bastards.  Can you imagine the massive stink bomb that the left would have detonated had George Bush tried to rally white men and evangelical Christians to his political cause???

Racism, swastikas, and violence are fine – as long as it’s coming from liberals.

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

April 26, 2010

George Will, on ABC’s “This Week,” hit the nail right on the head regarding Arizona’s new illegal immigration policy, just signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer:

“Reasonable suspicion” that the person is an alien. What does that mean, George?

WILL: Well, the Fourth Amendment says there should be no unreasonable searches and seizures, and we’ve generated volumes of case law trying to sort out what that means over the last century or so. So it’s not clear what that means. Let’s say this about Arizona. They have 460,000, an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants there. So before Washington lectures Arizonans on irresponsibility, perhaps Washington ought to attend to the central attribute of national sovereignty which is to control the borders. We are the only developed nation in the world with a 2,000 mile border with an undeveloped country and we have a magnet of a welfare state to the north.

So this is not Arizona’s fault. Beyond that, this should be said however. Reasonable suspicion is going to put upon the police of Arizona a terribly difficult job. This is what the governor said. “We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” I don’t know how do you that. […]

WILL: Again, in defense of Arizona, large majority of Arizonans support this bill and a large majority of Arizonans are not, by definition, the fringe of the state. They are temperate, decent people with a huge problem.

What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime. Now, the Arizona police — and I’ve spent time with the Phoenix Police Department — these are not bad people. These are professionals who are used to making the kind of difficult judgments. Suspicion of intoxicated driving, all kinds of judgments are constantly made by policemen. And I wouldn’t despair altogether their ability to do this in a professional way. […]

GLICK: So put the 3,000 troops on the border as McCain suggests.

WILL: Build a fence, do what McCain suggests, and you’ll find that the American people are not xenophobic, they are not irrational on the subject, but they do want this essential attribute of national sovereignty asserted.

TUCKER: And where does the money come from for that, George?

WILL: It’s a rounding error on the GM bailout.

A number of major points come out of George Will’s remarks:

1) This is NOT Arizona’s fault; it’s the federal government’s fault.  The first order of business for any government of any nation-state is to protect their borders from invasion; and the U.S. government has utterly failed to perform that function.  Worse, up to this point, they have even perversely prevented the states from acting to save themselves.

2) Arizona’s illegal immigration policy is NOT some “racist” or “extreme” agenda; it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Arizonans:

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

These are reasonable people put into an unreasonable position by a bunch of extremists who are running our government and who are leading racist organizations such as La Raza (which literally means “the race” – and how racist can you get?).

The “racist extremists are on the other side from the decent Arizona people:

Whenever I’m asked about media treatment of the Tea Parties, I ask myself a simple question: What do you suppose the media would say if tea partiers were biting off people’s fingers?

A new question for today: What would they be saying if even a small group of Tea Partiers physically attacked the police at a rally?

Witnesses say a group protesting against SB1070 (Arizona’s harsh new immigration law) began to fight with a man who was for the controversial immigration bill.

Police tried escorting that man away from the scene, fearing for his safety, when they too came under attack by people throwing items, including water bottles.

And, yes, the police are under more than just rock and bottle attacks from protesters who want to prevent Arizona from keeping illegal immigrants outside their borders:

(CNSNews.com) – Law enforcement officials from the Arizona counties hardest hit by illegal immigration say they want U.S. troops to help secure the border, to prevent the deaths of more officers at the hands of criminals who enter the country illegally.

“We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Monday at a Capitol Hill news conference. “And that shouldn’t happen one time.”

Babeu said the violence in Arizona has reached “epidemic proportions” and must be stopped. “In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits — failure to yield for an officer — in one month,” Babeu said. “That’s out of control.”

I have seen a number of occasions in which a situation went way too far one way, which ultimately led to it swinging way too far the other way.  I believe that the Democrats under Obama have done that very thing on virtually every issue under the sun.  I would say the following: don’t act like a bunch of rabid leftwing extremists, and then cry when conservatives start acting like a bunch of rabid rightwing extremists.

3) Given the fact that the federal government – aided by a powerful special interest lobby, and aided even further by judicial activists who refuse to make a distinction between citizens and illegal immigrants – have refused to protect our borders, Arizona decided to do the job the federal government has refused to do.  That means that Arizona police officers are going to have to step up and do a tough job.

Being a police officer means making judgment calls, and balancing peoples’ rights with enforcing laws every single day.

Bottom line: if you think police can’t make a reasonable determination whether someone is here illegally, I hope you don’t think law enforcement can make any other reasonable judgments (such as whether I’m driving drunk), either.

4) Finally, if we just built the damn wall like Bush tried to do, we wouldn’t be in this stupid mess to begin with.  And the people who screamed about that wall have no right to complain with Arizona’s new policy now.  They BEGGED for the tough new Arizona law.

The shrill cry of the leftwing was that a border wall was identical to the Iron Curtain.  The only thing wrong with that is that it is beyond ignorant; the Iron Curtain was created to keep citizens from escaping to freedom; a border wall would protect out citizens by keeping illegal immigrants who have no right to be here out.

Liberals also cite the Posse Comitatus Act as preventing the powers of the federal government from using the military for law enforcement.  But that begs the question: just how is protecting our borders from foreign invasion “law enforcement”?  This is a clear situation in which our national security is at issue.  The soldiers on the border would not be arresting American citizens; they would be detaining foreign invaders.

The Chinese built the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols out; and it worked.  And I’m just guessing that a people who put a man on the moon can build a damn wall that does the job.

Bottom line, I think the Arizona law probably ultimately goes too far.  But like I said, pro-illegal immigration forces DEMANDED a law that went too far by steadfastly refusing any form of reasonable policy.

There is no reason whatsoever that citizenship should not be checked along with identity and residence, under the same conditions and situations in which it is reasonable to ascertain identity and residence.  And if you are here illegally, your ass should be on the next bus out of the country – after serving jail time for violating our borders and breaking our laws.  And the wall that we build should make sure you don’t come back.

Checking citizenship (or immigration status) at every arrest, or at every reasonable situation in which police check for identity, would take away the “racist” profiling issues.

Because, yes, I’m just as ticked off at the illegal immigrant Canadian or Irishman as I am at the illegal immigrant Mexican.

At the same time, building a wall to protect what is yours should be familiar to any child who has ever walked down the sidewalks of his or her own neighborhood.  I’m not “racist” for building a wall; and it is frankly racist to suggest that I am.  It amounts to basic common sense.  And combined with a military patrol that would be able to identify and apprehend anyone climbing over that wall, it would make the issues surrounding “border enforcement” moot.

You can disrespect America’s borders as much as you want – so long as you remain on the other side of them.

Even Democrats Are Alarmed At Loss Of Freedom As ObamaCare Details Emerge

April 24, 2010

From WND.com:

WND FREEDOM INDEX POLL
Dem faith in Obama plunges as health-care details emerge
Those who believe freedoms are increasing drop 10 percent

Posted: April 22, 2010
11:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor’s note: This is another in a series of monthly “Freedom Index” polls conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.

While Americans generally took a breather from their increasing worry about losing freedoms under President Obama, Democrats over the last month actually began to express growing alarm as details of his health-care plan started to emerge.

The WND Freedom Index poll from Wenzel Strategies revealed that the index was 47.2 for the month of April, up just a tick from the near-record low of 46.7 in March.

The poll was conducted by telephone April 16-18 using an automated  technology calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. It carries a margin of error of 3.29 percentage points.

“On the core question of whether, under the Obama administration, Americans have seen an increase or a decrease in their personal freedoms, a majority of Americans still believe there has been a decrease of freedoms,” Wenzel said in an analysis of the results.

“The last month, however, has seen at least a temporary halt in the downward movement, as 52 percent in this latest survey said the nation has seen a cut in freedoms, compared to 55 percent who said the same thing last month.”

He continued, “However, the percentage of respondents who said they think Obama has presided over an increase in freedoms actually dropped from 33 percent a month ago to 31 percent today.”

Further, Wenzel noted, Democrats have indicated they are becoming alarmed.

“The poll shows Democrats have had a significant change of heart toward the negative in the last 30 days. In March, 68 percent of Democrats said they believed Obama has led to an increase in freedoms, but this month, just 58 percent said the same thing. It’s unclear what has caused this significant erosion in Obama’s political base, but it bears watching in the months to come.”

Wenzel noted some of the details of Obama’s health-care program have begun to emerge this month, “revealing far more restrictions and taxes than first advertised.”

“U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that Congress had to pass a bill to find out what is in it is coming true, and it is coming back to haunt Democrats,” he said.

WND reported just a day earlier about a group of Americans who believe the federal government overstepped its constitutional bounds in passing the health-care legislation. They have begun rallying allies to a bold and controversial initiative: state nullification of the federal law.

“Now that health-care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is, ‘What do we do about it?'” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in a statement. “The status-quo response includes lobbying Congress, marching on D.C., ‘voting the bums out,’ suing in federal court and more. But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out.”

Instead, the center is reaching back into the history books to suggest states take up “nullification,” a controversial measure in which states essentially would say to the federal government, “Not in our borders, you don’t. That law has no effect here.”

The center is partnering with WeRefuse.com to announce release of model nullification legislation for states, called the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, and a call for 100,000 Americans to join a state-by-state petition to prompt legislators into action.

Wenzel also noted that April questions were fielded just after the April 15 tax-filing deadline – which also was a day for tea-party rallies across the country in protest of big government and high taxes.

“As those rallies became the focus of scorn from some media outlets, 62 percent of respondents said they felt that Americans today stand to face at least some retribution or ridicule for choosing to exercise their constitutional freedom to associate with whomever they wish,” Wenzel said.

“One in three respondents said they believe Americans are subject to substantial levels of scorn, ridicule, or even retribution for exercising their freedoms to gather with those who might not be acceptable to other elements of society. Not surprisingly, it is the conservative respondents who feel the most oppressed on this point – as 79 percent said Americans are subject to penalty of some sort based on who they associate with. Liberals were much less likely to see this as a problem – yet still 36 percent of liberals said they do think Americans in general come in for some penalty based on their circle of friends,” Wenzel’s analysis found.

“This sentiment is clearly captured in this polling data. This data is particularly stunning given that it is every American’s constitutional right to associate without fear of penalty or retribution,” he said.

The same poll showed Congress’ approval rating again has plunged to about 12 percent, tying an all-time low.

But it can go even lower, he said.

“As Obama and congressional Democrats now turn their eye to imposing heavy regulations on the national financial industry and the energy industry and on recasting immigration policy – all unpopular initiatives – there is no floor to how low their approval ratings might go.”

The monthly Freedom Index moved a tick upward based on “internal” moves that are beginning to indicate “increased polarization of the American public in the wake of the passage of the divisive health-care bill in Congress and as Americans get a peek at other controversial issues that are likely to be moved to the top of the political agenda this year.”

The index is based on a 100-point scale based on poll-respondent answers to 10 questions that sample different aspects of freedom in America, including freedom of speech, association, worship and assembly. An index rating of 50 is dead even, with ratings above that point signaling positive feelings about freedom in America and ratings below that point signaling negative feelings.

The index reached its lowest point ever – 46.3 – in December and nudged upward in January but then fell for two straight months.

Among the numbers in the poll:

  • 42.8 percent of Americans believe there’s been a “big decrease” in freedoms under Obama. Another 9.6 percent see “some decrease.”
  • 40.3 percent of Americans believe they are not very or not at all free to speak their minds without fear of punishment.
  • More than 33 percent of Americans believe they cannot associate with whom they choose without worrying about being punished or investigated.
  • One in five Americans expresses fear over being investigated for the way one worships.
  • More than 45 percent believe government is too intrusive.
  • More than 21 percent self-censor their thoughts on a given subject because of fear of penalty.

See detailed results of survey questions:

Do you believe that, under the Obama administration, America has seen an increase or a decrease in freedom?

Do you believe that today Americans can speak their minds freely without fear of punishment, penalty or retribution?

Do you believe that today Americans can associate with anyone they want, no matter who they are, without fear of penalty, government investigation or retribution?

Do you believe that today Americans can worship in any manner they choose without fear they will be punished, ostracized or investigated or face some other penalty?

Do you believe that the government today is using technology, such as cameras, scanners, and electronic health records, to become too intrusive into the lives of citizens?

If there were a controversial cause about which you felt strongly, would you be afraid to attend a local rally to voice your opinion because of fear of retribution, penalty, or government investigation?

How free do you feel to put a bumper sticker on your car or to wear a button expressing your political or religious beliefs?

How free do you feel to discuss political or religious beliefs in a public place, such as in a restaurant or on a bus or train?

Do you feel you are free to express what you truly think about any subject without fear of harm, punishment, government investigation, or some other penalty?

Do you find that you self-censor thoughts before speaking on certain issues in public because you fear harm, punishment, social rejection, or some other penalty?

Amazing: Liberals Show They Are Even MORE Intolerant And Violent Than Neo-Nazis

April 20, 2010

This is a really amazing story.  As loathsome as Neo-Nazis are, and as hateful as they are, they are actually surpassed by garden variety American liberals.

Do you remember mostly Hispanic protesters marching to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants (and also see here)?  Well, Neo-Nazis think they have a right to protest too.  And, of course, American liberals thought that Neo-Nazis had every right to march when they were marching through a town filled with Jewish death camp survivors.

The same First Amendment free speech rights that gave the one group the right to protest give the other group the right to protest, too.  At least, that has always been how it was supposed to work.  And that was what leftist protesters proclaimed when they were out protesting a message that many others didn’t like.

Not that liberals give a damn about genuine fundamental rights that apply equally to all citizens.  They want total power and total control, and to hell with anyone who opposes any part of their agenda.  They launch protest after protest until they gain power, and then they move to squelch the right to protest.

The thing I want to emphasize today is – when we consider Neo-Nazis and American liberals qua protesters – which side is actually more fundamentally intolerant and reactionary?

Apr 17, 2010 11:45 pm US/Eastern
Neo-Nazis, Counter-Demonstrators Square Off In LA
White Supremacists’ Rally Against Immigration Meets Resistance From Hundreds Of Demonstrators

LOS ANGELES (AP)

Police block an angry crowd of counter-protesters after the neo-Nazi group, The American National Socialist Movement, held a rally in front of the Los Angeles City Hall, on April 17, 2010.

Let me interrupt this article with a very important message:

Note that this isn’t the right wing versus the left wing.  This is, rather, the left wing versus another group of the left wing.  You might say that it is the right wing of the extreme left versus the left wing of the extreme left.

I would also point out that Nazism is and always HAS BEEN a leftwing movement.  The primary difference between Nazis (i.e., the “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and Marxists (e.g., the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) was that the former group wanted socialism in a nationalist manner, and the latter wanted socialism in an internationalist manner.

The Marxists said, “Workers of the world unite!“, which was just what Andy Stern of the SEIU – who visited Barack Obama in the White House more than ANYONE – said.

Which is to say that, currently, Marxism is the form of radical socialism most in vogue with the American left.  It is the form of socialism that the current occupant of the White House clearly favors.

The last thing I’d point out is that the Neo-Nazis of “The American National Socialist Movement” want socialism for white nationalist Aryans; conservatives don’t want socialism for ANYBODY in America.  We want the socialism that the Nazis, fascists, Marxist and communists wanted the hell out.

Sorry for interrupting.  Let’s continue.

A white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense standoff that included several arrests, thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Oops.  Have to stop again.  And not just to point out that the Associated Press should have people who at least know how to spell “protesters” to write about protests.

Are the Neo-Nazis a white supremacist group?  Of course they are; only a fool would argue that they aren’t.  Then again, there ARE a great many fools in the country.  So, yeah, while many of these Neo-Nazis would deny being “white supremacists” and pontificate and filibuster about other issues ad nauseum, let’s just agree that they are white supremacists.  But what about the other side?

What we have on the other side are “Latino supremacists.”  There’s the powerful Latino group “La Raza,” which means “the race.” Can you even imagine how a racial group that calls itself “The Race” isn’t racist?  There’s the term “reconquista” being dragged out again, which means “reconquest” of Southwestern America by Mexicans.” There’s thousands of Mexican protesters marching on American soil and demanding rights and privileges and concessions be granted to them by “white” Americans.  Among other things, they argue that the Mexican government has a right to diligently protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants, but that the American government has no right to similarly protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants.  They argue that Mexico and other Latin American countries have a right to be sovereign nations, but that America must become an “open borders” non-country.  There’s the waving the Mexican flag above an American flag which they hang upside down in mockery.

I don’t mind for a second the media calling Neo-Nazis “white supremacists.”  Just be honest and call BOTH SIDES what they are.

And let’s also realize that the theme of one group of leftists opposing another comes up again.  The so-called “pro-immigration” events were organized by COMMUNISTS.

Sorry to interrupt again.  Moving on:

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles’ City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The white supremacists, many of them wearing flack helmets and black military fatigue uniforms, shouted “Sieg Heil” before each of their speakers took the podium to taunt counter-protestors with racial, anti-Semitic and misogynistic epithets.

“We will meet you head on,” one of the white supremacists, whose name could not be made out over the fuzzy public address system, warned the crowd from behind several phalanxes of police in riot gear.

Members of the Detroit-based group said they picked the location for their rally because of Los Angeles’ large immigrant population. They accused some of the immigrants of stealing jobs and committing crimes.

Group members also said they were reacting to the recent number of street marches across the country encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

Oh, oh.  Have to stop again.  Just long enough to point out that all the pro-immigration and pro-amnesty street marches are apparently fine.  It’s just the any street march that in any way opposes the leftwing agenda that must be attacked and vilified.  Whether it’s Neo-Nazis advancing their favorite form of socialism or whether it’s little old ladies who want to advocate limited government.

Moving on.

National Socialist Movement regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall announced that the group would begin backing political candidates who agreed with their anti-immigrant message.

But much of the white supremacists’ words were drowned out by such chants as “Hey hey, ho ho, Nazi scum have got to go” from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read “Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles” and “Racists Are Ignorant.”

There was a brief flare-up of violence before the speakers arrived. A shirtless man was seen being escorted to safety behind police lines by a plainclothes officer as counter-protesters punched and grabbed at him. Blood could be seen at the base of the man’s neck.

National Lawyers Guild executive director James Lafferty, who attended both as a legal observer and counter-protestor, said he saw the man get into a fight with crowd members who saw his Nazi lightning bolt tattoos.

Police Commander David Doan said a second man who crowd members believed was sympathetic with the white supremacists was also assaulted during the rally. Both men were treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line and into a parking lot where the white supremacists’ had left their cars.

Some members of the group had trouble starting a black Ford Mustang and attempted to hook up jumper cables to their engine. They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.

The white supremacists eventually gave up and pushed their car away so they could jump-start it out of range of the projectiles
.

Doan said three or four counter-protestors were arrested for throwing items.

Yes, that’s right.  The group that peacefully protested, the group that followed the rules, was the Neo-Nazis.  The group that was violent and intolerant were the liberals.

This sentence is particularly heartbreaking:

“They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.”

Can you even imagine that swastikas actually became the superior moral symbol during the day in that it was employed as a protective shield against a group who was using employing a violent symbol of rocks designed to attack and create injury?

Who ever would have thought that there was a group more loathsome than Neo-Nazis?  Personally, I never would have dreamed such a thing could ever happen in America.

But it happened.  And it happened even as peaceful Tea Party protesters are routinely targeted as somehow being tied to “violence.”

Note To George Lopez Re Sarah Palin: ‘Do You Mind If I Help You With A Good Hard Kick?’

April 15, 2010

Allow me to preamble by repeating Leopold Amery’s plea to disgraced prime minister Neville Chamberlain and redirecting it to George Lopez – “For God’s sake, go!”

George Lopez on Sarah Palin: “We Will Voluntarily Go Back To Mexico if She Becomes President of the United States”

George Lopez on Larry King takes his usual swipe at Palin:

He previously called her “la cabrona” on his show…

Lopez: “Everyone is trying to build a wall, they don’t know what the answer is to immigration is, I will give the answer Larry King to immigration. If Sarah Palin wins and runs for President in 2012, I have on a reliable source as head of all the Latinos, we will voluntarily go back to Mexico if she becomes President of the United States, there it is”

I’m all in favor of legal immigration, although I think we need to abandon the “chain migration” introduced by Ted Kennedy and Democrats that allowed unskilled laborers to come into this country and bring their unskilled families with them.  We need to welcome in immigrants from all over the world who have the skills that we need to continue to flourish as a nation.  And we should have an immigration policy that finally – after decades of total failure – accomplishes that end.

I’m not “anti-immigrant” or “anti-Mexican.”  I’m pro-intelligent immigration policy.  If legal Mexican immigrants offer the skills and training this country needs, then may God richly bless their lives in their new country.

As to Mexico – where the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration comes from – we should build a wall, build it high, and patrol the other side with either troops or agents (whichever it takes).

If we start working on that wall now, maybe we can get it done by November of 2012 – so that when George Lopez leads his minions back to Mexico, we can make sure they stay the hell out of our country for good.

The very fact that George Lopez is “threatening” to leave is proof that he doesn’t have any genuine loyalty to this country in the first place.  America doesn’t need those whose fundamental loyalties don’t include her.

There are way too many people living in this country who don’t love her – including a particularly despicable population whose ancestors were born here.

For the record, I will gladly volunteer my services to repeatedly kick George Lopez’s butt all the way from Hollywood until it’s over our border.  I’ve got some steel-toed boots that would be perfect for the occasion.

Sarah Palin, you go, girl.  Now there’s even better reason to support you.