The Consistency of Inconsistency

Wow…where do I begin? The most transparent administration this nation has ever seen is about to hold it’s first press conference in more than three hundred days; Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department is beginning the process to challenge Arizona’s immigration law but refuses to investigate allegations that a member of the White House may have committed a felony in offering Representative Joe Sestak a Federal position in exchange for abandoning his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter or perhaps the wink and nod given to SEIU protestors by Maryland police when they amassed 500 people on the private property of a Bank or America attorney to protest housing foreclosures?

The news is abuzz with the announcement that President Obama will hold a general press conference before departing for another tour of the Gulf coast to review the steps taken to halt the major oil spill there. This would not ordinarily be news but the President’s last open press conference was more than three hundred days ago. Three hundred days ago, the healthcare bill had not passed, the Fort Hood massacre had not occurred, the failed terror attacks on a flight bound for Chicago and in New York’s Times Square were months in the future and Arizona had not passed its controversial Immigration Law.

Some would argue that the President is not the coach of a sports team or the spokesman for Gillette but consumed with the matters of State and has little time for such things. I think the responses issued for the President by the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, says more about this administration’s disdain for the media than it does about the President’s busy schedule. The Gibbs press appearances usually take one of three distinct tracks; he refuses to answer, blames the Republicans or accuses the Tea Party of distorting the truth. In fact, the President does not hold press conferences because he and his advisors believe the press is a distraction; that if the truth were printed it would represent a danger to his agenda.

This disdain for the press can be witnessed in the White House’s handling of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagen. They have refused to allow the press access to Kagan for the usual round of interviews and instead, provided the press with a copy of an interview conducted by a White House staffer. Kagan was asked only the questions that she could answer without jeopardizing her nomination and her answers were as innocuous as the questions were. Is this free press? Of course not but this administration is not impressed with the Constitutional guarantee of a free press nor is it restrained in its obvious attempt to manipulate that fundamental guardian of freedom. Obama’s own appointee to the newly created position of Chief Diversity Officer within the FCC, Mark Lloyd, was not ashamed to comment that if Hugo Chavez had not restrained the free press in Venezuela that his “amazing” revolution could not have occurred; a lesson apparently not wasted on Obama and his thugs.

Lloyd is not the only member of the Obama administration that believes the First Amendment is a problem. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, was quoted as saying the First Amendment is “highly overrated” and Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, says the First Amendment needs to be “reformulated” to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” In other words, if a majority of American’s are opposed to their Progressive views on governance then there should be legal methods available to them so as to silence a portion of that majority and provide the illusion that there are just as many supporters. In the end, all I really expect from the President during this press conference is more smoke in mirrors and a shameless attempt to use the oil spill to try and sell his cap and tax, energy bill. After all, Rahm Emmanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Eric Holder has become just another caricature in the Obama circus as his Justice Department seems to have lost the meaning of justice. As Attorney General, Holder is supposed to be the highest law enforcement officer in the United States but his political and ideological prejudices have prevented him from effectively discharging those duties. He spoke out against Arizona’s immigration law and commented that he was contemplating legal action to block it weeks before he admitted that he had never read it. Justice?

Holder’s Justice Department refused to act against Black Panther Militants that positioned themselves outside polling places wielding clubs during the 2008 Presidential election. The official statement made by the department is that there was a “lack of evidence” that there was any attempt to interfere with the election. I’m not sure what evidence they need but I’m sure civilians in combat boots holding police style batons within five feet of the front door of a polling place is in that book somewhere. Justice?

Holder’s Justice Department also refuses to investigate charges that a member of the White House offered Representative Joe Sestak a position within the administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter; a challenge that Sestak won handily. This charge, if true, represents a fundamental violation of United States law and the person or person’s involved would have committed a felony if found guilty. The election process is one of America’s most prized rights and any attempt to tamper with that process must be met with the full weight of the law. Of course, if the Justice Department doesn’t recognize that loitering in front of a polling place armed with a weapon is tampering with the electoral process then why should their muted reaction to this surprise us?

Now we have the Washington DC police spotted escorting fourteen buses loaded with SEIU thugs on their mission to torment an attorney in the employ of the Bank of America. The official statement was that this was a lawful protest staged by union members outraged by the flurry of recent home foreclosures but is it? Five-hundred “protestors” exited the buses and congregated on the lawn and front porch of the Bank of America attorney with signs and bull horns. This was a private residence on a small suburban street so whose attention was this protest meant to gain? The only member of the media invited to the “protest” was a blogger that contributes to the liberal rag-sheet, The Huffington Post so it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the press. It wasn’t a march down Main Street so it wasn’t for the benefit of the public. Was it an expression of the forces that SEIU could assemble meant to intimidate the opposition? That’s what it looks like to me.

While the DC police say that “trailing” assembling protestors are done in the interest of public safety, what the Maryland police did, or did not do, was far more disturbing. The protestors were in clear violation of Maryland law regarding disturbing the peace but Maryland police focused their attention solely on trespass laws. For someone to be in violation of the Maryland trespass law, the property owner would have to request that the trespasser leave the property and the trespasser would then have to refuse before the police can lawfully act. However, the ordinances preserving the peace prohibit any one or any group from entering private property and creating a disturbance through loud noises or threatening gestures. Other residents of the area say they overheard police telling the besieged attorney that they were concerned that police involvement would further incite the mob.

The official comment from the Maryland Police Chief was that the officers dispatched to the scene arrived as the protesters were dispersing and did not witness the activities that were alleged by the neighborhood residents. They categorically deny that the officers said anything about being fearful of inciting the mob and that the acts that the police witnessed were peaceful and within the bounds of the law. Really? Five hundred people carrying signs can walk across your lawn in Maryland, scream over a bull horn, frighten your neighbors and children and no violation of law has occurred?

DC police said they called Maryland police as the caravan of school buses crossed into Maryland and the Maryland police took over from there. Now we are supposed to believe that the mob found parking for fourteen school buses in a quiet suburban neighborhood, discharged their passengers, organized the group and concluded their protest all in the minutes between that call and the arrival of the responding officers? It sounds to me like the SEIU got a free pass by Maryland police. Could that be because of the pressures that unions are facing as Cities and States are asking for concessions as they wrestle with devastating budget shortfalls? Could it be that since SEIU represents thousands of municipal workers that some police organizations may see them as kindred spirits deserving of their respect and assistance? If so, where does that place the public in this new alliance of self-serving special interests?

This incident is also deserving of investigation by Federal authorities but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Former SEIU President, Andy Stern, is still a frequent visitor to the White House and an Obama advisor which pretty much guarantees the SEIU a pass from the so-called Justice Department too.

Paul

Arizona's New Immigration Law

Arizona recently passed, and signed into law, “strict new” immigration legislation which has brought the State under fire and thrust it into the national spotlight this week. The truth behind this legislation is that it is hardly new and considerably less strict that the opponents would have you believe. Open border advocates are incensed that Arizona would have the nerve to pass a law that basically says that something that is illegal is, well, illegal. The armies of the left are shouting accusations that Arizona has adopted Nazi tactics and will be asking people walking down the street for their “papers”. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are calling for boycotts against Arizona as if California still has enough industry left after their experiment with Progressivism to make all that much of a difference to Arizona. In fact, I think that if Arizona continues down the path of Conservatism and adopts some “business smart” tax policies, they could easily capture what business California has managed to hold on to while that State imposes more ridiculous regulations, falls deeper in debt and taxes climb even higher. Hey, in Arizona you can still get a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy!

The law Arizona passed is nearly an identical copy of existing Federal law but unlike “Big Brother’s” edition, the Arizona law specifically prohibits race as a consideration. Those subjected to scrutiny under this new law must have been stopped by the police for an obvious infraction of existing law or must be displaying suspicious behavior. Once contact with law enforcement has been made, the police must also have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in this country illegally before asking for identification, excluding race as a cause for suspicion. Of course, that is the part of the story that the main stream press and open border proponents have intentionally left out of their description of what Arizona has done.

There will be no swarms of police harassing Latinos on the streets of Phoenix; there will be no door to door searches of private property and there will be no traffic stops to check citizenship. Arguably, there are some police officers that have engaged in behavior that is prohibited under department rules and in some cases, race was clearly the motivation. That is a sad state of affairs wherever it happens and it has happened all over America at one time or another. While the media would have you believe that this is standard procedure for most police departments the truth is that this is not representative of the vast majority of police and the explosion of camera phones and digital video recorders have been very effective at exposing those individuals and removing them from duty.

The safeguards against racial profiling present in the Arizona law will actually serve to spotlight police officers that believe they can act with impunity and abuse the power they have been given. With every civil rights organization focused on finding those abuses, is there any doubt that the slightest infraction will not be met with a torrent of legal challenges and in the prosecution of the offending officer? In fact, Arizona may well turn out to be the best place in the country for lawful immigrants as police abuses in other cities are dismissed as meaningless because of their enlightened laws where immigration status is concerned. Let’s face it, burglars don’t break into a house across the street from a police station; they go where no one is looking and all eyes are on Arizona right now.

The President has called Arizona’s new law “misguided” and that it only illustrates the need for the Federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform before other States follow suit. Attorney General Eric Holder is exploring the possibility of challenging the law in court and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. This only displays their lack of understanding of the law that Arizona has passed. Since it is based on existing Federal law, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional and violates civic rights, so does the Federal law. This is little more than political posturing. Lindsey Graham, a Progressive Republican, has long pushed for an amnesty program that would grant legal status to the hoards of people that have already broken American law to be in the United States but we’ve tried amnesty before; haven’t we? The purpose of the last amnesty program was to prevent the hardships that illegal immigrants would face after they had already established a life in this country if they were sought out by new immigration laws and repatriated.

We granted amnesty to those illegal immigrants that had maintained residence in the United States for at least five years with the understanding that we would improve border security and provide for effective enforcement of immigration law in the future. So far, the Federal government failed miserably in its responsibility to secure our borders and that is the reason for Arizona’s new law. Isn’t it funny that one of the things that Congress is clearly responsible for, the defense of the nation, has taken a back seat to healthcare reform, Cap and Trade and the takeover of General Motors; none of which can be found in the Constitution. Clearly, if you want actual examples of misguided legislation, you must look to Washington, not Arizona.

In recent years, Arizona and other Border States have been inundated with a virtual tidal wave of violent criminal activity because of the drug wars in Mexico. In the absence of any meaningful act by the Federal government to prevent this flood of drugs, criminals and yes, innocent Mexican citizens seeking asylum from the brutality of lawless drug gangs in their home land, Arizona was forced into action to preserve law, order and quality of life. Those that are opposed to the law either do not understand its limitations or are located a comfortable distance from the war zone brewing at the Arizona border and just don’t give a damn. The Mexican government is, and always has been, a bad partner in eliminating these problems and has actually encouraged illegal immigration into the United States rather than take the next logical step towards their own legitimacy. When Arizona police have found illegal immigrants, they have never been able to count on the Mexican government to provide accurate information about criminal history and that is what has cast a cloud of suspicion over all illegal immigrants.

Arizona has long been tolerant where immigration is concerned and aside from the questionable activities of the Maricopa Sherriff’s department, has provided a safe and beneficial environment for people seeking a better life. Most of the residents of Arizona go about their lives with out race as a consideration and we have been able to build a pretty decent life here with a level of diversity that most of the country would find baffling. Truth is; we don’t care. What we do care about is crime and how that affects our families. The drug gangs waging war in Mexico are particularly brutal and have no consideration for human life and the Federal government has offered no help against their intrusion into Arizona.

Did it help that Attorney General Eric Holder intruded to make sure that three members of the infamous MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha) gang would not receive the death penalty? The three were in the United States illegally, were arrested in Virginia and charged with murder and conspiracy. As Federal prosecutors were preparing their case, Holder stepped in and instructed them not to seek the death penalty. Holder refused to comment on what prompted his involvement in this case but apparently he believes that Michigan militia men and Arizonans are far more dangerous than your run of the mill, murder for hire foreign drug gangs or international terrorists for that matter.

It is this insane posture assumed by the Federal government that forced Arizona to take unilateral action. If we are to be left to protect ourselves by a disinterested Washington, then they should not be surprised when the people on the front lines actually take action. Los Angeles’s reaction is a little surprising since they have had some of the same issues with their shared border with Mexico. San Francisco had previously announced that they are a “sanctuary city” and would not cooperate with Federal immigration law so who cares what kind of immigration problems San Francisco has. Sanctuary was really only a fun little political ploy but seriously, considering where they are located, who could they possibly be getting flooded with; Oregonians?

Maybe that is where the real racism is in all this? Los Angeles was very quick to denounce Arizona and has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses even though the law was carefully crafted to avoid any possibility of racial profiling. Is it because they believe Arizona’s new law is that outrageous or is there a real fear among Los Angeles politicians that illegal immigrants residing in Arizona may leave the State to avoid deportation and show up in L.A.; posing an additional burden to their local services? Why hasn’t the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco extended their hand to welcome this wave of refugees they have claimed will be driven from Arizona?

Well, to anyone that is in Arizona illegally all you need do is obey the law, respect your neighbors and you have nothing to fear. In fact, I’ll probably see you at the next county fair. If obeying the law is something that is a problem for you, then I would suggest you head to the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They have already said they would not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement so that is your best chance to avoid capture and deportation.

Paul

Immigration and Amnesty

The Democrats are in power, elections are in the air and the traditional Democratic base has lost interest so that means it’s time to play….Let’s Grant Amnesty! Yes, let’s grant amnesty; the exciting decennial game where millions of people are given a free chance to collect thousands in benefits and social aid. To be eligible to play you must be in the United States illegally, you must have avoided capture for at least five years and you must have worked in a cash only business or with the use of someone else’s Social Security number; extra points are awarded if the Social Security number you are using belongs to someone that is still alive.

Of course I lay this initiative at the feet of Democrats but there are a few Republicans like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that support this as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who actually co-sponsored an Immigration Reform bill with the now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005. The “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” or McCain-Kennedy Bill incorporated several provisions to grant amnesty for certain illegal immigrants, provide for guest worker programs and to strengthen border security. The bill was never voted on but similar legislation based on McCain Kennedy was proposed in 2006 by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and proposed again in 2007 by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The 2006 legislation passed the Senate but failed in conference committee and the 2007 bill failed all three attempts to obtain cloture and died without leaving the Senate.

In all three of these bills, there was bi-partisan opposition to one or more of the provisions within the bill. The right argued against the amnesty provision which would have in essence, rewarded people for having entered the country illegally. The left fought the bill’s tight language regarding family unification that limited Visas only to immediate family members of US citizens. They also despised the guest worker program that would have allowed workers temporary work permits for particular industries stating that it would create an entirely new class of workers that were prohibited from access to the benefits enjoyed by so many others. Also, industry opposed the new limits the bill would impose on the employer sponsorship of green card applications and the elimination of priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.

Immigration reform is guaranteed to be a hotbed of controversy. Until 1986, immigration legislation had largely been used to block entry into the United States based on criminal background or to enact quotas on immigration on the basis of nation of origin. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the first time that legislation was used to grant amnesty to people that had entered the United States illegally provided they had resided in the US continuously since January 1, 1982. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan mostly because it contained some important reform language designed to dissuade future illegal immigration. Under the 1986 reform bill, it became a crime to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and would require employers to attest to their employee’s immigration status.

The proponents of the 2010 push for immigration reform want to go beyond what has already been done. There is no real desire to secure our borders which is absurd in a post 9/11 America. Not every terrorist is going to board an airplane in Amsterdam; especially if they can simply walk into the country unchallenged through one of our land borders. The current bill proposed by Representative Gutierrez (D-IL) says that it strengthens border protection but then prohibits the use of the United States armed forces, including the National Guard from States adjacent to the US border, to enhance border protection. The bill expands the definition of “family” for the purpose of determining the eligibility of entrance based on family reunification. The bill would hamper the ability to detain those people that are known to be in the United States unlawfully. The bill would also relax the requirements for citizenship, allowing those that were recently considered law breakers to become law makers through the election process.

Proponents of the bill have always claimed that the opposition to immigration legislation was based solely on racial hatred but is that really true? Most of the opposition I’ve heard is centered on several principals. The proponents of immigration reform like to rephrase the argument by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” suggesting that they are a legitimate part of the U.S. workforce. In fact, they have already had to have broken several U.S. and State laws for them to be “undocumented workers” in the first place. They are illegal and no amount of flourish can change that. Opponents also recognize that the reforms suggested under the Gutierrez bill would, in short order, allow these people unlimited access to American social benefit programs that are already severely challenged, adding billions to the burden of tax paying Americans.

I am the first to admit that there are good and bad in every race and nationality but does it really make sense to relax immigration and citizenship standards when we have little or no cooperation in obtaining the criminal records of the applicants? Mexico is now under assault from drug cartels and their gangs of assassins; the same gangs that are responsible for an exponential increase in gang and drug violence in U.S. communities close to the Mexican border and the Mexican government would do anything to see some of these people leave for the United States and out of their hair. These violent tendencies and trends must be considered as an impediment to relaxed immigration policies as long as we do not have a willing partner in identifying the criminals that are seeking legal status in America. That is strictly speaking for the rule of law and self preservation which has nothing to do with hatred or racism.

Speaking of self preservation, there is also the reality of our economic crisis here in the United States. Recent tax and trade policies have allowed many of our manufacturing jobs to leave the U.S. for places around the globe where labor is cheap and government restrictions are few. As Al Gore campaigned for President, his defense of the United States trade policies adopted by the Clinton administration was that America doesn’t want to make underwear and sneakers; America wants to make information systems and new technologies. Really?

Not only did Mr. Gore fail to ask the Americans that were making underwear and sneakers how they felt about their country adopting policies that would ship their jobs to Asia, I find it curious that America’s immigration policies do not reflect that drive towards the future. We are discussing embracing people that entered the nation illegally to perform menial and unskilled labor while we have driven the need for unskilled labor from our shores leaving millions of Americans seeking employment in the few remaining service industries that survived government ignorance. These remaining jobs for our own unskilled labor force are directly challenged by this wave of illegal immigrants who are willing to work longer hours for less pay because it is still a better existence than they had in their country of origin.

Finally, the periodic and regular granting of amnesty for illegal immigrants only encourages further illegal immigration. After all, what is the downside? Many that were caught and deported only return to the U.S. within weeks or months. There is no will in the Federal government to assist the States in stopping this influx and the prevalent train of thought of the current administration actually seeks to inhibit the actions of local law enforcement that try to combat the illegal immigration problem on their own. This is a discussion that always seems to surface whenever Democrats are in control because as these people are amnestied and naturalized, they overwhelmingly vote Democrat because the current Socialist leanings of today’s Democrats more closely reflect their own political ideologies.

Paul