Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Obama, let Honduras sort out its own problems

President Obama has yet again erred in his policies; this time however, his ignorance of international events threatens to impose a possible dictatorship on Honduras.

On June 30th, President Obama declared “that the United States still considers Manuel Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and assailed the coup that forced him into exile as ‘not legal’.”
"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama continued. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."

This sounds very good, but it appears that Obama, who hesitated for over a week to make any comments following the electoral crisis in Iran, has decided to impetuously plunge into Honduran internal affairs without analyzing the situation first. I believe that his rash involvement is a way of differentiating himself from President Bush who, after the 2002 overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, remained conspicuously silent and was accused of “winking his approval” to the Venezuelan military that overthrew Chavez.

Recent Latin American history is rich with coups. The 2002 coup in Venezuela was a direct result of Chavez’s abuse of power over weeks leading up to a massive protest march on April 11th. Chavez declared that he would organize a “counter march” that he would address at the Presidential Palace. When the opposition asked for permission to march to the palace, Chavez declared that only his supporters had a right to go there. The unarmed masses deviated from the original course and headed toward the Palace. At that moment, Chavez ordered a “cadena” (a mandatory broadcast of his discourse on all radio and television channels), effectively blocking coverage of the march. He also ordered his generals to declare “Plan Avila”, a military defense of the Palace designed to protect the President from an armed attack. The generals explained that the unarmed masses would be slaughtered, that the march was legal and peaceful, and that it would be illegal to enact Plan Avila. Chavez reiterated the order, which was refused. So Chavez then went on television calling on his supporters to “defend the Revolution with blood, if necessary”, an invocation of violence that again violated Venezuelan law. When his supporters began firing into the unarmed crowd (killing 20), the generals rebelled and arrested Chavez. Chavez eventually was freed and was returned to power by other generals supportive of his revolution. The international community at the time ignored Chavez’s crimes and his invocation of violence upon unarmed citizens.

In 2005, Ecuadorian President Lucio Gutierrez had managed to isolate himself from his own party and grew increasingly abusive of his powers. He had initially run as a leftist, but slowly began to moderate and ally himself with the United States. He responded violently to the civil unrest, increasing popular dissent. The socialists within the National Assembly, who were friendly to Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution, declared that Gutierrez should be stripped of the presidency for “abandonment of his post”. The military declared that they did not support Gutierrez, who was forced to flee the country. The international community was remarkably silent about these events. No one questioned the legality of the process, even when Gutierrez later complained to the OAS and UN that he was the victim of an illegal coup.

So now we must look into the events leading up to the Honduran coup.

Zelaya, who is another socialist ally of Hugo Chavez, was limited by the Honduran constitution to just one term, chose to follow the example of Chavez, who changed the constitution once to allow himself two terms, and now wants to modify it to give himself possibility of “indefinite reelection.” Zelaya wanted to form a “constituyente”, an assembly to rewrite the constitution. The Honduran Constitution allows for modification by constituyente, but Zelaya didn’t have the supported needed to do it the legal way. So instead, he decided he would do it himself, via popular referendum, and ordered ballots made by Chavez’s government.

The Honduran Supreme Court declared the process a violation of the constitution and therefore illegal. Zelaya mocked the court, and publicly called for insurrection, to which a mob of his supporters responded.

Zelaya then ordered his friend and Military Chief, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, to help him proceed with the referendum. But the Supreme Court had been very specific: the planned referendum was illegal, and anyone who continued with it violated the law. Vásquez Velásquez was later quoted as saying: “Friendship ends where duty begins…Sadly, we could not disobey the order of the court.” He refused the order.

Infuriated by Vásquez Velásquez’s refusal to obey his (illegal) order, Zelaya relieved him of duty.

The Attorney General, Luis Rubí, declared that firing Vásquez Velásquez was also illegal. “You cannot fire an officer for refusing to obey an illegal order. No one can be punished for obeying the law…The President cannot be above the law, and his actions expose him to be subject to what the law demands.”

The Supreme Court ordered that Vásquez Velásquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused. And three more military generals, of various branches of service, resigned in protest.

Attorney General Rubí declared on Channel 5 television: “No one can capriciously destabilize the country. He cannot just do what he wants. We won’t permit (Zelaya) to continue undermining Democracy.”

But Zelaya miscalculated the depth of his support, and declared that he would personally carry on with the referendum. The Supreme Court declaration was clear: to do so was illegal and a violation of the constitution. The military assessed the situation and decided that Zelaya had to be removed from his position.

How Zelaya ended up leaving the country is still unclear. The military say he resigned, Zelaya denies this. (The exact same thing happened with Chavez; the military said he resigned under pressure, Chavez said he never signed anything.)

The Supreme Court issued a formal statement on June 29th, explaining that the action by the Honduran military was in accordance with Honduran law and was in defense of the constitution.
The Spanish legal-ease is a fairly difficult to translate to English, but in essence it says: “The Supreme Court issued an order to the Armed Forces last Friday, June 26, so that, because of the disobedience of the Executive Branch, the military take control of all of the poll {my note: or “referendum”} materials that would be used for that activity which had been declared illegal previously. This decision gave the Armed Forces the authorization so that, with the intervention of the attorneys of the Public Ministry, they proceed to prevent the illegal poll promoted by the Executive Power, who never responded to the orders emanated by the Constitution and Law.

The Judicial Power considers that their actions were realized within the legal margins. The Court also believes that the Armed Forces, as defenders of the Constitution, have acted in defense of the Will of Law, and forced those who previously publicly disobeyed the law and Constitution to submit to the law.”

Now, whether or not the Honduran Supreme Court interpreted the Honduran Constitution correctly should and will be a subject of intense study and heated debate—within Honduras. But it is astonishing that President Obama, in a matter of a couple of days, somehow has already and unilaterally determined that the steps taken were “illegal”. What’s more, despite the fact that just last week Obama repeatedly declared that the United States would not meddle in the internal affairs of Iran, he suddenly decided that the United States is perfectly capable of interfering in the internal affairs of Honduras.

Obama is wrong to rush in and support Zelaya, who had clearly, publicly and repeatedly violated Honduran laws and disobeyed orders by the Supreme Court to rectify his actions. Zelaya's beligerence, his calls to his supporters to form an insurrection, threatened the peace and stability of the nation. And if the military restore order, and if the interrim President Michelleti keeps his promise to allow elections to go forward in seven months, as scheduled, then Honduras will have resolved its own problems without outside interference.

Obama should instead focus his attention on the threats by Hugo Chavez to invade the country or support an armed insurrection there.

Monday, June 29, 2009

How liberals dismiss racial discrimination

What in the world is “Hispanic” or “Latino”, anyway?

My wife, who immigrated to this country (legally) from Venezuela and is now a US citizen (and conservative Republican, I’m proud to say), recently ran into an interesting conflict with her “Chicana” boss. This boss took issue with my wife and another Latina teacher, a Chilean working here legally on a visa, because they discovered some problems with the program that was negatively impacting the “Hispanic” children.

When they naively went to their boss, who was the principal who formed the program and so is “married” to the program and is sensitive to criticism, offering suggestions about some changes that could be made to improve the program, she exploded. From that moment on, she began to display a hostility toward them that at times included only lightly veiled attacks on their nationality and immigration status—both of which fall under workplace ethnic discrimination protections.

A number of commentaries by the principal caught our attention for being ethnically discriminatory. But her ultimate act, asking my wife and the other teacher about their immigration status, really alarmed us. The principal had seemed disappointed when informed that my wife was a US citizen. At first, we didn’t understand why she had asked, or why she had been disappointed by the answer. Shortly afterward, we discovered that the principal had called Human Resources to demand that the other teacher—the one working on a visa—be kicked out of the country the day after the school term ended. (She was told that she didn’t have that authority, and that her contract ran through July, so she could not be forced to leave the country).

The situation deteriorated to the point that grievances were filed, the principal punished both teachers with “Non-Renewal with Cause” recommendation to the district, which in turn blacklisted them both. (Come to find out, 11 teachers had left the school the year before out of frustrations built up over time centering on the exact same issues. Two of those teachers were also blacklisted and had to move across the state to find work--both of them were Hispanic...).

The most interesting exchange occurred when we met with another Chicano from within the district, in order to explain our problem. We outlined the commentaries and steps taken by this Chicana principal, and clarified that we felt these two teachers were the victims of discrimination based upon ethnicity and immigration status. His response? “Mrs. Gonzales (not her real name) is a Latina, and you are Latinas, so it’s not possible for her to discriminate against you based on ethnicity!”

My shock was not that anyone could say something so ignorant: it was that a so-called “Hispanic” could harbor such a shallow and clearly fallacious opinion. Let me clarify.

What is “Latino”? What is “Hispanic”? On US documentation, these terms are used interchangeably as an ethnic or racial choice. But this is patently absurd. “Hispanic” comes from a term referring to the Iberian Peninsula, also known as Spain today, and implies that persons belonging to this group share a common language, known popularly as “Spanish” but which is, in reality, Castellano, or a dialect thereof. Mexicans and Chicanos take offense at being called “Hispanic”, because they resent being classified as part of the ethnic group that includes the Spaniards who colonialized Mexico. Likewise, “Latino” is a term implying that the individual is part of a group whose linguistic origins are “Latin Based”—for this reason, Brazilians and even Portuguese can be lumped in with Spaniards, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. Ironically, Italians and French are not included in the grouping.

But these definitions are based upon Linguistic, rather than ethnic or racial traits. Latin Americans can be Black, Asian, Native American, or European, racially. So to try to say that everyone who is “Latino” is ethnically homogenous is as absurd as saying that everyone who speaks English is white.

What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Latin Americans knows that, while they constantly deny the existence of racism in their countries, they regularly exhibit behaviors that belie that claim. Mexicans openly despise Guatemalans or Hondurans, who in turn despise each other as well. If you win the trust of Costa Ricans, you may be regaled with stories about how horrible Nicaraguans are. And everyone in Latin America treats Argentines as the “Polack” of every joke. In short, hatred for ethnic groups is often disguised as “nationalism”, but it still is based upon ethnicity.

When I asked him if it would be racism if a Spaniard hated Mexicans, he quickly responded “Yes.” When I asked him if it would be racism if a white Cuban hated black Cubans, he also nodded affirmatively. So when I asked him if a Mexican hated a Venezuelan, would that be racism, he paused, clearly startled by the implication. He didn’t want to answer. “And how about a person of Chicano descent who hates blacks, or Puerto Ricans, or Cubans? Isn’t that racism?”

The point here is that while it is convenient for Latinos to claim that they are not racist, and to deny that they can discriminate against each other, the truth is that it is a regular occurrence.

He tried to wiggle out of the predicament by throwing me a curveball. “But it’s only racism if the person is in a position of power.”

“So if a Latino police officer hates Blacks and abuses his power, is that racism?”
“Of course.”
“And if that police officer was a white Cuban, and abused Mexican immigrants, racism or not?”
After a pause… “Yes.”
“So if it’s a Chicana principal with the power to destroy a career, and abuses her teachers based on their ethnicity?”
No answer.

Does it surprise you to find out that the gentleman in this story is a Democrat Union Representative and a hard core liberal?

And thus we illustrate an undeniable truth: People of color can be racists, abuse their power, and victimize other people—even of their same “ethnicity”. But Liberals will never admit it. And when a Latino is victimized by another Latino, Liberals will simply ignore the racial undertones and allow the abuse to continue.

So much for protection from ethnic discrimination!

A victory for justice and common sense

Headline: “Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in bias case”

“A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters, repudiating a key decision by court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.”

The Supreme Court Decision (read it here) is a victory for the White firefighters, and a resounding defeat for the Liberals whose blind support of Affirmative Action has led them to apply race-based decisions to hiring and promotions.

But I’d like to break open the story just a bit, and provide additional support to the firefighters who passed their exams, met the requirements for promotion, but were discriminated against.
The article states that the reason why the firefighters were not promoted was because "the city rejected the test results because too many white and not enough minorities would be promoted," as mentioned by Justice Kennedy. "Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making violates Title VII's command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race."

The New Haven officials explained their decision by blaming the exam: there must have been an inherent bias in the test that essentially victimized the Blacks and Hispanics that took the test.

I contend that this explanation does not hold water. The exam result was not an aberration: it is entirely consistent with Connecticut standardized test results in public schools.

Let me provide a disclaimer at this junction: my analysis is not a scientific study. Out of curiosity, I did what the reporters should have done; I pulled up the Connecticut State Education standardized test scores to see if the pass rate on the firefighter’s exam was grossly out of synch with education results, by ethnicity. Due to limitations on time, I could not perform an exhaustive study of all grades over multiple years. But that study should have been performed by Defense attorneys (I don’t know if it was) and by journalists who actually want to dig into stories and provide some substance. Unfortunately, most reporters lack basic curiosity and reasoning skills.

Let’s look at just one result, as a starting place for comparison.

On the Connecticut Master Test, 4th Generation for Grade 8: 2008, only 9.4% of Whites scored at or below “basic”. 16.8% scored Proficient, and 73.8% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”. By comparison, 42.4% of Blacks scored below “proficient”, 29.3% scored proficient, and 28.3% scored “at Goal” or “Advanced”.

It is logical to assume that only the best and brightest of firemen are expected to advance to become Chiefs. Since how they perform their duties, how well they understand the laws, rules, protocols, and procedures will directly impact the safety of their crews and the public they serve, there are lives on the line. So it is also logical to assume that a great deal of the material they must master is not just firefighting methods that can be learned on the job, but also book learning that must be mastered through study. It is therefore not only conceivable, but quite logical, that a firefighter who is exceptional at a fire may not have “the right stuff” to be a chief. The individuals one would want to become a fire chief would belong to the groups that, when students, would have met or excelled at the goal scores.

The Connecticut state scores indicate that Whites excel academically at a rate greater than twice that of Blacks. If you combine “Proficient” with the “Goal and Advanced” categories, the gap narrows slightly, but still only 57.6% of Blacks scored Proficient and above combined, compared to 90.6% of Whites. (80.7% of Hispanics scored Proficient and above combined)

So, New Haven developed a written test to determine the extent of mastery of these subjects, but then balked at the results of the tests. According to the article: “The African American pass rate on the written exam was roughly half that of white applicants. …None of the top 19 scorers in the competition for captain's and lieutenant's positions were African American.”

Why is that a surprise? The test results for African Americans on the firefighter’s exam were wholly consistent with the scores of African Americans on state educational standardized tests.
Justice Kennedy astutely assessed the situation and declared: "There is no evidence that the tests were flawed."

The real failure here is the educational system that, despite decades of influence by the National Education Association, has yet to figure out how to better educate minorities. It is common knowledge that across the country, when minorities fail to meet standardized test expectations, they are “passed on” anyway. Principals regularly pressure teachers to adjust their students’ grades to allow them to graduate and keep the number of failing students at a politically acceptable level.

Sotomayor’s appeals court decision would have allowed the New Haven officials to implement a double standard. They had created a test that would have determined which applicants would have received a promotion based upon their score. But when bureaucrats decided that too many Whites had passed, these same bureaucrats would have gone back, figured out how to rig the test so that more minorities passed, and tried again.

Sotomayor’s intention, is to utilize the courts as a tool for social engineering. Just like the principals who tell their teachers to change their students’ scores, similar race-based decision by activist (possibly even racist) judges would institutionalize discrimination against citizens whose skills make them qualified for positions, but who are nevertheless disenfranchised based solely upon the color of their skin.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.

In response to the recent crackdown by the Iranian regimes against millions of protesters in defense of what they perceive was a corrupt and stolen election, President Obama has tended to be remarkably silent. So quiet, in fact, he has been accused by some as “voting Present”.

Obama, in response to growing pressure, has finally made a new statement (from The Belgravia):

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion... Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

In short, Obama has only committed to “bear witness” to the actions of the Iranian regime. But what consequences are there? The Mullahs must be thinking: “So what?”

Obama recently took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to Iran that coincided with their new year, known as Noruz. In that statement, Obama made one very important point:
“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.”

This was just weeks before the Iranian elections that triggered the upheaval. Considering the stunning courage on display by unarmed Iranian citizens who have continued to march while they are gunned down by government snipers, I feel that the “true greatness” of at least one sector of the “Iranian people and civilization” is on clear display. To this, we bear witness, but should we stop there?

While some on the left have stated that the United States should not do or say anything that would be interpreted as “meddling” in the “sovereign” affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, because “the Iranians don’t want our interference” (overheard on radio commentaries), we should also “bear witness” to the fact that the protestors carried innumerable placards written in English—the language in Iran is Farsi, not English. So why would they do that, if they were not sending a message out to the rest of the world, that they are fighting for freedom, and hope for support? On a twitter page I read the comment sent by an Iranian that stated (in English): “Thank you for paying attention to our struggle.”

In a speech Obama made speaking to the Wisconsin Democratic Party Dinner in Milwaukee on the campaign trail, he said:
"Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama said. "'I have a dream.' Just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words?

The sentiment behind that speech was that words that bear undeniable truths are somehow more than simple, hollow phrases. They are powerful, capable of changing minds, nations, even the world.

And it is clear that Obama, who has been lauded as one of the great political speakers of our time, has a love affair with words, although he apparently cannot commit them to memory, and must have them displayed for him on a teleprompter.

It may be fruitful to review the words he uttered in Egypt, while promoting himself as the American ambassador to the Muslim world. His intention there was not just to apologize for America (he had done enough of that in Europe and Turkey), but to smooth over the differences—both perceived and real—between the Muslim world and our nation. And he started by reiterating some of the concepts that he believes are universal truths.

“…Recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”

How right you are, Mr. President. Words alone are useless. We must act boldly. And when he stood upon that dais, it would have been easy to imagine that he would follow up those words with brave acts. After all, he continued: “We must face these tensions squarely.”

Obama had set the stage for bold actions that would support Muslims who sought peaceful progress toward democracy. In citing the case of Israel and Palestine, he urged the Palestinians to seek justice through peaceful means, because “resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.”

I myself have stated the same point, although certainly not as eloquently as Obama, his staff of writers, and his reliable teleprompter were able to do. “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace,” he promised in the same speech.

His message appears to have been especially prescient, foretelling the upcoming electoral clash in Iran. Bear witness to the following two paragraphs of rhetorical brilliance:
“I …have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.”

Elections alone do not make true democracy.

I wonder if the Iranians, who are dying by the score in the streets of Tehran, had heard this speech. I wonder if they took heart in these words, so courageously uttered from the safety of a well-guarded dais at a major university in Egypt, and if they wrote their English placards for him.

So what, Mr. Obama? So you went out of your way to tell the world that America is not at war with Islam. So what? And then you travelled around Europe apologizing for what you perceived as the errors of American arrogance, we who dare to “impose our values” upon other nations. So what? And then you, with the unique heritage of Christian and Muslim roots, who saw Islam from the perspective of three different nations, you who recognize that our American values are international, are human rights, and that elections are not legitimate if the will of the people is quashed by coercive means. So what? Are these “just words”?

What the Iranians want from you now, is not just the empty echo of truisms read from a teleprompter; what they want from you now, what the entire world is waiting to see, is how you convert your beautiful prose into meaningful actions.

Rhetoric is the tool of rabble rousers, propagandists and flim flam artists. American Presidents cannot rely upon rhetoric alone. They must lead through action—action that is often unpopular among some quarters, action that angers the tyrants who coerce and oppress their people, action that may have unpredictable outcomes, but actions, nonetheless.

Mr. President: Inaction is not a strategy.

Obama has now made new statements...words...
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared the United States and the entire world "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent efforts to crush dissent, a clear toughening of his rhetoric as Republican critics at home pound him for being too passive.
Obama condemned the "threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. "
"I strongly condemn these unjust actions," Obama said in a news conference at the White House.

"I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs," Obama said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place."

"We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets," Obama said. "While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."


Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Immigration Lawyers should not be above the law.

Imagine, for a moment, two scenarios involving lawyers giving legal advice.

In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.

The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”

In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.

The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”

The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)

The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.

In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.

The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”

In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.

It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?

The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."

Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.

In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.

(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?