As if to prove that even a jackass can change his stripes, MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews spoke out about Obama recently, and set a tone that should be studied by every conservative looking to make further inroads into Democrat power. Click the link and watch the video.
“As a campaigner, he {Obama} did nothing but talk about what a great country this is, what an exceptional country this is, because a guy like me made it here, and only in a country like this could I have made it. He was very patriotic, very inclusive, and he was very interactive in an interesting way. Ever since he’s been President, he’s been elitist, and he’s come with his teleprompter, and he’s given his speech. He hasn’t listened, he’s talked at us rather than with us…I think he hasn’t explained himself. Lincoln had to explain the civil war, ‘darn it’, Roosevelt had to explain everything to us…”
To put this into perspective, remember that this is the same Chris Matthews who got “a tingle up my leg” every time Obama spoke during his campaign.
As a friend of mine responded, Matthews “is still a jackass”. Sure, he was born a jackass and will die one as well, I’m sure. But this moment of clarity reveals that even a lifelong, card-carrying jackass can still love his country and appreciate a leader who expresses his belief in American Exceptionalism. And this is a fundamental and vital realization; if Chris Matthews, who is indubitably a spokesman for the rabid left, can recognize that there is such a thing as “American Exceptionalism”, and hearing his leaders speak of it causes a “tingle”, then there is common ground from which to work with these guys.
The trick is to plant a “worm of doubt” in the minds of these liberals that will eat away at some of their core beliefs.
The fundamental problem with Liberals is not that they don’t love America, but that they don’t necessarily love America for what it is; instead they love an idea of what American could become, if only they were able to “fundamentally transform” her—as candidate Obama promised to do.
Liberals believe that they have been enlightened by their education (and their astute powers of reasoning and heightened tolerance) to recognize the gross historical errors in America’s past. They see first, and foremost, the wrongs committed during the formative American years: slavery and the mistreatment of African Americans (among others), the genocidal wars against the American Indians, the internment of the Japanese, as proof positive of an ugly side of America. And more importantly, they see themselves as the moral champions of the underprivileged.
They therefore want to believe that, had they been alive “back then”, they would have been abolitionists. They would have spoken out to defend the Native Americans. They would have marched in Selma, held hands with the civil rights leaders, and opposed the internment of the Japanese. Never mind that the Republican party was the party that liberated the slaves, and it’s convenient to their belief system to forget how many Democrats opposed the civil rights movement; it is better to believe that the Democrat party is what Jack Kennedy and LBJ made of it, and the rest can be ignored through the willful myopia of Liberal idealism.
The "worm of doubt" that I mentioned can only be planted by subtle means. Conservatives want to crow loudly that America is the best country in the world, a notion that immediately smacks up against the Liberal “insight” into America’s many flaws. From that moment on, they reach for their blinders and ear plugs and will not hear another word, no matter how true.
What must be accomplished is to communicate to these individuals the notion that America is not great in spite of its many flaws, but precisely because America has proven itself capable of overcoming its flaws, of performing a national soul-searching, and not because a few “enlightened” geniuses like Chris Matthews brow beat the American people. Martin Luther King did not fundamentally transform race relations in the country by deriding America, or insulting the American people; he led by example, peacefully marching and letting the most radical, hateful section of the country heap abuse upon his people. It was the dignified and stalwart example he and his followers set that implanted a “worm of doubt” in the minds of white America and that, in turn, caused them to doubt the moral justification for their behavior. The change this caused was profound and permanent. This was Liberalism at its best, and it was tested when, after the 9/11 attacks, Americans went about trying to defend their homeland from Muslim extremists without re-implementing the internment camps that would have been created just 60 years before.
I believe we have witnessed another voice call out from the wilderness who may very well represent the next stage in the national evolution. Senator-elect Marco Rubio’s victory speech contained profound wisdom that should be studied next to Chris Matthew’s fleeting admission.
“Now let me tell you that there are those out there who doubt about the greatness of America. Sometimes when I say it, I hear the snickers from some in different parts, they think it’s simplistic. But you see, I know America’s great, not because I read about it in books, but because I’ve seen it with my eyes. I’ve been raised in a community of exiles, of people who lost their country, of people who know what it’s like to live somewhere else…a community of men and women that were once my age, and when they were they had dreams like we have now, and yet they lost all those things through an accident of history. And so they came here, to try to rebuild their lives. And some did. But many others could not. And instead it became the purpose of their lives to leave their children with the opportunities that they themselves did not have. This is the story of the Cuban exile community. And it defines what so many of us who are a product of it are. And I know this: no matter where I go, or what title I achieve, I will always be the son of exiles.”
Rubio’s eloquent soliloquy is brilliant. He has, in one succinct paragraph, addressed the “snickers” of the Liberals who receive the notion of American Exceptionalism and greatness as “simplistic”, while immediately reminding us all that America is not great because of a mythical promise of success to all, because not all will enjoy immediate success. It is great because it offers a possibility of success and renewal, it is a place where communities of exiles can reestablish themselves, lay down new roots, and achieve great accomplishments and success if they accept the challenge and struggle for the opportunity.
He acknowledged that his success came at the sacrifice of those before him, a sacrifice that bore with it great sadness and suffering, yet it was sacrifice gladly given by a noble people who understood that their sacrifice should not be judged by what they received from it, but rather by what they gave to their children, and to future generations.
This was the same sacrifice that Martin Luther King and the real civil rights leaders clung to; knowing that although they themselves might not reach the Promised Land, they would willingly give a pound of flesh so that their progeny might someday reap the rewards.
As Matthews stated, Obama himself acknowledged during his campaign that he could not have accomplished great things in other countries. There has never been a black prime minister of England, nor a black president of France, nor of Germany. But there is now a black president of the United States of America. There have been multiple Cuban senators. And someday, there very well may be a Cuban president.
And this is what is great about America: not that it is, but that it is possible here.
In America, we are all "sons of exile".
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Obama, Cain, and Jesus: A parable of confused morals.
I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, so I rarely delve into any type of religious topic. If you had read my previous article about the attacks on Christianity, you might have come to the conclusion that I’m religious. I’m not.
As an agnostic, I’m really not even a person who calls himself a Christian—although I was raised by a Christian mother—nor a “person of faith”—a failing my wife often criticizes and suggests that I work on getting a little more faith.
But I don’t disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs. As an agnostic, who can’t lean on a “faith” to get me through troubling times, I rather envy anyone with faith. And, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
Which brings me back to Obama. Yes, you knew I’d get there eventually, right?
While I agree with Jefferson’s statement that “{Religion is} a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle”, I can’t help but contemplate our current president’s odd expressions of “faith”. I rather preferred Obama’s previous lack of religious expression to his recent proclamation of faith in Christianity.
Apparently responding to polls suggesting that over 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian, Obama publicly stated that he “came to Christianity as an adult”, and was attracted to certain aspects of the religion, although admittedly not all. Now, myself being an agnostic who can’t blindly believe that Jesus was “the Son of God”, I understand his sentiment; I nevertheless don’t judge Obama for not being able to believe the Christian dogma part and parcel. But unlike Obama, I won’t call myself a Christian just because I like “certain parts” of the religion. There is at least one core part of the religion you have to believe or you simply are not Christian: that Jesus was God on earth and he died for our sins to give us eternal life. It’s great if you agree that we should love our neighbor, but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you really have no business claiming to be “a Christian”…especially if you only do it in election years!
Many conservatives have already spoken or written at length about that topic, so I won’t delve into it deeply. But there was a statement Obama made that really caught my attention. Remember when he said that he liked that part in Christianity about “being your brother’s keeper”? That was a statement he quoted often during the healthcare debate. When asked about his Christian faith, Obama told the LA Times:
“The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”
I haven’t read the Bible lately, but of course all those years of having my mother drag me to church had some benefit, because I realized that the quote Obama spewed out wasn’t a quote from Jesus…it was actually Cain who said it after he’d murdered his brother. Genesis 4:9.
Cain and Abel, sons of the original Adam, were promised to marry twin sisters. Abel was to wed the more attractive of the two, and Cain was envious. He argued with his father and brother and in order to settle the quarrel, Adam arranged for Cain to make a sacrifice to God, to see what God’s response was. God rejected the sacrifice, which was an indication that he disagreed with Cain’s argument. So angered by these events, Cain murdered his brother. In some versions, he did it with the jawbone of an ass. (Is it wrong to note that the ass is the emblem of Obama’s Democrat party?)
Returning to Obama’s statement, the last part of it does, in fact, sound like something Jesus is quoted as saying. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 5:43. But even then, Jesus was repeating a quotation of the Hebrew Torah, from Leviticus.
Still, there something profoundly ironic about Obama misquoting Cain’s smart-Alec response to God’s query “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain responds: “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”. A holistic examination of Obama’s statement of faith reveals that he has conflated Cain’s disrespectful response to God with the advice given by Jesus! He has somehow joined the concept of “treating others as you would have them treat you”, and the story about the first fratricide in recorded history, and concluded that they contain the same moral.
What does that say about his adherence to Christianity? Did he learn this from Reverend Wright?
A short period after Obama misquoted the Bible, he stood before an audience, attempting to persuade voters in the upcoming November elections to support his party, when his Presidential Seal fell off the podium.
If I were superstitious (I’m not, but it’s amusing to think about this from the perspective of how the ancients might have read the signs), I might consider that an ill omen portending tragedy for Obama…the equivalent of God rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, as it were.
Think of it this way: Cain slew Abel out of envy. God did not consent to grant Cain’s greedy demand to be given the more attractive wife, so Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage.
What’s ironic is that Obama, with his class warfare rhetoric, sows the seeds of envy among millions every time he promotes his notion of social justice and redistributive policies, and then ends up trying to prove his adherence to Christianity, but in so doing, quotes Cain instead of Jesus. It’s bizarre but fitting.
So do I think that, when the Presidential Seal fell from the Podium, it was God's way of telling us that He had rejected Obama’s Presidency?
I guess I’ll have to consider that as a “matter of faith.”
As an agnostic, I’m really not even a person who calls himself a Christian—although I was raised by a Christian mother—nor a “person of faith”—a failing my wife often criticizes and suggests that I work on getting a little more faith.
But I don’t disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs. As an agnostic, who can’t lean on a “faith” to get me through troubling times, I rather envy anyone with faith. And, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
Which brings me back to Obama. Yes, you knew I’d get there eventually, right?
While I agree with Jefferson’s statement that “{Religion is} a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle”, I can’t help but contemplate our current president’s odd expressions of “faith”. I rather preferred Obama’s previous lack of religious expression to his recent proclamation of faith in Christianity.
Apparently responding to polls suggesting that over 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian, Obama publicly stated that he “came to Christianity as an adult”, and was attracted to certain aspects of the religion, although admittedly not all. Now, myself being an agnostic who can’t blindly believe that Jesus was “the Son of God”, I understand his sentiment; I nevertheless don’t judge Obama for not being able to believe the Christian dogma part and parcel. But unlike Obama, I won’t call myself a Christian just because I like “certain parts” of the religion. There is at least one core part of the religion you have to believe or you simply are not Christian: that Jesus was God on earth and he died for our sins to give us eternal life. It’s great if you agree that we should love our neighbor, but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you really have no business claiming to be “a Christian”…especially if you only do it in election years!
Many conservatives have already spoken or written at length about that topic, so I won’t delve into it deeply. But there was a statement Obama made that really caught my attention. Remember when he said that he liked that part in Christianity about “being your brother’s keeper”? That was a statement he quoted often during the healthcare debate. When asked about his Christian faith, Obama told the LA Times:
“The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”
I haven’t read the Bible lately, but of course all those years of having my mother drag me to church had some benefit, because I realized that the quote Obama spewed out wasn’t a quote from Jesus…it was actually Cain who said it after he’d murdered his brother. Genesis 4:9.
Cain and Abel, sons of the original Adam, were promised to marry twin sisters. Abel was to wed the more attractive of the two, and Cain was envious. He argued with his father and brother and in order to settle the quarrel, Adam arranged for Cain to make a sacrifice to God, to see what God’s response was. God rejected the sacrifice, which was an indication that he disagreed with Cain’s argument. So angered by these events, Cain murdered his brother. In some versions, he did it with the jawbone of an ass. (Is it wrong to note that the ass is the emblem of Obama’s Democrat party?)
Returning to Obama’s statement, the last part of it does, in fact, sound like something Jesus is quoted as saying. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 5:43. But even then, Jesus was repeating a quotation of the Hebrew Torah, from Leviticus.
Still, there something profoundly ironic about Obama misquoting Cain’s smart-Alec response to God’s query “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain responds: “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”. A holistic examination of Obama’s statement of faith reveals that he has conflated Cain’s disrespectful response to God with the advice given by Jesus! He has somehow joined the concept of “treating others as you would have them treat you”, and the story about the first fratricide in recorded history, and concluded that they contain the same moral.
What does that say about his adherence to Christianity? Did he learn this from Reverend Wright?
A short period after Obama misquoted the Bible, he stood before an audience, attempting to persuade voters in the upcoming November elections to support his party, when his Presidential Seal fell off the podium.
If I were superstitious (I’m not, but it’s amusing to think about this from the perspective of how the ancients might have read the signs), I might consider that an ill omen portending tragedy for Obama…the equivalent of God rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, as it were.
Think of it this way: Cain slew Abel out of envy. God did not consent to grant Cain’s greedy demand to be given the more attractive wife, so Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage.
What’s ironic is that Obama, with his class warfare rhetoric, sows the seeds of envy among millions every time he promotes his notion of social justice and redistributive policies, and then ends up trying to prove his adherence to Christianity, but in so doing, quotes Cain instead of Jesus. It’s bizarre but fitting.
So do I think that, when the Presidential Seal fell from the Podium, it was God's way of telling us that He had rejected Obama’s Presidency?
I guess I’ll have to consider that as a “matter of faith.”
Friday, October 8, 2010
A Christian strikes back: Kathleen Folden was right
On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010, Kathleen Folden entered the Loveland Museum/Gallery with a crowbar hidden on her person and destroyed part of Enrique Chagoya’s lithograph “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals.” Witnesses claimed that, as she destroyed the piece, she asked, “how can you desecrate my Lord?” Afterward she was arrested, and as she was led away she reportedly stated to reporters: “Remember; God is real.”
On Friday, Oct. 8, the Denver Post compared Folden’s attack on the lithograph to the Taliban’s destruction of monumental statues of Buddha. Readers left similar comments on the Post website.
One attempted to claim that Christians have somehow decided to embrace the fanaticism of Muslims who defend their religion with violence: “I think all the funny business over that fat pastor threatening to burn the Koran, and the ensuing sanctimony of Muslims, has influenced Christians, this lady specifically, to embrace Islam.”
Another directly accused Folden of terrorism: “The woman is a terrorist, plain and simple. She executed pre-meditated terrorism and carried out the plot. The Taliban has come to America disguised as Christianity.”
The Post interviewed Adam Lerner, director of the Denver Museum of Contemporary Art, who said, “I really hope this doesn’t create any kind of precedent.”
It is very easy to understand how this event could shock liberals who cannot comprehend how a sane person could possibly be motivated enough to drive from her Montana home to Loveland, Colorado, in order to destroy a piece of art. To these people, the fact that the so-called “art” depicted Jesus Christ’s head on a woman’s body with another man apparently performing oral sex on Christ should not be good enough reason for such a horrendous response.
The anger and apparent offense they express give me the impression that they feel victimized by a particularly brutal form of secular blasphemy.
This is easily understood, as the very first amendment to our beloved constitution defends the individual’s right to freedom of expression, and we all would agree that even obscene and offensive forms of expression are to be tolerated.
Interestingly, however, we must for a moment remember that not all expression is protected. Just as one cannot call out “FIRE” in a crowded theater, because it creates a safety risk, Liberals have also passed a number of laws denoting “protected status” on certain groups within our society, and identifying certain types of speech that are felonious “hate crimes”.
From this reasoning, it is understood that a black man who punches a white racist who called him “N-----” has committed a lesser offense than the man who was “expressing himself” with that hateful term. A homosexual who defends himself after being called a “queer” or “fag” would be defended as being “in the right”.
And as Mr. Lerner indicated, an isolated event is not as worrisome as a “precedent” indicating the start of a trend. If only one white person were to have ever called a black person the “N” word, then it would not be such an offensive situation, would it? But when we consider the greater history around that word, and the litany of offenses and crimes associated with the kind of hate the word represents, then we understand that the black man struck the offending racist not because of one word, but because it was the tipping point in a series of offenses that pushed him over the edge.
Perhaps it’s time to examine the long list of offenses perpetrated by the “art world” and defended by the liberal mindset that has finally driven Christians to the point of violent reaction. I don’t even have to search very far. Anti-Christian sentiment is inspiring violent vandalism against Christian buildings and symbols. Virgin Mary statues were destroyed in Boston, Mass. and in Leadville Colorado. One man, Jay Scott Balinger, admitted to between 30 and 50 Church arsons across various states. You might think this sort of serial-arsonist would be accused of hate crimes, and that his crimes would have garnered national attention. But he wasn’t, and they didn’t.
The disrespectful representation of Christ in the Chagoya painting was not an isolated incident. This was just one more in a series of highly offensive and religiously blasphemous artistic expressions designed specifically to insult Christians. Here’s a short list: The “Piss Christ” sculpture by Andre Serrano. “Corpus Christi”, by Adam Cullen. “The Ninth Hour”, by Maurizio Cattelan. “Bearded Orientals: Making of the Empire Cross”, by Priscilla Bracks.
The fashion to insult Christians goes beyond the plastic arts. Plays that portray the Christian Prophet as a homosexual have been staged for the sole purpose of inciting the Christians for their opposition to gay marriage and other aspects of “the homosexual agenda”. At Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, gay activists interrupted a church service by yelling “Bash back!” outside the church and screaming “Jesus was a homo” through a megaphone.
So yes, there has been a precedent set, but it is not the one that Mr. Lerner feared. To the contrary, the precedent has been that, while Liberals clamor to show respect to Islam and all Muslims, they participate in a hateful orgy of insulting, degrading, attacking and offending Christians. Perhaps this is why so many of their attacks are tinged with vulgar sexual and scatological references.
One Denver Post reader stated the obvious: “To the extent that the Loveland art was an attack on Christians, it provoked an in-kind response. Some jurisdictions recognize the concept of 'fighting words' in inciting violence. The Loveland art was the lithographic equivalent of 'fighting words'. If this were a black man smashing art that contained race controversy, DP bloggers would be expressing a very different viewpoint.”
Many Christians will publicly state that they wish she had not resorted to vandalism. But we must face the fact that the onslaught against Christians has been going on for decades in this country and has pushed them to a tipping point. With both cheeks already battered and torn, who can reasonably expect them to accept one offense after another without striking back?
Kathleen Folden, unlike the Taliban and other Muslim extremists, did not bomb a building, or torch a church, or stab an artist to death. Like Jesus overthrowing the carts of the money changers in the temple, she has simply destroyed one lithograph that was, without any doubt, a hateful expression against her religion. She will bear the burden of fines and a criminal record. But she will also be able to proudly declare that she fought back against hateful indecency.
On Friday, Oct. 8, the Denver Post compared Folden’s attack on the lithograph to the Taliban’s destruction of monumental statues of Buddha. Readers left similar comments on the Post website.
One attempted to claim that Christians have somehow decided to embrace the fanaticism of Muslims who defend their religion with violence: “I think all the funny business over that fat pastor threatening to burn the Koran, and the ensuing sanctimony of Muslims, has influenced Christians, this lady specifically, to embrace Islam.”
Another directly accused Folden of terrorism: “The woman is a terrorist, plain and simple. She executed pre-meditated terrorism and carried out the plot. The Taliban has come to America disguised as Christianity.”
The Post interviewed Adam Lerner, director of the Denver Museum of Contemporary Art, who said, “I really hope this doesn’t create any kind of precedent.”
It is very easy to understand how this event could shock liberals who cannot comprehend how a sane person could possibly be motivated enough to drive from her Montana home to Loveland, Colorado, in order to destroy a piece of art. To these people, the fact that the so-called “art” depicted Jesus Christ’s head on a woman’s body with another man apparently performing oral sex on Christ should not be good enough reason for such a horrendous response.
The anger and apparent offense they express give me the impression that they feel victimized by a particularly brutal form of secular blasphemy.
This is easily understood, as the very first amendment to our beloved constitution defends the individual’s right to freedom of expression, and we all would agree that even obscene and offensive forms of expression are to be tolerated.
Interestingly, however, we must for a moment remember that not all expression is protected. Just as one cannot call out “FIRE” in a crowded theater, because it creates a safety risk, Liberals have also passed a number of laws denoting “protected status” on certain groups within our society, and identifying certain types of speech that are felonious “hate crimes”.
From this reasoning, it is understood that a black man who punches a white racist who called him “N-----” has committed a lesser offense than the man who was “expressing himself” with that hateful term. A homosexual who defends himself after being called a “queer” or “fag” would be defended as being “in the right”.
And as Mr. Lerner indicated, an isolated event is not as worrisome as a “precedent” indicating the start of a trend. If only one white person were to have ever called a black person the “N” word, then it would not be such an offensive situation, would it? But when we consider the greater history around that word, and the litany of offenses and crimes associated with the kind of hate the word represents, then we understand that the black man struck the offending racist not because of one word, but because it was the tipping point in a series of offenses that pushed him over the edge.
Perhaps it’s time to examine the long list of offenses perpetrated by the “art world” and defended by the liberal mindset that has finally driven Christians to the point of violent reaction. I don’t even have to search very far. Anti-Christian sentiment is inspiring violent vandalism against Christian buildings and symbols. Virgin Mary statues were destroyed in Boston, Mass. and in Leadville Colorado. One man, Jay Scott Balinger, admitted to between 30 and 50 Church arsons across various states. You might think this sort of serial-arsonist would be accused of hate crimes, and that his crimes would have garnered national attention. But he wasn’t, and they didn’t.
The disrespectful representation of Christ in the Chagoya painting was not an isolated incident. This was just one more in a series of highly offensive and religiously blasphemous artistic expressions designed specifically to insult Christians. Here’s a short list: The “Piss Christ” sculpture by Andre Serrano. “Corpus Christi”, by Adam Cullen. “The Ninth Hour”, by Maurizio Cattelan. “Bearded Orientals: Making of the Empire Cross”, by Priscilla Bracks.
The fashion to insult Christians goes beyond the plastic arts. Plays that portray the Christian Prophet as a homosexual have been staged for the sole purpose of inciting the Christians for their opposition to gay marriage and other aspects of “the homosexual agenda”. At Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, gay activists interrupted a church service by yelling “Bash back!” outside the church and screaming “Jesus was a homo” through a megaphone.
So yes, there has been a precedent set, but it is not the one that Mr. Lerner feared. To the contrary, the precedent has been that, while Liberals clamor to show respect to Islam and all Muslims, they participate in a hateful orgy of insulting, degrading, attacking and offending Christians. Perhaps this is why so many of their attacks are tinged with vulgar sexual and scatological references.
One Denver Post reader stated the obvious: “To the extent that the Loveland art was an attack on Christians, it provoked an in-kind response. Some jurisdictions recognize the concept of 'fighting words' in inciting violence. The Loveland art was the lithographic equivalent of 'fighting words'. If this were a black man smashing art that contained race controversy, DP bloggers would be expressing a very different viewpoint.”
Many Christians will publicly state that they wish she had not resorted to vandalism. But we must face the fact that the onslaught against Christians has been going on for decades in this country and has pushed them to a tipping point. With both cheeks already battered and torn, who can reasonably expect them to accept one offense after another without striking back?
Kathleen Folden, unlike the Taliban and other Muslim extremists, did not bomb a building, or torch a church, or stab an artist to death. Like Jesus overthrowing the carts of the money changers in the temple, she has simply destroyed one lithograph that was, without any doubt, a hateful expression against her religion. She will bear the burden of fines and a criminal record. But she will also be able to proudly declare that she fought back against hateful indecency.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Immigrant riots and the Rodriguez film, "Machete"
In a previous article, I discussed the new Robert Rodriguez movie, “Machete”, that was released in theaters this month, and the concerns many people (including myself) had based upon the information we had obtained about the film. Claiming to have received a script from the movie, Infowars’ Alex Jones and Aaron Dykes warned the public that Rodriguez had created a script that was contaminated with an anti-white, racist theme and encouraged Hispanics—especially illegal immigrants—to rise up against their perceived oppressors (white Americans) and fight them to the death.
In their September 5th article, “’Machete’ producers lied about racist bloodbath”, Jones and Dykes explain that, after having viewed the film, they concluded that their analysis was correct. When Rodriguez had been confronted about the reports of a racist and violent “call to arms” against whites, he admitted in an interview with Ain’t it Cool News that he had “had too much tequila” and that the script would be changed. However, after viewing the screen, Jones and Dykes claim that everything they had warned about from the pre-release script was still within the film “in one form or another”. In conclusion, Jones and Dykes stated that the most offensive and dangerous aspect of the film “was the one-sided approval of Hispanic revenge killings while uniformly demonizing the actions of the white groups involved.”
As Jones warned, Rodriquez’s irresponsible screenplay risked flaming tensions and inspiring waves of violence in the country as it spread the false impression that all whites—and especially the authorities—are racist murderers who gleefully kill Hispanics out of hate. Liberals, and especially Rodriguez, deny this and either can’t imagine how their propaganda films will have any impact on society, or (and more cynically) they do in fact know how their films may inspire a violent reaction, and actually hope it does.
As if to prove their point, riots have broken out in Los Angeles this week after LAPD officers fatally shot a drunk “immigrant” with a knife who allegedly attacked officers. Without getting too deeply into the details, reports on the incident indicate that officers on bicycles responded to a citizen report that “a man was threatening people with a knife.” Three officers responded and, as they approached the subject with the knife, he refused to put down orders issued in Spanish and English to drop the knife. Instead, the officers report that the suspect raised the knife over his head and lunged at an officer. The officer fired his weapon and killed the Guatemalan “day-laborer”.
In response to the shooting, the mostly Hispanic neighborhood has erupted in violence. Local Hispanics interviewed by the AP were quoted as saying “Killing a drunk isn’t right”, claiming that the man was “a drunk” but was “not violent”. Others are infuriated and demand that “the officer who did this should be subject to discipline”.
At least four individuals have now been arrested for the misdemeanor crime of “inciting a riot”. Hundreds of others have engaged in protests, at times turning violent. Police have arrested a total of 22 people, as of Tuesday night.
It would be a reach to presume that “Machete” had any influence in these events, but it is worth investigating. After all, the drunk Hispanic immigrant engaged in his threatening behavior on the same weekend “Machete” was released, as did the subsequent violence. Were any of these “immigrants” influenced by the message in “Machete”?
Whether or not “Machete” had any influence on these events is questionable. But one must ask the reasonable question: if a Guatemalan illegally entered Mexico and, in a drunken rage, threatened the lives of Mexican police, would locals riot and demand that the officers be punished for defending their own lives while restoring order?
The answer seems obvious, doesn’t it?
In their September 5th article, “’Machete’ producers lied about racist bloodbath”, Jones and Dykes explain that, after having viewed the film, they concluded that their analysis was correct. When Rodriguez had been confronted about the reports of a racist and violent “call to arms” against whites, he admitted in an interview with Ain’t it Cool News that he had “had too much tequila” and that the script would be changed. However, after viewing the screen, Jones and Dykes claim that everything they had warned about from the pre-release script was still within the film “in one form or another”. In conclusion, Jones and Dykes stated that the most offensive and dangerous aspect of the film “was the one-sided approval of Hispanic revenge killings while uniformly demonizing the actions of the white groups involved.”
As Jones warned, Rodriquez’s irresponsible screenplay risked flaming tensions and inspiring waves of violence in the country as it spread the false impression that all whites—and especially the authorities—are racist murderers who gleefully kill Hispanics out of hate. Liberals, and especially Rodriguez, deny this and either can’t imagine how their propaganda films will have any impact on society, or (and more cynically) they do in fact know how their films may inspire a violent reaction, and actually hope it does.
As if to prove their point, riots have broken out in Los Angeles this week after LAPD officers fatally shot a drunk “immigrant” with a knife who allegedly attacked officers. Without getting too deeply into the details, reports on the incident indicate that officers on bicycles responded to a citizen report that “a man was threatening people with a knife.” Three officers responded and, as they approached the subject with the knife, he refused to put down orders issued in Spanish and English to drop the knife. Instead, the officers report that the suspect raised the knife over his head and lunged at an officer. The officer fired his weapon and killed the Guatemalan “day-laborer”.
In response to the shooting, the mostly Hispanic neighborhood has erupted in violence. Local Hispanics interviewed by the AP were quoted as saying “Killing a drunk isn’t right”, claiming that the man was “a drunk” but was “not violent”. Others are infuriated and demand that “the officer who did this should be subject to discipline”.
At least four individuals have now been arrested for the misdemeanor crime of “inciting a riot”. Hundreds of others have engaged in protests, at times turning violent. Police have arrested a total of 22 people, as of Tuesday night.
It would be a reach to presume that “Machete” had any influence in these events, but it is worth investigating. After all, the drunk Hispanic immigrant engaged in his threatening behavior on the same weekend “Machete” was released, as did the subsequent violence. Were any of these “immigrants” influenced by the message in “Machete”?
Whether or not “Machete” had any influence on these events is questionable. But one must ask the reasonable question: if a Guatemalan illegally entered Mexico and, in a drunken rage, threatened the lives of Mexican police, would locals riot and demand that the officers be punished for defending their own lives while restoring order?
The answer seems obvious, doesn’t it?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 1)
Barack Obama’s charismatic performance during the 2008 electoral campaign was, to many, electrifying and highly exciting. His ability at eloquent oration, contrasted to former President Bush’s down-home style punctuated by frequent errors, was especially impressive, and led many people to suspend rational thought and analysis and come to the absurd conclusion held by historian Michael Beschloss, that Obama’s IQ was “off the charts”. Beschloss even went so far in his schoolgirl-giddiness to assert that Obama was “probably the smartest guy ever to become President.” Never mind that it was inevitably revealed that the teleprompter was to Obama what wax wings were for the mythological Daedalus. Remove the teleprompter…and Obama’s wings melt. It’s great entertainment to watch him crash to earth.
A year and a half into the presidency, Americans have caught on, and are increasingly disturbed by the absurd positions the administration has adopted. No longer appearing to be the great intellect many once believed him to be, Obama now appears incurably befuddled.
There is no issue that better highlights the administration’s contradictory and nonsensical folly, than the quandary in which it finds itself regarding the Arizona immigration bill, SB1070.
We all would do well to recall that Arizona passed SB1070 in response to unacceptable crime rates within the state connected to illegal immigration, and about which the Federal Government was simply not responding. The Government has, for several decades now, failed to fulfill its responsibility to secure the borders and to process the millions of immigrants who flaunt federal immigration laws. So the Arizona legislature carefully authored SB1070, with the specific intent of allowing local law enforcement to help enforce federal law. The law was in no way written to change, alter, or counteract federal law.
What’s more, out of concern that local law enforcement, while attempting to enforce the law, might violate the civil rights of citizens, the authors carefully stated in multiple locations that racial profiling was prohibited, and that officers could only request proof of citizenship when 1) the persons questioned had already been detained for other legal police matters, and 2) there were grounds for suspicion that the persons questioned were not US citizens.
The law was very carefully designed to support the federal laws, and to help federal agents to enforce the law, and not to undermine it.
High ranking members of the Obama administration could not even wait until they had actually read the bill before maligning it publicly. Department of Justice Attorney General Eric Holder was caught out while giving testimony before congress and had to admit that he had not read the law he was criticizing. The same embarrassment befell Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who went so far as to compare the Arizona law to Chinese human rights offenses.
It was no surprise when Attorney General Holder announced that he was filing suit to block the Arizona law. What was surprising was that the reason given had little to do with the concern about civil rights violations: the Obama administration’s position was that the Arizona law “interfered with” the Federal Government’s authority to regulate immigration.
There can be no doubt that the conflict between Arizona and the Obama administration will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, where Obama is going to have great difficulty convincing the Supreme Court that a state law that strengthens and supports federal law, somehow preempts the federal law. Consider marijuana laws as an analogy. There are federal laws that make growing, selling or distributing marijuana a crime. If a state passes laws that prohibit the growing, selling or distributing of marijuana and allows local police to enforce the law, they have not preempted the federal law, but have simply supported it. The Arizona immigration law does exactly that.
Click HERE to Read Part II
A year and a half into the presidency, Americans have caught on, and are increasingly disturbed by the absurd positions the administration has adopted. No longer appearing to be the great intellect many once believed him to be, Obama now appears incurably befuddled.
There is no issue that better highlights the administration’s contradictory and nonsensical folly, than the quandary in which it finds itself regarding the Arizona immigration bill, SB1070.
We all would do well to recall that Arizona passed SB1070 in response to unacceptable crime rates within the state connected to illegal immigration, and about which the Federal Government was simply not responding. The Government has, for several decades now, failed to fulfill its responsibility to secure the borders and to process the millions of immigrants who flaunt federal immigration laws. So the Arizona legislature carefully authored SB1070, with the specific intent of allowing local law enforcement to help enforce federal law. The law was in no way written to change, alter, or counteract federal law.
What’s more, out of concern that local law enforcement, while attempting to enforce the law, might violate the civil rights of citizens, the authors carefully stated in multiple locations that racial profiling was prohibited, and that officers could only request proof of citizenship when 1) the persons questioned had already been detained for other legal police matters, and 2) there were grounds for suspicion that the persons questioned were not US citizens.
The law was very carefully designed to support the federal laws, and to help federal agents to enforce the law, and not to undermine it.
High ranking members of the Obama administration could not even wait until they had actually read the bill before maligning it publicly. Department of Justice Attorney General Eric Holder was caught out while giving testimony before congress and had to admit that he had not read the law he was criticizing. The same embarrassment befell Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who went so far as to compare the Arizona law to Chinese human rights offenses.
It was no surprise when Attorney General Holder announced that he was filing suit to block the Arizona law. What was surprising was that the reason given had little to do with the concern about civil rights violations: the Obama administration’s position was that the Arizona law “interfered with” the Federal Government’s authority to regulate immigration.
There can be no doubt that the conflict between Arizona and the Obama administration will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, where Obama is going to have great difficulty convincing the Supreme Court that a state law that strengthens and supports federal law, somehow preempts the federal law. Consider marijuana laws as an analogy. There are federal laws that make growing, selling or distributing marijuana a crime. If a state passes laws that prohibit the growing, selling or distributing of marijuana and allows local police to enforce the law, they have not preempted the federal law, but have simply supported it. The Arizona immigration law does exactly that.
Click HERE to Read Part II
The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 2)
Evidence for the befuddled, confused and contradictory opinions on immigration within the Obama administration can be found by a cursory examination of their actions taken since the issue arose.
In the midst of Obama Administration vs Arizona immigration law battle, Obama appointed Harold Hurtt to head up the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of State and Local Coordination. Hurtt is a former police Chief in Houston and Phoenix, and is a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies.
Sanctuary cities are those municipalities that “that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.”
That is to say, that the governments of cities have made the decision unilaterally to ignore federal law and to prohibit their officials from enforcing them. These laws were a response by liberals within local governments to reject the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, under which a number of crimes became grounds for deportation.
As an example, The 1979 Los Angeles policy stated: “Officers shall not arrest, nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code”
To put it quite simply, being in the country illegally was already grounds for deportation, but the 1996 law specified that illegal immigrants who committed additional crimes locally should be arrested, held in custody, and then reported to ICE for deportation. The sanctuary city proponents like Mr. Hurtt, realizing that they could gain political power by courting the Hispanic vote, rebelled against the federal law and declared that they would not assist the Federal Government. What’s more, they actively prohibited police from asking questions about residency status and reporting them to ICE.
Many illegal immigrant criminals have been released because of these policies, and US citizens have become victims of their crimes as a result.
At about the same time Obama was appointing a “sanctuary city” proponent to head up ICE, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with Obama in the White House, and they shared their opinions about the law. Brewer got Obama to agree to send National Guard troops to the border—but only 1,200 of them—and said his administration would contact her in two weeks to inform her of his decision whether or not so sue Arizona. Weeks passed, and still no one from the White House had contacted the Governor’s office.
To the contrary, word of the suit was leaked to the press by Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Ecuador, infuriating Governor Brewer due to the lack of protocol and disrespect. “"If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is {to} inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," she said.
Insult was added to injury when Arizona Senator Kyl demanded an audience with Obama. In a meeting with his constituents after that one-on-one discussion, Kyl revealed that Obama had explained his unwillingness to help Arizona: “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all {the Republicans} won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform…In other words, they're holding it hostage."
He later responded to Obama’s speech calling for immigration reform by declaring: “All Americans would be better served if this Administration focused on implementing proven border security solutions rather than engaging in demagoguery and criticizing states that have been left to enforce immigration law because of the federal government’s unwillingness to do so.”
Taken together, we now see that while Obama publicly declares that he takes national security seriously, and agrees that the problem of illegal immigration should be solved, his actions reveal that he is more focused on winning votes from the Hispanic constituency instead of protecting the rest of the citizens. While he threatens to sue Arizona for passing a law that supports Federal Law, he then appoints a man who supports laws that undermine federal immigration laws to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And when confronted in the Oval Office by Senator Kyl, Obama reveals that he recognizes the scope and severity of the crisis in Arizona, but will not act to protect US citizens because to do so would be to give up political leverage that would win him electoral support from the Hispanic voters.
Obama’s focus is not on fulfilling his duties to protect the American citizenry, but rather, to protect and defend his own political career.
Click HERE to read the Conclusion
In the midst of Obama Administration vs Arizona immigration law battle, Obama appointed Harold Hurtt to head up the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of State and Local Coordination. Hurtt is a former police Chief in Houston and Phoenix, and is a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies.
Sanctuary cities are those municipalities that “that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.”
That is to say, that the governments of cities have made the decision unilaterally to ignore federal law and to prohibit their officials from enforcing them. These laws were a response by liberals within local governments to reject the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, under which a number of crimes became grounds for deportation.
As an example, The 1979 Los Angeles policy stated: “Officers shall not arrest, nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code”
To put it quite simply, being in the country illegally was already grounds for deportation, but the 1996 law specified that illegal immigrants who committed additional crimes locally should be arrested, held in custody, and then reported to ICE for deportation. The sanctuary city proponents like Mr. Hurtt, realizing that they could gain political power by courting the Hispanic vote, rebelled against the federal law and declared that they would not assist the Federal Government. What’s more, they actively prohibited police from asking questions about residency status and reporting them to ICE.
Many illegal immigrant criminals have been released because of these policies, and US citizens have become victims of their crimes as a result.
At about the same time Obama was appointing a “sanctuary city” proponent to head up ICE, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with Obama in the White House, and they shared their opinions about the law. Brewer got Obama to agree to send National Guard troops to the border—but only 1,200 of them—and said his administration would contact her in two weeks to inform her of his decision whether or not so sue Arizona. Weeks passed, and still no one from the White House had contacted the Governor’s office.
To the contrary, word of the suit was leaked to the press by Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Ecuador, infuriating Governor Brewer due to the lack of protocol and disrespect. “"If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is {to} inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," she said.
Insult was added to injury when Arizona Senator Kyl demanded an audience with Obama. In a meeting with his constituents after that one-on-one discussion, Kyl revealed that Obama had explained his unwillingness to help Arizona: “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all {the Republicans} won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform…In other words, they're holding it hostage."
He later responded to Obama’s speech calling for immigration reform by declaring: “All Americans would be better served if this Administration focused on implementing proven border security solutions rather than engaging in demagoguery and criticizing states that have been left to enforce immigration law because of the federal government’s unwillingness to do so.”
Taken together, we now see that while Obama publicly declares that he takes national security seriously, and agrees that the problem of illegal immigration should be solved, his actions reveal that he is more focused on winning votes from the Hispanic constituency instead of protecting the rest of the citizens. While he threatens to sue Arizona for passing a law that supports Federal Law, he then appoints a man who supports laws that undermine federal immigration laws to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And when confronted in the Oval Office by Senator Kyl, Obama reveals that he recognizes the scope and severity of the crisis in Arizona, but will not act to protect US citizens because to do so would be to give up political leverage that would win him electoral support from the Hispanic voters.
Obama’s focus is not on fulfilling his duties to protect the American citizenry, but rather, to protect and defend his own political career.
Click HERE to read the Conclusion
The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Conclusion)
The reality of the Presidency seems to be a major inconvenience to Obama, and complaints about the problems he “inherited” have become a rather tedious mantra emanated from the White House. Economic crises, two wars, terrorism, difficult healthcare policies, financial reform, a pestilent immigration issue boiling up at the wrong moment—and then the BP oil spill. Anyone with eyes not clouded by cult-like adoration for Obama could see that he failed to show leadership during more than two months as the spill worsened.
As the BP oil disaster unfolded, Obama found himself desperate to regain the appearance of being “in charge” after weeks of incompetence. He proudly declared that he was sending 17,000 troops to the Gulf of Mexico to help with the cleanup.
This pronouncement appeared to have perplexed a number of officials, such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. His spokesman, Dan Turner, said “We just don’t have a need for them right now.” Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, director of the public affairs with the Florida National Guard, seemed to have no idea what their mission was, and struggled to speak supportively: “While there is a challenge to determine which mission we may be called for, we continue to plan for potential missions.” In other words: we have no idea what we’re going to be doing, but we’ll try to be ready.
Only weeks before, Arizona Governor Brewer had reacted to an issue of National Security, decrying the drug-related violence occurring across the border was spilling over to Arizona, and that an uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants was wreaking havoc in her state, and she had contacted the White House to request that National Guard troops be sent to secure our borders and protect our citizen.
The President’s response: a law suit against the laws she had passed to try to protect her citizens, and a hollow promise to send a measly 1,200 troops.
But when Obama needed to appear decisive after his clumsy handling of the Gulf disaster, he ordered 17,000 troops to go there, without a clear mission. Yet again, political expediency trumps National Security.
With uncanny timing, a new report surfaced that tied the international terrorist organization, Hezbollah, to the Mexican drug cartels and illegal immigration. This national security threat is not new. The government has known for years that Mexican coyotes have helped members of violent gangs, such as MS13, and leftist organizations, such as the FMLN, enter the country. MS13 gang members were once caught helping to smuggle an al Qa’eda agent into the country. But the latest information did connect Hezbollah to the Mexican drug cartels and the expanding violence in Mexico that is spilling over the border, and should have been a clarion call to the White House to take the issue more seriously. It should have reiterated to the White House that Governor Brewer’s impassioned cries for help were warranted, and a real response required.
Instead, the White House proceeded with their lawsuit, and continued to ignore the Governor.
Realizing that the Federal Government was determined to undermine SB1070 on the grounds that it “interfered” with (or “preempted") Federal authority to make and enforce immigration law, Governor Brewer brilliantly countered by challenging the government to sue all sanctuary cities.
The administration’s response was stunning: the Federal Government sees no need to sue sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, while it considers SB1070 to be unconstitutional because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.
Tracy Schmaler, the spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law."
The statement is absurd. As previously discussed, sanctuary cities did not “passively” ignore the federal laws; they actively order their law enforcement to disregard it. In many cities, the District Attorneys actively lowered charges to lesser ones that would not require deportation—but did so only for illegal immigrants, and not for US citizens facing identical charges. How can it possibly be constitutional for cities to enact policies that give greater rights and protections to non-citizens than it gives to citizens?
Far from being “passive”, the sanctuary city laws directly undermined the intent of the Federal Immigration law, as was pointed out by the author of the 1996 law, Rep. Lamar Smith.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd... Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000?"
Take Rep. Smith’s analogy further: suppose Jackson Mississippi decided that it would passively ignore federal discrimination and desegregation laws. Would the Federal Government allow that to happen?
In California, there is a proposition up for a vote that would make the possession and sale of marijuana legal, in direct conflict with Federal laws. Will the Federal Government ignore this?
The attentive observer, carefully examining the details of the Obama administration’s policies, cannot help but notice the self-evident contradictions. A state law passed to mirror federal law and help in enforcement is criticized for “interfering” with enforcement, while policies enacted to ignore federal law and undermine the intent of the law is overlooked. A national security crisis on our border that calls for federal assistance is mocked, ignored, and then given short shrift, while a political crisis in the Gulf is given the troops needed at the border, even though the Gulf state authorities said they didn’t need the troops, and there was no clear sense of mission for them.
President Obama, once believed to possess astonishing clarity, instead suffers from an ideological astigmatism that prevents him from focusing on the country’s real needs, or the requirements of his office. Protecting the nation, securing its integrity, is the President’s primary responsibility, and not an annoying chore that the president can simply choose to ignore for political expediency.
As the BP oil disaster unfolded, Obama found himself desperate to regain the appearance of being “in charge” after weeks of incompetence. He proudly declared that he was sending 17,000 troops to the Gulf of Mexico to help with the cleanup.
This pronouncement appeared to have perplexed a number of officials, such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. His spokesman, Dan Turner, said “We just don’t have a need for them right now.” Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, director of the public affairs with the Florida National Guard, seemed to have no idea what their mission was, and struggled to speak supportively: “While there is a challenge to determine which mission we may be called for, we continue to plan for potential missions.” In other words: we have no idea what we’re going to be doing, but we’ll try to be ready.
Only weeks before, Arizona Governor Brewer had reacted to an issue of National Security, decrying the drug-related violence occurring across the border was spilling over to Arizona, and that an uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants was wreaking havoc in her state, and she had contacted the White House to request that National Guard troops be sent to secure our borders and protect our citizen.
The President’s response: a law suit against the laws she had passed to try to protect her citizens, and a hollow promise to send a measly 1,200 troops.
But when Obama needed to appear decisive after his clumsy handling of the Gulf disaster, he ordered 17,000 troops to go there, without a clear mission. Yet again, political expediency trumps National Security.
With uncanny timing, a new report surfaced that tied the international terrorist organization, Hezbollah, to the Mexican drug cartels and illegal immigration. This national security threat is not new. The government has known for years that Mexican coyotes have helped members of violent gangs, such as MS13, and leftist organizations, such as the FMLN, enter the country. MS13 gang members were once caught helping to smuggle an al Qa’eda agent into the country. But the latest information did connect Hezbollah to the Mexican drug cartels and the expanding violence in Mexico that is spilling over the border, and should have been a clarion call to the White House to take the issue more seriously. It should have reiterated to the White House that Governor Brewer’s impassioned cries for help were warranted, and a real response required.
Instead, the White House proceeded with their lawsuit, and continued to ignore the Governor.
Realizing that the Federal Government was determined to undermine SB1070 on the grounds that it “interfered” with (or “preempted") Federal authority to make and enforce immigration law, Governor Brewer brilliantly countered by challenging the government to sue all sanctuary cities.
The administration’s response was stunning: the Federal Government sees no need to sue sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, while it considers SB1070 to be unconstitutional because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.
Tracy Schmaler, the spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law."
The statement is absurd. As previously discussed, sanctuary cities did not “passively” ignore the federal laws; they actively order their law enforcement to disregard it. In many cities, the District Attorneys actively lowered charges to lesser ones that would not require deportation—but did so only for illegal immigrants, and not for US citizens facing identical charges. How can it possibly be constitutional for cities to enact policies that give greater rights and protections to non-citizens than it gives to citizens?
Far from being “passive”, the sanctuary city laws directly undermined the intent of the Federal Immigration law, as was pointed out by the author of the 1996 law, Rep. Lamar Smith.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd... Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000?"
Take Rep. Smith’s analogy further: suppose Jackson Mississippi decided that it would passively ignore federal discrimination and desegregation laws. Would the Federal Government allow that to happen?
In California, there is a proposition up for a vote that would make the possession and sale of marijuana legal, in direct conflict with Federal laws. Will the Federal Government ignore this?
The attentive observer, carefully examining the details of the Obama administration’s policies, cannot help but notice the self-evident contradictions. A state law passed to mirror federal law and help in enforcement is criticized for “interfering” with enforcement, while policies enacted to ignore federal law and undermine the intent of the law is overlooked. A national security crisis on our border that calls for federal assistance is mocked, ignored, and then given short shrift, while a political crisis in the Gulf is given the troops needed at the border, even though the Gulf state authorities said they didn’t need the troops, and there was no clear sense of mission for them.
President Obama, once believed to possess astonishing clarity, instead suffers from an ideological astigmatism that prevents him from focusing on the country’s real needs, or the requirements of his office. Protecting the nation, securing its integrity, is the President’s primary responsibility, and not an annoying chore that the president can simply choose to ignore for political expediency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
