July 07, 2010

Holder's Follies

Every village needs an idiot but it is best for an Administration to get rid of the poor performers quick as they can. Presidents often make the mistake of favoring loyalty over competence. Obama is doing that with Eric Holder, who is currently the weak link in his cabinet.

Holder attacked the Arizona immigration law before he read it. We don’t know if he has bothered to read it yet, but he is pitting the power of the Federal government against the people of Arizona. Talk about a waste of time and money. He claims that they are flaunting Federal prerogatives. But he isn’t bothered by various sanctuary cities that brag about flaunting Federal law. This is all about politics.

The Federal attack on the people of Arizona is remarkable in its speed. This Administration does almost nothing quickly. Think of how long it took them a long time to pay attention to the oil spill in the Gulf. But they can move with alacrity when the political stars are aligned.

Holder avers that he worries about intimidation but we all know that intimidation doesn't bother Holder. Even though he had video of a couple guys with clubs standing outside the polls making racist comments to voters, Holder overruled his career lawyers and dropped the case against the thugs, one of whom openly advocates killing babies of other races. Why does Holder protect racists? Didn't he called us a nation of cowards about race? Who is the coward now?

Watch the videos here & here.

Posted by Christine & John at July 7, 2010 10:10 PM
Comments
Comment #303209

Salazar is another weak link.

Though, I have to confess, I didn’t think Holder could make a constitutionally legitimate case against the AZ law. But, you know what, he has. Whether it prevails or not, or should, is another question. But, Holder has, in his appeal, made a sound legal case and it has nothing to do with the potential of bad cops misusing the law, which constitutes the shallow grasp of the media surrounding the issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2010 10:26 AM
Comment #303212

Holder and the Az. law is a waste of time and tax dollars. The New Black Panther insident and dropping of charges stinks of racisim. He needs to go.

Posted by: MAG at July 8, 2010 10:56 AM
Comment #303213

Federal control of immigration policy: It’s not just a good idea, It’s the law.

Should Arizona begin to send ambassadors to the world powers, if it feels like stepping on constitutional federal prerogatives? Mint its own money?

Citizenship is a national, federal matter, and the laws should be written by Congress, not by state legislatures.

I know, I know, you’ll be trotting out polls, trotting out emotional appeals, trotting out claims that the Federal Government is negligent, so on and so forth.

But the Constitution doesn’t mince words. Immigration is a federal power, and citizenship is a federal matter as well. It’s got to be. It’s a basic power for a nation to have. We can’t have Arizona deciding the law on enforcing citizenship, not without inviting fifty immigration policies for one nation. As soon as you open the door to one state deciding policy, regardless of federal policy, then your one state making itself a hellhole for illegal immigrants could translate to another state making itself a haven.

When we have state policies, that’s the point of having the states decide But with immigration, the Constitution quite explicitly calls upon Congress to ” establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

Uniform. None of Congress’s powers rest upon Congress’s decisions being good. The power to issue debt in our country’s name is not predicated on fiscal responsibility. Nor is good management a prerequisite for Congress to exercise the power of the Mint. Good management of the Patent and Copyright process are not required for Congress to determine the matter. It was believed that we the people would punish the federal government’s less permanent officials for their improper legislation or execution of these duties.

So, let’s be blunt here: The Obama Administration is protecting the Federal Government’s prerogative here. We don’t make special rules for states, just because they dissent, even rightfully, from the federal policy.

As for the other matter? You folks just love your manufactured controversies. Yes, your boy is playing martyr, but he has NO, absolutely NO first-hand knowledge of the case. He’s not a whistleblower talking about a case he was involved in. He’s a political hack, stirring up trouble for his own ends.

Your claims have serious problems. Obama’s DOJ was not the DOJ that dropped the charges:

Bush DOJ, not Obama, made decision not to pursue criminal charges. Before President Bush left office, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint asking for an injunction against the New Black Panther Party and some of its members. In his May 14 testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration’s Justice Department “determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes” but did “file a civil action on January 7th, 2009.” From Perez’s testimony:

Additionally, the Obama Justice department sought, and got the maximum possible injunction against the man who carried the nightstick.

Finally, no voter ever came forward to claim that they were intimidated.

The Bush Justice Department also declined to prosecute a pair of Minutemen who stood outside a largely hispanic polling place armed with guns, while they passed out English only and ant-immigration literature.

Lastly:

Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican who serves as co-chairwoman of the Civil Rights Commission and who is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a July 6 National Review Online blog post criticizing the “overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges” surrounding the case. Thernstrom wrote, “Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes.”

So, the Obama Administration gets the blame, once again, for the policy decisions of the Bush Administration, despite the fact that they were tougher on the offenders in question.

Right. Scandal-mongering, gossiping, so on and so forth. Being otherwise absolutely useless to the American people, the Republicans have decided to dredge up racial animosities, incite class warfare against the poor and unemployed, and generaly scapegoat and villify their way back into the power that their screwups and incompetent decisions lost them.

And you wonder why I take such a hard line against you folks nowadays.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2010 11:04 AM
Comment #303217

Stephen, meanwhile I agree with your general position on the racist Arizona law, your argument here is weak. The intent of the law is in no way meant to affect immigration policy, but rather to enforce existing policy. Illegal immigration is… illegal. This new, misguided law in no way makes it more illegal. It simply gives law enforcement more power to enforce existing law.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 8, 2010 01:12 PM
Comment #303219

Doug Langworthy-
The intent of the law affects how people are questioned on the matter, and how it is enforced. Note that plenty of the laws supporters cite the need to step in and do a job they’re saying the Federal Government is not doing sufficiently well. That’s textbook immigration law issues.

Because of the Supremacy Clause, Federal Law automatically trumps any attempt by the state law to intrude on this subject.

Illegal immigration is illegal, but it’s the Federal government that writes and enforces the law that’s being broken. The Federal Government has exclusive authority here, according the the Constitution.

That is, unless it chooses to delegate it, which the Feds did, actually. State Officers can enforce Federal, Congressionally mandated law after taking a training course on the matter. There’s no need for the states to write a law to enable state officials to enforce the law, because Congress already has written such a law.

This is why the Obama Administration’s angle is that the law intrudes on Federal Prerogative. It’s an easy case to make and an easy case to win. States cannot set immigration policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2010 01:48 PM
Comment #303220

Doug, there’s the rub, in an otherwise sound statement. Enforcement. The law is very specific about certain enforcement jurisdictions. States, for example, are not entitled to pursue investigation and apprehension of federal tax dodgers on their own. That enforcement jurisdiction lies entirely within the federal government’s authority and jurisdiction. Same is true, Holder argues, with immigration and citizenship issues, and it has legally sound merit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2010 02:08 PM
Comment #303223

SD
You are mixing policy and law together. The AZ law is a concurrent action with the Fed. law. There are a number of court cases that uphold states concurrently enforcing Fed. law. AZ is not trying to establish or even enforce policy. It is a shame that BHO, EH, DOJ, et al are going to spend even more taxpayers money to lose a case that has now merit for the feds. They and their hypocrites are letting the sanctuary cities alone as they explictly are breaking the law. That is called selective law enforcement. You have not stated why you are really against the AZ law, but I suppose you are for the federal law which is a mirror of the AZ law. The feds are not going to enforce the law whether we like it or not. They want those added Hispanic voters for the 2012 race. Honesty is a very viable part of law enforcement and it is not being employed by our “beloved leaders(sic)” in Washington. All the while people are being killed, maimed, kidnapped, shot at, held without cause, and much more right here in the state of AZ.

I am truly irritated by the do gooders and know-it-alls who want the borders to stay open for those poor folk who spend up to $10,000 to get here and far too many are carring drugs for the cartels. Of course they are trying to find the good life. They found it making those big bucks being mules for criminals.

There is a title for a book if I ever saw it. “How to Mule for Drug Lords—for dummies”. And of course the book should not be yellow except to stand for cowards. It should be blood red.

I’m just getting started and it’s lunch time. Continuing later.

Posted by: tom humes at July 8, 2010 02:47 PM
Comment #303224

Stephen is right about the merits of Holder’s case. It may be frustrating that the federal government has not done enough to secure our borders but that is the federal government’s job. Not the states. There’s a good reason why immigration policy is under federal law. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws in this country. We can only have one that is enforced evenly across all 50 states. States do not get to determine who is in this country legally. If they did, someone in this country legally in one state could find themselves deported for crossing state lines. States are not constitutionally allowed to arrest someone for violating a federal law. It’s pretty darn simple even if you disagree with the way the federal government has handled our borders. The answer is to change representatives in the federal government and get laws changed (or get laws enforced). It’s not the quick way to do anything and reactionaries like those in the AZ prefer to bypass the constitution instead of following legal channels. It’s one thing to arrest someone for violating a state law, find out that they are here illegally and then turn them over to federal authorities it’s quite another to go out searching people minding their own business and arresting them because they do not have ID on them - the potential for abuse is way too great. Last time I checked it wasn’t illegal to walk out of your house with out a passport or driver’s license. I do it all the time. If my skin was dark and I lived in Arizona that could get me arrested under this stupid law.

Posted by: tcsned at July 8, 2010 02:47 PM
Comment #303227

As I have said a million times, if you are serious about solving the illegal immigration problems, you must focus on the demand side instead of the supply side. It’s easy math. Finding and stopping millions of people from coming across our borders is a lot tougher than busting a few thousand business owners who knowingly hire illegal workers because they can pay them less, offer no benefits, and/or pay no taxes. It’s not hard to check someone’s identity when they are hired. You can build walls and hire every man, woman, and child to guard that border and you won’t be able to stop people coming into this country if they have motivation to come here. Start putting CEOs in jail and you will see illegal immigration slow down to a trickle.

Posted by: tcsned at July 8, 2010 03:03 PM
Comment #303230

tom humes-
Policy IS law. When the President gives an executive order, that’s got the effect of law. When an agency issues a regulation within its authority, that is law. When a treaty is ratified, it carries the force of law. When the Supreme Court strikes a statute, that’s legally binding, and essentially changes the law. Even when it decides a case, that effects the body of law and its meaning.

Government is all about the law.

The constitution itself is the law.

The law says that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in these matters. It calls for a uniform rule of naturalization. Uniform. Arizona doesn’t get to write its own policy. The constitution wants a single policy for this one nation.

Like I said, Congress’s powers are not given to them on the basis of their quality of employment. The Framers intended us to kick out folks that failed to write good policy on this front. What they hoped is that we would get a consistent policy that reflected the wishes of the country of the home, not merely one place or another.

You have not stated why you are really against the AZ law, but I suppose you are for the federal law which is a mirror of the AZ law.

First, I have commented on it, taking the position that the law should not be applied based on mere reasonable suspicion, but on probable cause. I have also said that the law will inevitably lead to harrassment of those who gains suspicion merely by dress, speech, or ethnic appearance, not positive evidence that they have broken our laws.

Lastly, I have argued elsewhere as well that Arizona has no right to mirror what the Federal government does, because the law is clear that the Federal government is in charge of these matters.

You’re not just getting started. You’re already finished, according to the Constitution. The supremacy clause clearly states that the Federal Government’s law holds when the constitution gives the Feds that power.

If you can’t argue from the constitution, the best you could hope for is an act of judicial activism, a distortion of the Constitution. Apart from that, your argument is not one that go much further.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2010 04:22 PM
Comment #303232

Eric Holder is just one weak link in Obama’s cabinet. One of many.

Tom Humes; it is interesting that when Gibbs was asked by the woman reporter about the illegality of the sanctuary cities, his answer was “I’ll have to get back with you on that”. Me thinks we will never hear that subject brought up by Gibbs again.

You constitutional scholars on the left can defend the Obama lawsuit against AZ, all you want. With 62% of Americans supporting the law, who do you think stands to loose on this one. Blood bath in November and can’t wait. There is not one poll that shows a positive outlook for democrats. Speaking of democrats; has anyone heard any democrat incumbents running on the achievements of Obama?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 8, 2010 04:33 PM
Comment #303234

Anyone heard Gietner (the elf) trying to convince business that the Obama admin is not against business? Yes, he was out there today, making the claim. How many believe that lie?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 8, 2010 04:46 PM
Comment #303235

SD & tcsned
Use whatever symantical argument you want, AZ is going to enforce the fed statue with a lighter touch of AZ law. Law enforcement officers every day enforce fed law at the state level. So, why don’t you go after the feds for not enforcing the fed law against sanctuary cities and against illegal immigration. The feds have scored a -0 on a scale of 1 to 10. Your argument is futile if you are trying to put forth something to battle this problem. Why did the federal govt authorize deputy sheriffs in AZ to make arrests of illegal aliens? They went thru a program to get the federal authority. Is not that enforcing the precious fed law? The head of ICE says he is not going to accept IA’s from AZ arrested under the new AZ law. How is that for top quality law enforcment and setting an example for how people should abide by the law. You cannot spin or twist that no matter what. Your argument is lost just like the feds will lose their case against AZ and all those other locations who are going to have similar legislation. You guys should take off your liberal cape and put on an American cape and support the government institutions who are doing what is correct. But, that is an impossible request for a liberal.

Posted by: tom humes at July 8, 2010 04:46 PM
Comment #303236

It will be interesting to see how the SC handles this lawsuit case if it goes that far, considering Obama has made enemies on the SC.

Holder’s motives are racially based. As is the proposed Dodd-Frank financial bill.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html

Dodd-Frank is like putting the fox in charged of guarding the hen house. What a circus…

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 8, 2010 04:54 PM
Comment #303237

Tom Humes & Baretta9,
What then, do you propose to do about those that hire illegal workers? Why doesn’t Arizona go after them? Don’t you think a smarter approach is to go after the several thousand worst offenders of illegal hiring than to try to find millions and to stop millions from coming to this country. They have been pretty much left alone by Democrats and Republicans alike. Mainly because they give money to these same politicians. There is nothing you can do to stop the flow of people into this country. That border is too long. All I hear from the right is go after Mexicans and you wonder why this movement gets called racist. These people do not come here to take advantage of our lame health care system or our equally lame welfare system. They come here to work because some rich guy thinks he can get even richer by employing someone illegally. Those guys are the real criminals not some poor farm worker picking lettuce. He/she was enticed here by an American. Save your anger for these guys. They have depressed wages for everyone who works for a living. Talk about un-American.

Keep blaming Democrats like Dodd and Frank or Holder or Obama - they share some of it but it is equally McCain, McConnell, and those guys. The GOP did nothing when they were in power, the Dems are doing nothing now. If the GOP takes power again, they will do nothing about this issue because it makes them too much money. Until CEOs start going to jail this problem will remain and get worse. I don’t think anyone has a practical plan to deal with all of the illegal immigrants already here. Rounding up that many people just ain’t gonna happen. Granting them amnesty and/or citizenship has a lot of problems too. I don’t know what to do and it sounds like you don’t either. I do know how to dry up the demand side and eliminate much of the motivation to come to this country for most of the people who come here.

Posted by: tcsned at July 8, 2010 05:16 PM
Comment #303238

tom humes-
Immigration is made explicitly Federal in the constitution. The enforcement of Federal law is delegated to the states by acts of Congress, not by acts of state legislatures.

Or, put another way, the Feds can given State law enforcement officials the go-ahead to enforce Federal law on their behalf, but the States cannot reach up and take that from the Feds without Congress saying so. such enforcement can be delegated, but not demanded from the state level.

I’m really not telling you that I prefer an immigration enforcement system that does not work. I’m telling you that as a Constitutionalist, you should not consider that matter negotiable. The problem must be dealt with at a Federal level, because the constitution says it’s a federal concern.

As for why the head of ICE refused to accept IA’s arrested under the AZ law? It’s a pretty simple concept really: If you are disputing the legitimacy of the law, you cannot accept what comes of that law. The Obama Administration cannot both dispute the law and prosecute people under it at the same time.

As for this comment?

You guys should take off your liberal cape and put on an American cape and support the government institutions who are doing what is correct. But, that is an impossible request for a liberal.

First, if I were into capes, I would not make your venomous disctinction between one that is American and one that is liberal. Second, I support institutions doing what is correct, and it is not correct for a state to usurp the authority to legislate on immigration matters.

The Republicans, of their own free will, have difficulties with people taking opinions other than theirs. They call them names, impugn their patriotism. I will not say they cannot recover from this state, but I will say that they’ve got to realize that their track record on this issue is questionable at best, and once again they are blaming liberals for something their people and their policies set wrong. Violating the Constitution to save it strikes me as a hysterical and needless response to a genuine policy problem.

Beretta9-
If we lose, we lose defending the Constitution, not merely pretending to uphold it, and setting it aside when it’s inconvenient to our agenda.

Republicans, as a group, are sincere about their support of the Constitution. However, all too often, they get their information from people with more agenda to pass on than actual familiarity with the Constitution’s legal concepts. For example, though a majority support depriving the children of Illegal aliens the birthright of citizenship, they forget that the birthright is confered directly from the constitution, and so would take an amendment to the constitution to change it.

Folks will run on healthcare, they will run on Wall Street Reform when they get it through. They will run on the things the Stimulus did for their communities, just as Republicans have, without telling people that they voted against it.

Meanwhile, Republicans will run on keeping their big mouths shut. Sharron Angle recently gave another gift to Harry Reid, in the form of a stated belief that the $20 Billion BP Escrow Fund was a slush fund. She can’t unsay it, evne though she’s walked it back now.

Your problem is that the Republicans can’t really say what they’re thinking, what they believe, without attracting the public’s anger at what has gone wrong during Bush’s leadership, which embodied many of those agendas and stated beliefs. Republicans are forced to muzzle their candidates, keep them away from the media.

It’s still months before November, quit counting your chickens before they’re hatched.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2010 05:37 PM
Comment #303240

I don’t think it’s a good idea for the DOJ to challenge the AZ law until we actually see how it will be enforced.

Currently, the law states that in the event of “lawful contact” with a law enforcement official, anyone may be demanded to prove their legal residence. This goes against the fourth amendment which protects against searches and seizures without probable cause.

For the rightists:
Think about it this way, what would be your response if gun laws were enforced in a manner similar to the AZ law. Imagine this, law enforcement comes into “lawful contact” with person x. Law enforcement thinks person x may be carrying illegal/unregistered arms, so law enforcement conducts a search on person x in order to uncover arms in violation of the law. Would you not think that person x’s rights have been violated by this exercise?

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 8, 2010 06:36 PM
Comment #303241

Az. has a law making it illegal to hire illegals that if I’m not mistaken was challenged in the courts and the state prevailed. Why don’t the DOJ go after the santuary cities who flaunt federal law?
Stephen, Republicans have difficulties with people taking opinions other then theirs? Stephen you have no room to talk, anyone who goes against your opinion is wrong. To you anything a republican would do would be wrong, even if it would be the best thing for this country. You want everyone to think like a Democrat, but it ain’t going to happen.

Posted by: MAG at July 8, 2010 06:49 PM
Comment #303242

tscned wrote; “It’s one thing to arrest someone for violating a state law, find out that they are here illegally and then turn them over to federal authorities it’s quite another to go out searching people minding their own business and arresting them because they do not have ID on them -“

Apparently you are not aware that those here legally, but not citizens, are required to carry their documents with them at all times and to produce them willingly upon request by a lawful authority.

I believe the federal lawsuit will prevail over AZ and in doing so will further damage Barry Boop and his band of blunderers aka (BBBB).

The polling data clearly demonstrates that the majority of voters favor the AZ law. By crushing AZ, and other states considering similar legislation will Barry win favor with these voters or earn their disgust?

For voters, this is an emotional issue, not a constitutional one. And, emotion wins elections. Everyone knows that the voters blame Barry for not taking more immediate action in the gulf with the oil spill. No matter how he spins it, the buck remains on his desk.

Barry will win this battle but lose the war. And, as voters see the violence and drug crossing continue in our border states does anyone believe they will blame AZ. Of course not, they will blame the Feds and, right now, that is BBBB.

Barry is not nearly as smart and agile as some would like to think. He could have handled this entirely differently with a much better outcome for both him, AZ and all America. In his meeting with the AZ govenor he could have used his persuasive powers to convince the gov that the feds meant business about gaurding our borders and then backed it up with real enforcement.

OH, well…I don’t mind BBBB going down in flames while clinging to this hollow victory.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2010 06:52 PM
Comment #303243

WR, An officer has probable cause if someone is in the act of breaking a law. And to your example no his rights weren’t violated especially if the person is acting in a suspiciuos manner. I think you ought to watch the program Cops, you might find it inlightning.

Posted by: MAG at July 8, 2010 06:57 PM
Comment #303248

Royal - you said, “Apparently you are not aware that those here legally, but not citizens, are required to carry their documents with them at all times and to produce them willingly upon request by a lawful authority.”

I do know that. This is well and fine for foreign national in our country. What about US citizens who look foreign? If you skin is a certain color, are you now required to carry documentation with you everywhere you go? Or are you in favor of a national ID card that every man, woman, or child must carry with them at all times? There’s also nothing in this law that says that you have to look foreign to be searched and detained. Do you carry proof of citizenship with you everywhere you go?

Posted by: tcsned at July 8, 2010 07:59 PM
Comment #303250

tcsned asks…”What about US citizens who look foreign? If you skin is a certain color, are you now required to carry documentation with you everywhere you go?”

NO, although some form of identification may be necessary if one is legally stopped by law enforcement. Otherwise, one may be legally detained. Usually a driver’s license or some other accepted form of identification is enough.

I know you are just baiting me tcsned and I don’t mind. I am curious however about “looking foreign”. We are a nation of foreigners are we not? Is it skin color, speech, dress, or manerisms that you would consider when judging one a “foreigner”? How exactly does that work for you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2010 08:14 PM
Comment #303252

AZ has an employer sanction law. If a business hires IA’s without finding out they are here illegally, their business license can be put on suspension, and if caught a second time will loose all rights to operate a business in AZ. AZ authorities are making arrests and are prosecuting businesses who violate this law. AZ is going about it the right way.

People above are talking about illegal Hispanics. This law applies to the thousands of Middle Easterners, the Asians, the Africans; it makes no difference where they are from, here in AZ they will be pursued in the manner set forth in SB1070, which should be read by those of you that have not taken the time to read it. It is clear, 16 pages, not written in legalese, you do not have to hire an attorney to explain it to you and lastly you do not have to press one to read it in English.

Posted by: tom humes at July 8, 2010 08:49 PM
Comment #303254
An officer has probable cause if someone is in the act of breaking a law.


Very true, however “lawful contact” includes interactions with law enforcement that do not involve an officer observing an individual breaking the law. Something as benign as stopping to ask an officer for directions is “lawful contact”; another example is a witness or victim interacting with police regarding a crime unrelated to immigration.

In the words of the Arizona Republican House majority’s Homeland Security research analyst, Rene Guillen,

[L]awful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn’t just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire.

Thoughts from an Arizona State University law professor
In fact, the law doesn’t define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of “contact” is “immediate proximity,” which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.
Law professor [Marc] Miller says “lawful contact” could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him — something police are allowed to do — he may have established “lawful contact.”

Tuscon Police Chief Roberto Villasenor shares his interpretation

I think where a lot of people are getting confused is those instances where we stop someone for a criminal violation, we have some reason for that stop and that contact, but I don’t believe that’s what we’re talking about in regard to this law.
This law is talking about in the course of any legal contact, as well as when we talk to a witness of a crime or when we talk to a victim of a crime. Those are legal contacts of law enforcement. Now we look at it in the context of those legal contacts.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 8, 2010 09:04 PM
Comment #303256

Warped Reality-
If they feel it violates Delegated powers, they may not feel it necessary to let the law be put into practice. The very act of legislating it would be unconstitutional.

MAG-
Define suspcious. No seriously. One of the biggest problem with the bill is that it uses a lose standard of “reasonable suspicion” as its threshold. That’s lower on the rung than probable cause, and there’s a reason that people are hesitant to see it used: What is reasonable suspicion? How much does that officer have to prove, in order for the case to move forward?

These are not insignificant protections we’re afforded. The call for evidence, for reasons for the search and seizure is a check on police powers, that prevent them from being used arbitrarily, without the justification of a crime. It also keeps cops honest, forcing folks to provide good evidence that an actual crime has been committed, before they can arrest somebody.

Royal Flush-
I don’t believe people are handing out awards to you for your increasingly convoluted names for Barack Obama and his Administration.

Obama has Constitutional law on his side. The Federal Government determines immigration policy. End of story. Full Stop. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. It doesn’t matter how emotional you make the situation, sooner or later, somebody’s defense attorney would have jumped on top of this.

And really, do we need emotion here? Emotion seems to be leading us to dumb policies, policies that for all their bluff and bluster, are ineffective.

This law? It would have been struck down sooner or later. For all your fantasies about righteous re-writing the constitution, the document plainly says things in a way that even a conservative judge would have to acknowledge. There isn’t much ambiguity. Even if you throw the Tenth Amendment in there, it’s worthless, because that doesn’t take from government any power already delegated to it by the parts that came before it.

As for the whole looking foreign thing? Who do you think they’re looking for down there? Who do you think they’re trying to stop from coming over the border? The Swedes? The Mandarin Chinese? The Ottoman Turks? They’re looking to bust Mexicans. There are some nice and common stereotypes about how these people look. That’s how you’re going to get that profiling.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2010 09:18 PM
Comment #303257

Stephen, You need to watch the program COPS maybe you’ll learn something about the real world.

Posted by: MAG at July 8, 2010 09:49 PM
Comment #303258

Stephen

You are incorrect in saying that if you lose, you lose defending the Constitution. If the Federal legal assault on the people of Arizona fails, it means that it was NOT Constitutional.

Let’s see who wins.

IMO - Holder will back down. They are playing this for politics. When/if the politics stop working, they will back off.

Holder has no concept of what is right and wrong. He is purely self-interested politically. He has to go.

Posted by: C&J at July 8, 2010 09:59 PM
Comment #303264

RF is correct: the voters don’t care about whether the law is Federal or State; they just want the law enforced. Obama can go after the AZ law, but this will only infuriate the voters. Just because the MSM won’t touch the subject, it doesn’t mean the American people don’t know what is going on, and when Gibbs begins to stutter when asked about illegal sanctuary cities, the voters know it is a political game.

There are career democrat politicians, who come from secure states and districts, and yet they are in real trouble. The left has been running their mouth for the past two years that the people have spoken and that conservatives should just role over and play dead. Well, what will you say when the people speak in November. What we have, is an arrogant 20% of the population who thinks they can dictate to the other 80%. Won’t work boys, 20% liberals do not make a majority.

Obama has awakened a sleeping giant; we have states now wanting to use eminent domain to get their state lands back from the feds. This immigration law in AZ is the tip of the iceberg. Much like the NRA winning gun rights in Chicago and DC. Once the case is won, everyone files a suit. If Holder backs off or looses the case, there will be laws in every state. And when it happens, you on the left can blame arrogant Barry for pushing it to this point. To please his liberal environmental base, he placed a 6-month moratorium on drilling for oil. Now he even has democrats speaking out against him and on top of that, a judge shoots down his moratorium.

What we have is a pure case of a man who thought he was a god; only to find out he was really in over his head. What ever possessed you guys on the left to believe a man with no more ability than being a “community organizer” could be a president? He and his corrupt cabinet are no more than a joke and an embarrassment to our country. The left is turning on him fast, and where is Bill and Hillary? Could it be, Hillary has plans in 2012, and I am sure Bill would love to change his legacy by seeing his wife elected? Now be truthful, how many of you on the left, wish Hillary had been on the ticket instead of Barry?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 12:06 AM
Comment #303267


I don’t know if it is part and partial to our political structure or just irony that the party that is most responsible for the massive influx of illegal immigrants is the party that stands to gain the most from the backlash.

Posted by: jlw at July 9, 2010 01:17 AM
Comment #303268

When AZ wins this all 6 suits it will be a win for America and the rule of law. Simple until man sticks his chocolate coverd shoes into his mouth. The ACLU is beginning to lose more and more of these cases. Hopefully their days are numbered in small numbers. Likewise those orgs that want to destroy the Constitution whether piece by piece or the whole picture.

“And really, do we need emotion here? Emotion seems to be leading us to dumb policies, policies that for all their bluff and bluster, are ineffective.” Stephen I thought I would never hear you say that about the liberal left. Congratulations for waking up!!!

Dims in November will have a platform of Goose Eggs. Maybe that will be part of their Global Warming program. Or maybe the new stimulus package. Or phase two of Health Care Reform. Any way you cut it Goose Eggs are zeroes. Now that is what I call reform!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tom humes at July 9, 2010 02:02 AM
Comment #303270

MAG-
Cops is Television. Infotainment. Shot from a point of view, with the cops literally telling the story much of the time, and with an editing crew going in in post-production and cutting out the boring parts.

It’s not reality. It’s bits and pieces of reality, and there’s an editor at a workstation somewhere cutting things together. It’s also not objective. Like I said before, the Cops often narrate events for you, so that’s one dose of their perspective. The other dose is that they’re basically following the Cops around. This isn’t a show where you see one side of the story, and then the other. It’s Cops.

Our nation’s civil liberties are built on the notion that the cops aren’t always right, and that the average citizen needs a check against them. The cops need to have the authority to go after criminals, but people also need the freedoms to make sure that cops only go after them when there’s reason to go after them, and that there is due process in making sure that the system works towards eliminating the innocent from search, seizure, and ultimately punishment.

So, while it’s nice to get the cop’s point of view, their point of view is no more “reality” than anybody else’s. In fact, sometimes their view is completely mistaken, and no system can long remain just if the fallibility and corruption of that point of view is not allowed for as possible.

C&J-
Well, I may lose. Then we wait for what higher courts say, because the government almost certainly appeals this. But that won’t make the government’s case unconstitutional. There’s nothing unconstitutional about a legal case being offered. It merely means the judgment goes against them. The question will be “Why.”

But what’s with the loaded words? “Federal legal assault on the people of Arizona?” Get over yourselves! It’s a constitutional challenge to immigration law passed by a State. I could just as well turn it around and say that the Arizona law is an assault on the constitution and the freedoms of the people of the United States of America!

See, I too can propagandize by appealing to emotions with loaded words!

You can dispense with the partisan assaults on Holder’s character. I’m not impressed. You want to talk about the political use of the office, how about the US Attorneys firing? How about your forcing prosecution of politically sensitive cases to influence the elections? How about the dozens of AG’s around the country who fired off frivolous challenges to the Healthcare Reform bill at their taxpayer’s expense?

I won’t go so far to say these people have no sense of right or wrong, but their political self-interest is shining through.

Berreta9-

the voters don’t care about whether the law is Federal or State;

First, the media touches the subject plenty. Second, if the voters really care, in enough numbers, they can push it at the correct level. Obama’s got a simple explanation for what he’s done: Immigration is a federal, national affair, and the constitution says so explicitly.

Republicans are playing the wrong side of a number of arguments, and you don’t realize that. Why is it that your highest profile candidates are running from the cameras? Why is it that every time Harry Reid’s challenger opens her mouth, it appears less and less likely that she’s going to win? Why is Jack Conway even with Rand Paul, despite the politics of the state? You want to know why? Because as much as you bash and slime our opinions, our policies, you have none of your own. You just have all the industry lobbyists, telling your people what to say. That, or the extreme right-wing rhetoric that horrifies people every time it comes up.

As for that community organizer? You’re leaving out several resume entries, like Graduate with honors from Harvard Law, A professor of Constititonal Law, a career as a state senator, and a short career as one of Illinois’s US Senators.

But of course, you’re belittling him, insulting him to punch down the morale of your opposition. Why should you be fair and truthful? You’re aiming to destroy him, not critique him. He has to be the affirmative action candidate. He has to be taken to task for using a teleprompter, though every president since Eisenhower’s used one.

Well, that’s politics. But the fact is, your rising stars aren’t exactly sterling material, so you must bash and you must demean and degrade, or otherwise your candidate’s can’t win. When a man’s views make him questionable even in Kentucky, you know he’s behind the times, or outside the mainstream.

As for the Six month moratorium? I guess you’re for inspectors having to determine the safety of all these rigs while folks are working on them. We just had, and are still having the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history, and you’re saying we should just put the blinders on, and go ahead with Business as usual.

This how Bush screwed things up. He underestimated the human capacity for tragically misguided behavior.

tom humes-
The Democrats have a platform of actual achievements. The goose eggs belong to the Republicans, who can only campaign on the nullification of the agenda of those sent in to clean up their mess. Given their politics, all they can do when they get into power, will be to make more messes, which means people will kick them right back out.

Folks don’t want a government that hands them a big goose egg when they ask for help. Republicans are playing with fire by blocking unemployment benefits, and they don’t have sense to realize it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2010 08:36 AM
Comment #303271

Stephen, When the Federal government dosen’t do anything to protect the people of a state from being overrun by illegals, who is going to protect that state? Would you have the same attitude if your state and town were the ones the feds were thumbing their noses at? Or would you be wanting the same action the state of Az. took?
As for the six month moritorium, the courts got that one right. With unemployment as high as it is you want more unemployment. Democrats achievements are only for the minority because the majority of the people don’t want what the democrats gave them. People don’t want the goose egg but they damn sure don’t want the debt your party is giving us either.

Posted by: MAG at July 9, 2010 09:38 AM
Comment #303273

Stephen:

It would be a waste of time listing all the crimes committed by democrats that never see the light of day in the MSM. This is the reason Barry wants to control the Internet and bail out failing newspapers. We live in a new information age and we are not dependent upon the MSM to provide us with news. The MSM was responsible for getting Obama elected, but that has all changed.

“Republicans are playing the wrong side of a number of arguments, and you don’t realize that. Why is it that your highest profile candidates are running from the cameras? Why is it that every time Harry Reid’s challenger opens her mouth, it appears less and less likely that she’s going to win? Why is Jack Conway even with Rand Paul, despite the politics of the state? You want to know why? Because as much as you bash and slime our opinions, our policies, you have none of your own. You just have all the industry lobbyists, telling your people what to say. That, or the extreme right-wing rhetoric that horrifies people every time it comes up.”

While traveling, I have been off WB for over a month, and Stephen, you still quote democrat talking points. I know you don’t believe Rasmussen Polls, but you certainly have the ability to look at Pew, Gallup, RCP, and many others. It is clear, Obama’s approval is dropping like a rock and the dems are loosing. How many democrats are running on Obama’s accomplishments? Answer that one?

“As for that community organizer? You’re leaving out several resume entries, like Graduate with honors from Harvard Law, A professor of Constititonal Law, a career as a state senator, and a short career as one of Illinois’s US Senators.”

What a joke? Constitutional Law Professor? How can a man who has no regard for the Constitution, teach it? It would be like having an atheist teach religion classes in a seminary. Having a political career in Illinois is not something to brag about. Planet Blago is typical of Illinois politics.

“As for the Six month moratorium? I guess you’re for inspectors having to determine the safety of all these rigs while folks are working on them. We just had, and are still having the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history, and you’re saying we should just put the blinders on, and go ahead with Business as usual.”

Stephen, this is an ignorant statement. We have the FAA, FRA, FDA, and many more government inspection agencies that inspect while the operation is ongoing. Should we shut down the airline industry, or the rail system, or the importing of food, simply because an investigation takes place. The reason for shutting down oil drilling is Obama’s and the lefts hatred for fossil fuels. Well, guess what, we either use them or we shut down as a nation. We have no alternatives now, nor will we have any affordable and accessible in the near future.

As for bashing and sliming: perhaps you could explain this strategy. IMO, when democrats can’t answer the questions, they result to the politics of personal destruction and there are none better than dems at this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/07/politics/washingtonpost/main6654054.shtml

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 10:35 AM
Comment #303274

MAG-
I get it. You’re in favor of judicial activism. You want the judges to essentially hand you whatever power you see fit, regardless of whether the constitution says that its legitimate.

Has it ever occured to you that if the states get to decide their own immigration policy, that some states might make themselves sanctuaries, for political or economic reasons?

God, folks on the right nowadays need to learn the meaning of the term “can of worms.” As in opening them. You’re so blindly intent on carrying out your agenda that you just assume that if things get done your way, that will be the solution.

In my experience, events are like liquids: they change shape to fit their containers. The Republicans expect things to magically work out as they should. Having done so, they have inflicted one bad policy after another on us, because they never safeguard against unintended consequences.

Think, damn it! The world isn’t set up to work according to our convenience! Events will flow anywhere probability and causality let them, not merely where it’s nice for us to.

Or, to quote Murphy’s law, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Republicans and Right Wingers have ignored it for far too long, because it’s not comfortable for them to accept defeat, even if it’s the defeat of their expectations by reality.

We do not need fifty different immigration policies. We need one immigration policy, properly enforced. Quit ****ing around with state law, and start pushing for a reasonable compromise on immigration reform in the Congress, where such legislation belongs. Do something, and get it done where there’s no question of the authority to do it. Yes, you’ll likely have to compromise, but then again, being both purists and minorities in a Democracy makes your lack of power in Washington self-inflicted.

On the Six Month Moratorium, I just got to congratulate the Republicans on their impulse towards self destruction. I really got to hand it to them. If I were them, I would not be brave enough to stake my political party’s future on doing the oil industry’s bidding. You can bluster about goose eggs, but my party is not the party that has to watch its mouth when it comes to talking about the Oil Spill.

A typical Democrat can push a typical Democrat’s message: reduce dependence on oil, start us on a new course, put regulatory authority and reforms in place to prevent this. Your people, following your natural inclinations, apologize to the oil companies, allege corruption and extortion when it comes to the Escrow fund to compensate victims, and do your damned fool best to open back up drilling before anybody has any idea what wells out there might be in danger of having the same accident.

So, every time you open your mouths, you remind people why they kicked you out in 2006, 2008. Your challenger to Harry Reid just stuck her foot in her mouth regarding his efforts to secure a jobs-producing construction project in his home state, saying that getting jobs in that state was a bad thing. I mean, its tough to believe that somebody would be so stupid, but there you go.

I mean, I’m thankful Republicans are showing their true colors. It’s compensating for Democrat’s self-inflicted weaknesses, and the Republicans efforts to tar and feather all the Democrats out there as radical socialists. It’s making it easier to establish that Republicans are the radical, the reckless ones, in no small part because that reflects the truth.

If Democrats were doing better, we could hit a homerun off of this. As it is, we’ll get some good runs off of this. You’ve taken some intimidating contests, and put them within our reach, just by being honest about your radical right wing views. Thank you. Just keep on reminding people how far Republicans have strayed from reality and the political mainstream.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2010 11:03 AM
Comment #303275

Stephen. Your statements are grasping at straws. A majority of people saw the error of 2008 and now they want to correct it by voting out incumbents of both parties and you are angry because people don’t want to follow your advice. Your democrats are screwing up and you don’t want to face up to it. Get over it Stephen the majority of people don’t want what you are pushing.

Posted by: MAG at July 9, 2010 11:21 AM
Comment #303278

Stephen:

Has it ever occurred to you that we already have sanctuary cities and the Obama administration does not consider them as a violation of the Constitution? Would you consider this an immigration policy of their own? Perhaps the can of worms has already been opened.

“We do not need fifty different immigration policies. We need one immigration policy, properly enforced. Quit ****ing around with state law, and start pushing for a reasonable compromise on immigration reform in the Congress, where such legislation belongs.”

1. I see you still butcher the kings English with expletives.
2. We have an immigration policy: it’s called ILLEGAL IMMIGRATON, what part of illegal doesn’t dems understand?
3. “IMMIGRATION REFORM”: code for amnesty, and Americans are against amnesty.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/06/il-republican-hispanics-support-arizona-law-.html

http://vitalsignsblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/colorado-hispanics-favor-arizona-type.html

62% of Colorado Hispanics support the AZ law.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2548947/posts

85% of Reid’s constituents favor AZ law. Reid has nothing to say……:)

http://www.gazette.com/articles/democrats-99564-guest-arizona.html

One in three Colorado Hispanics favor the law.

This will be a major issue in this election cycle and as usual, dems are on the wrong side.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 11:46 AM
Comment #303280

Beretta9,
I have worked in aviation for 15 years and the FAA has shut down the operation of specific airframes due to Safety issues so that they can be inspected. The forest service has also shut down completely the operation of commercial C-130 planes due to cracking in the wing spars. I don’t mean temp. shut down I mean a minimum of one year BAN.
I know of an air operator that had the authority to operate aircraft revoked, in effect closing the business forever. You think what the government is doing to BP is bad, you have no idea what the FAA and NTSB does to aircraft operators. One of the reasons that you are more likely to die on the way to go flying than actually flying.
The FAA and the airlines got in a lot of trouble a couple of years ago for their cozy relationship. The FAA is oversight not a partner, Luckily this relationship was ended prior to a major accident like BP’s but the possibility became more likely the longer they glossed over inspection that they are required to do. This is the problem that the MMM has had with overseeing drilling. They were in bed with them due to royalties collection and oversight duties. These need to be separated to protect oversight from production.
My current duties are oversight (quality) at a helicopter operator, OEM, and repair station. My job is to protect production from itself by ensuring that we follow our own rules and comply with federal regulations. This is not easy at times when I know my paycheck depends on having the parts necessary to build and support our own aircraft. But to compromise safety will eventually lead to someone or multiple someones dying.
I think we all need to remember that this is BP’s fault. This accident is a classic or text book example of human factors. Their were a minimum of 15-20 times that someone could have said stop we are going to kill someone and prevented this disaster from happening. A major accident of this magnitude doesn’t just happen it takes a long chain of events with everyone being wrong to happen. Break the chain at any one point and the disaster does not happen and 11 men would still be alive with their families tonight.

Posted by: timesend at July 9, 2010 12:13 PM
Comment #303282

MAG-

Stephen. Your statements are grasping at straws.

Wow. If you said it must be so. I am humbled and submit to your fully fleshed out and elaborated argument.

Seriously. Prove I’m grasping at straws. Show me court decisions that say I’m wrong about how the Article One Powers of Congress are delegated. It’s your opinion that I’m grasping at straws, but right now, it’s just your opinion, and you’re arguing from outside the law to justify this action by Arizona.

A majority of people saw the error of 2008 and now they want to correct it by voting out incumbents of both parties and you are angry because people don’t want to follow your advice.

A majority of people want to vote out somebody else’s incumbent, but not their own.

What I’m angry about right now is the fact that we’ve never been given the chance to govern like we were elected to do. The Right has exploited the programming, so to speak, of the Senate and House to do their best to create gridlock, gridlock we get blamed for, even though most of us, in Washington and outside of it, are sick of it and frustrated, too.

The Right wants to hold this country’s fortunes hostage until it gets what it wants: a way back into power, despite all that it deserves to be held accountable for.

Quit trash talking me. Your party can bash my party all it wants to, but at least my part has policy potential. Yours is attempting to try and sneak back into power, and then hope that people won’t object to them sitting on their ass. If you think Americans are inclined to see your friends on the right do that, go ahead and try it. Then you’ll understand that 2006 and 2008 weren’t accidents.

Hell, you need to stop giving me advice about facing what’s wrong with my party until your people start facing what’s wrong with yours. People like me are fighting what’s wrong with our party, trying to get people in there who serve our public interests. Your people are just reinforcing the same policies that brought this country to its knees and destroyed your party’s majority. I am not confident that your folks will be able to fool people.

Beretta9-
Do I agree with them? No. I don’t, actually. That, though, is different from them being unconstitutional or illegal.

The simple fact is, Immigration is a federal law enforcement matter. States and municipalities have to volunteer and train themselves under current Federal Law in order to qualify to enforce it.

Think about that for a second: there is no general authority for states and local governments to enforce Federal immigration statutes. By default, states and cities are under no obligation, in fact have no authority to enforce immigration laws!

And under the Tenth Amendment, the state and local governments cannot be ordered to enforce Federal law. The Federal government, or its delegated representatives must do it. The best they can do, and what some in Congress can do is punish states with Congress’s power of the purse, depriving them of funding under the authority of Congress to determine how it spends its own money. That would hold up in court.

There is no can of worms in this case, because the Sanctuary cities are merely saying, don’t enforce Federal Law for the Federal government. Let the Federal Government enforce its own law. State and Local governments therefore have the authority to say, “cooperate with the Federal government on this matter”, even if other state or local governments say otherwise.

I see you still butcher the kings English with expletives.

Well, first it would be the Queen’s English, since Elizabeth II sits on the throne. Second, I don’t speak the King or Queen’s English. I’m an American!

All kidding aside, I engage in such butchery on a daily basis. I don’t have victorian habits of speech, and I’m sure I use enough argument with logic and clarity to make up for a few expletives here and there.

As for your next two points? Look, polls don’t translate to solutions. If you have no practical solution for how to get all those millions of people out of there without it costing more than its worth, and causing excessive social disruption, then we turn around, drive in a circle, and find ourselves parked in the same damn spot, all over again.

We’ve thrown billions of dollars and tens of thousands of personnel at the border, but people are still getting past because its good business to get past. We’ve got a legal immigration system that prices most people looking for opportunity out of the market. We got people who have been here for decades, who we’ve failed to root out before they planted themselves in this land.

We got businesspeople who have flouted the law to make an extra buck, an activity this last Adminstration didn’t deign to get in the way of.

Frankly, you can cite all the polls you want to, but can you give us a policy that works, and not merely retreads of policies you’ve pushed a dozen times before that have fallen short? Sooner or later, folks will either have to learn to live with the problem, which I’m not really enchanted with the idea of, or they’ll have to find a way to balance the interests of security, the situation they find themselves in, and the fact that regardless of what we do, many of these people are not likely to go anywhere.

I say, encourage them to register, encourage them to say “Here I am.” At the same time, make sure legal immigration gets cheaper, illegal jobs get scarcer, and internal enforcement gets more robust. Instead of squeezing the problem from one side, and seeing it ooze out the other, let’s take this system on and change it comprehensively so we can actually contain this problem and move on.

Funny, it would seem, that there are so many problems that Republicans don’t want to move on from. I guess they do better when everybody’s miserable about leadership in Washington. Doesn’t that, though, spell a conflict of interest in terms of actually improving conditions in this country?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #303286

Stephen How many time have I told you BOTH PARTIES are screwed up. I don’t have a party so I’m free to trash both if I feel they are doing wrong or going in the wrong direction. Right now IMO your party is the one that is screwing up right now because they are in power. Bush did leave a deficit but does that mean Democrats have to triple it. I am voting for someone other than the idiot congressman I have now, in fact I voted against him in the last three elections. Stephen I don’t pull party levers when I go vote.

Posted by: MAG at July 9, 2010 01:43 PM
Comment #303288

MAG-
What’s the point of being independent when you nearly always back their play? I mean, it’s sort of like you folks can’t stand the part except when it comes to agreeing with all their propaganda and their talking points.

That’s not independent, in my book. That’s disgruntled.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2010 02:38 PM
Comment #303289

Baretta9 said: “Blood bath in November and can’t wait. There is not one poll that shows a positive outlook for democrats.”

Hate to burst your bubble, Baretta, but, Gallup has the two Parties tied in a generic 2010 ballot. But, the real bubble burster is:

USA Today/Gallup Poll June 2010:

The Democratic Party is in a good position to retain its majority status in Congress this November. Democrats lead the Republicans by 51% to 40% in the party preferences for Congress among all registered voters, and by 52% to 42% among likely voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2010 02:44 PM
Comment #303291
MAG- What’s the point of being independent when you nearly always back their play? I mean, it’s sort of like you folks can’t stand the part except when it comes to agreeing with all their propaganda and their talking points.

That’s not independent, in my book. That’s disgruntled.

That’s neither independent or disgruntled, but sniping from the shadows. It is appearing that more and more people are calling themself independent and are using that “title” to just stir the pot. Would be interesting to see where that “X” falls when behind the curtain.

Posted by: jane doe at July 9, 2010 03:03 PM
Comment #303292

I’m glad SD is not my attorney. He would cost me a bundle and have me in jail or prison.

You are dissing the principle of concurrence. But, you have put your position out in the street next to the parking lot next to left field. You spoke of reality, but that only fits if it agrees with the liberal left position. Otherwise why does the DOJ under EH suddenly go to the Constitution to throw AZ under the bus but refuses to use the Constitution to prosecute the sanctuary cities which have broken the law in a much more grevious way.

I guess when you retire you will be retiring to your cherry trees. Cherry picking is what you are trying to get experience doing. I could be wrong of course, since you are from TX maybe you will be shoveling all that BS. At any rate on immigration your words do fall on fertile ears.

Posted by: tom humes at July 9, 2010 03:15 PM
Comment #303293

Stephen and Doe I side with the moderate to conservative. The point is Stephen I do not like what the Democrats are doing now. What is it about that you don’t understand. I didn’t like some of the things Bush did either. I think Obama is incompetent and arrogant. Pelosi and Reid are to liberal. If I had my way I’d clean both chambers out and start new. And Doe the X will fall on who I think most represents my views no matter what party is behind his or her name.

Posted by: MAG at July 9, 2010 03:32 PM
Comment #303298

tom humes-

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, Where the constitution hands Congress a power, Congress’s law trumps the state law. This is called the Supremacy Clause. What does the constitution say about immigration? It gives Congress the enumerated power “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization”.

It’s not that complicated.

As for this:

Otherwise why does the DOJ under EH suddenly go to the Constitution to throw AZ under the bus but refuses to use the Constitution to prosecute the sanctuary cities which have broken the law in a much more grevious way.

The Tenth Amendment basically says that the Federal Government can’t order State or Local Governments to do things, and that includes enforcing Federal Law. That’s why there are organizations in the Federal Government to do that, and US Attorneys to prosecute such cases, because the States simply don’t have jurisdiction.

The States can send folks to the Feds to take a course, so they can enforce Federal immigration laws afterwards. However, this is a delegation from the Federal Government to the States, which the states can’t be forced or ordered to take on. The default here is, the States don’t enforce Federal Law, and that includes Immigration law.

Which is not to say, though, that there aren’t ways to push State and Local governments to enforce it. One of the more common tricks is to tie compliance with federal funding. The Federal Government has every right to determine how it spends its money. The State Governments can decide, after such a law is written, whether they want to comply.

No such law, however, has been written regarding Immigration law, so Cities are free to tell the Federal Government to enforce its own laws, and to refuse to do what they’re already barred from doing as it is, without the Federal Government’s permission. Remember, the Tenth Amendment doesn’t allow the Federal Government to simply order the States to enforce Federal Law.

MAG-
You seem to list reasons and sources that are almost identical to the ones that Republicans would hand me. To me, it seems like you’re under the sway of the same people, pushing for the same policies. Your statement of political loyalties seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

It’s not unimportant in my mind, not with the tremendous influence that the ideological Right has on the GOP. If you’re getting your stuff from Rush, or these other folks, from Conservative media folks, you’re getting your information, your ideas, your perspective mainly from people whose organizations were set up in the beginning to further the Republican’s political cause.

What point is there, then, to calling yourself an independent? If you and the Republicans are getting your ideas from the same place, if you’re looking at people like me from the same dismissive perspective, if you’re accepting their assessments of how liberal the government is, and how radical the policies, what is the point of not calling yourself a Republican? Your attitude might be more moderate, but how about the policies you support?

And really, how much differently will you actually vote?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2010 05:04 PM
Comment #303300

SD
I know things are always done differently in TX. But, here in AZ we have two sheriff’s that enforce immigration law. So, your premise and lofty words again fall on infertile ears. You have not made a case for yourself, so the case you made should be taken out to woods and drank by the lonely liberal lefties.

Posted by: tom humes at July 9, 2010 06:22 PM
Comment #303301

That’s the problem with you Stephen, all because someone disagrees with your ideology they must be a Republican or Disagree with the Democratic philosphy. It’s people like you that turn me off to the Democrats and Rush is an idiot I put him in the same category as Maddow and Olberman. All because my ideology is more to the right does not make me a republican. I vote for who I think will best serve regardless of party affiliation.

Posted by: MAG at July 9, 2010 06:30 PM
Comment #303303

DRR:

“Hate to burst your bubble, Baretta, but, Gallup has the two Parties tied in a generic 2010 ballot.”

Well, I guess it is a moot point, since the left does not believe in poll numbers.

MAG:

“Stephen and Doe I side with the moderate to conservative.”

You are wasting your breath. They cannot comprehend the term conservative. If you do not agree with them or their liberal agenda, then you must be a Republican, although the fastest growing group in America is the Independents. Independents got Obama elected, and they will boot out liberal incumbents in November.

To all:

Obama’s moratorium against drilling in the Gulf was shot down by a Federal Appeals Court. Just another example of the arrogance and ignorance of the WH. I say, let’s spend more taxpayer dollars to send it to another appeal, even though Americans want to drill.

Can of worms open: once people realize they don’t have to put up with Obama’s socialism, they will fight.

Example: liberal group tries to shut down McDonald’s happy meals and here is the result:

“Chief Executive Jim Skinner, in a July 6 letter to the executive director of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, blasted the consumer-advocacy group’s stance that McDonald’s use of Happy Meal toys is a deceptive and illegal marketing practice to lure kids into its restaurants.

“CSPI is wrong in its assertions and frivolous in its legal threats,” Mr Skinner wrote in the letter seen by Dow Jones Newswires.”

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/mcdonalds-defends-happy-meal-toys/story-e6frg2rc-1225889307563?from=public_rss

I say hurray for Mr. Skinner and standing up for his rights against another in a long line of socialist organizations who want to dictate how we live our lives…..

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 06:55 PM
Comment #303304

Why is Obama on the campaign trial and trying to convince America he is PRO-BUSINESS? Who would have ever thunk he was anything else? Question is, does America believe him? More to come………

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 07:03 PM
Comment #303305

This one is great and I recommend eveyone read it. It sums up the disconnect between Barry and the Americans:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/welcome-back—mr—president-98095489.html

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 07:08 PM
Comment #303306

B9, Have to agree with you.

Posted by: MAG at July 9, 2010 07:23 PM
Comment #303309

I am posting part of a quote from an article by Lloyd Grove, in The Daily Beast. This is a meeting, this week in Aspen, of some of the most liberal, rich elitist in America. Supporters and voters of Obama. It is interesting how they are turning on Obama and his economic policies:

“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.

“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

Ferguson was joined in his harsh attack by billionaire real estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman. Both lambasted Obama’s trillion-dollar deficit spending program—in the name of economic stimulus to cushion the impact of the 2008 financial meltdown—as fiscally ruinous, potentially turning America into a second-rate power.
“We are, without question, in a period of decline, particularly in the business world,” Zuckerman said. “The real problem we have…are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”


What say you liberals? Are you still defending BHO?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 9, 2010 07:36 PM
Comment #303311

“Obama’s moratorium against drilling in the Gulf was shot down by a Federal Appeals Court. Just another example of the arrogance and ignorance of the WH. I say, let’s spend more taxpayer dollars to send it to another appeal, even though Americans want to drill.”

The recent rejection by the Federal Appeals Court was for an emergency order to reinstate the moratorium pending hearing of the main appeal in August. It was not on the merits of the case. The basis of the decision was that the government failed to show that any drilling would be started again before the August hearing. Therefore, the emergency order would be moot.

As for your contention that Americans would rather drill than send this case to appeal is completly false. A recent (6/22/10) NYT/CBS poll found that 65% of those polled favored the 6 month moratorium. Further, the poll found that a plurality of those polled (49%) favored banning deep water drilling permanently vs. 42% who suppported continued drilling.


Posted by: Rich at July 9, 2010 07:43 PM
Comment #303312

Off subject but quite interesting…

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder announced his filing of a lawsuit Wednesday to block Obamacare. Kinder explains that his lawsuit differs from lawsuits by other states (which he wholeheartedly supports) against Obamacare in that it involves an action not on behalf of the state of Missouri, but of individual plaintiffs who will be injured as a result of the federal law. There are three different plaintiffs, each alleging a different type of injury that will result from the application of Obamacare.

These separate challenges showcase the discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious nature of this horrendous law. One plaintiff alleges, in part, that she will be denied equal protection of the law, as she, along with citizens in 49 states, will lose access to Medicare Advantage, while certain Florida citizens will continue to enjoy it — for the sole reason that Obama needed Florida votes to get the bill passed. Another plaintiff — though a young, healthy woman who doesn’t smoke or drink — will be required to purchase the one-size-fits-all Obama plan against her will instead of simply procuring far less expensive catastrophic coverage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 9, 2010 07:48 PM
Comment #303313

SD,

When I read the AZ law, I didn’t see any attempt to trump or interfere with Federal Immigration law. The AZ law does not change anything regarding who may or may not enter Arizona legally. What it does do is expand governmental authority in enforcing the already existent immigration laws in contravention to the Constitution.

The growth in government power in the law would take us one step closer to a police state. It doesn’t matter how popular it is in a poll. It’s unconstitutional and needs to be struck down after someone is unconstitutionally detained by police without probable cause.

Regarding sanctuary cities: Like it or not, the Federal Government is a limited government as set forth in the Constitution. Powers that are not enumerated in Article One are reserved to the states or the people as per the tenth amendment. Article One does not allow Congress to compel local governments to enforce federal law. This was reaffirmed in the 2005 Supreme Court Case Gonzales v. Raich. Gonzales v. Raich said that the federal government has the ability to prohibit marijuana, although states may still choose to legalize it. The situation in this particular case was California’s medicinal marijuana law. The result is that today, medical marijuana is illegal in California under Federal law, but legal under California law. This means that non-federal law enforcement will not arrest people possessing marijuana in a manner compliant with California law, however these people are still liable to being arrested by federal law enforcement.

Although you and I may be sickened by the actions of “sanctuary cities” there is nothing we can do about it directly. What we can do is threaten to cut off funding for a related program if a state or community doesn’t comply.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 9, 2010 07:55 PM
Comment #303320

Baretta9 said: “Why is Obama on the campaign trial and trying to convince America he is PRO-BUSINESS?”

Because he has been extremely PRO-Business. Simple matter of fact. He bailed out the Auto industry, the banking sector, and underwater mortgage holders as a benefit to the mortgage industry. He has created tax benefits for small business, and the Dow is up 2000 points from last year while corporate profit earnings are the best in years.

The question is not, why Obama is touting himself as pro-business. The question is why business is so unfriendly toward Obama. The answer is simple. Now that Big Business is profitable again, Obama intends to tax them at the 1990’s rates again. The bloody greedy bastards resent being taxed like the rest of us. That’s the real story here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2010 08:52 PM
Comment #303322

RF, there is that old adage in America, anyone can sue anyone else for anything at all, as long as they can afford the attorney and court costs. This governor has no more chance of successfully suing the WH than any other state has. The reason is, the WH did not pass the Health Care Reform bill. The U.S. Congress did. Obama just signed the bill, and is now constitutionally charged with enforcing it.

This dip shit must be up for reelection, or he wouldn’t be spending tax dollars to win brown-nosing points with conservatives by suing Obama for legislation Obama did not write nor pass in the Congress. What a yokel.

Oh, and that argument about a few people being injured by the HC reform law. Ya. Same argument as that mass murderer who sued the government for being imprisoned and denied his freedom. There has never been, and never will be, a federal law passed that will not ‘injure’ someone. Every law cuts into someone’s perceived benefits or freedoms to not be affected by the law.

Just more political caniption fits by the Right for having been so roundly rebuked by the public in 2006 and 2008. They just can’t seem to get over it. And it is easy to see why, considering the haunting record of destruction of so many aspects of American life and business left behind by their GOP in power. They seem to have adopted the idea that if their reputation is going stay in the mud, the only thing left to do is to work at dragging the rest of the nation into the mud with them. Then, they think, they won’t look so dirty.

Fat Chance, that! What is truly amazing is the fact that Obama’s approval ratings stand at 46% stubbornly, despite the year of heaped on mudslinging and propaganda and character assassination heaped on this president. But, like Obama is saying, the people have a choice, they can choose the party that wrecked everything, or they can choose the party that is working to put it all back together again.

I suspect Obama has found the Democrat’s campaign message for 2010. And its powerful. Propaganda and sophistry, but, powerful.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2010 09:06 PM
Comment #303327

David

Obama’s bailouts of big industry are dirgiste and not pro-business in the American sense of the term. He protects unions instead of workers and established failing firms instead of vigorous and growing ones.

I think that is why business has become unfriendly to Obama. This was not the case last year. He had a lot of support in the business and financial communities. The Democrats were raking in twice as much money from Wall Street as Republicans. But the more they saw of what he was going to do, the less they liked him. I believe this is the general Obama pattern. We elected a guy w/o much experience or track record. It was easier to like him before we knew him well.

Posted by: C&J at July 9, 2010 11:03 PM
Comment #303329

tom hume-
I’ve made the constitutional case abundantly clear. Tenth Amendment does not allow the Federal Government to order State Governments around. If they are legally enforcing Federal Law, it’s because Congress granted the Federal Government the ability to deputize state law enforcement officials to that end. The State Legislatures, though, have no say in the matter. They do not get to write their own policies here.

You can name call me all you want to, but it’s not going to change what was written down. For folks who claim to be heroic protectors of the Constitution, y’all seem to be ignorant of some rather important principles in it.

MAG-
Look, it’s a quack like a duck, looks like a duck argument. If you take their side on every important subject, if you don’t differ in your opinion from what I hear or read about most other Republicans going for, what am I to think? That somehow, because of your intention to be independent, that you are? No. It takes more than intentions to be independent.

Beretta 9-
Oh, get off it. You’re always arguing to move the herd, trying to convince people that there’s a real, earnest mass movement going on against Obama and that the Democrats are doomed, doomed, doomed.

A poll taken on the sixteenth of last month says the following:

1) 82% approval of the Escrow fund.
2) 68% want to increase regulation on the oil companies.
3) 58% approval for a moratorium
4) 54% trust that the federal government would do a better job of dealing with the spill than BP. That’s compared to 32% for BP.

5) 92% say that the cleanup comes before BP’s investor’s interests.

6) 72% favorables on Obama’s energy proposals.

7) 79% believing that they will improve America’s quality of life.

If you think people are chanting “drill, baby, drill” out in the country, you’re sadly mistaken. If they support offshore drilling, the operative question I would be polling would be under what conditions. People might see it as necessary for the time being, but I think the Right is Naive if it thinks that’s a signal that people are alright with the status quo. Whether or not Obama’s had his Katrina, Oil’s had its Chernobyl, it’s runaway environmental disaster.

It astounds me that Republicans continue to be so unwilling to admit the atmosphere has changed on the matter. That’s perhaps why Barton and Paul and all these other people who the GOP have been hurrying away from mics at top speed have been making comments like this. They think people are fairly shallow on these topics, quickly forgetting things. But I propose an alternative. People have gotten used to a constant tide of **** happening. They’re just about beaten down by it. This is different than shallow disregard, for one very important reason: they’re under pressure, and looking for some direction to lash out. Republicans foolishly try to make Obama the first target, but they’re playing with fire here, because it’s their policies that made sure the rig wouldn’t be adequately inspected or engineered.

They’re essentially running with their own record fresh not only in their opponent’s minds, but that of the General public. I think Republicans should note that on many subjects, as much as they can entangle Obama in the matters at hand, they can’t disentangle themselves. They’re not clear of the blasts of the bombs they’re throwing. In some cases, the damn things are blowing up in their faces.

As for Niall Ferguson’s argument? It’s hogwash. We’re at very high unemployment levels because the jobs simply aren’t there. Businesses aren’t getting financed, or getting loans, and financing, both in the form of credit cards and loans on high dollar products is not there as much as it should be. But you know what, though? I want your people to campaign on ending unemployment benefits for the long out of work, because it ought to do wonders for the Democrats in November.

With Democrats, the principle hazard is the circular firing squad. With Republicans, it’s the self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the feet.

C&J-
I want you to think long and hard about this question that I’m about to ask you, and then reassess the Democrat’s political fortunes: Will the party that gets the most support from Wall Street benefit from that support, or suffer for it? Food for thought.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #303331

C&J,

There is nothing very complicated about Wall Street’s recent turn against Obama. It was pleased with the Bush/Obama/Bernanke multi-trillion dollar bailout of the failed financial industry. Not so pleased about passage of financial regulatory reform measures that might impair its casino gambling operations. Even Allan Greenspan recognizes that the capital markets had failed at self regulation and require governmental regulation.

Posted by: Rich at July 10, 2010 05:48 AM
Comment #303333

Stephen I personnelly don’t care what you think. All I can tell you that it is people that think like you that turn me away from the Democrats.

Posted by: MAG at July 10, 2010 08:59 AM
Comment #303334

Rich

The operative factor is the CHANGE. During the election period in 2008, Wall Street was firmly behind Obama, if you judge by their statements and where they contributed their money. Between then and now, they had a chance to assess Obama’s performance and like a majority of ordinary Americans, they are not impressed.

Stephen

In 2008 the Democrats got the overwhelming support of Wall Street and they did all right. I know that politicians like to attack Wall Street, but the financial guys tend to be fairly smart and have money to contribute.

Democrats never rejected Wall Street support, it just looks like Wall Street is rejecting them after seeing how they operate.

It is interesting that Obama has to make a PR campaign to tell people that he is not anti-business. Two years ago, people generally didn’t think he was anti-business. His behavior has convinced them overwise.

Fear of Obama policies and the uncertainty that causes is keeping businesses from investing their money. As I mentioned earlier, I personally am confused and so am not investing much. The same goes with millions of individual decisions.

I don’t think the Obama team understands the nature of the economic problem we face. That is just my opinion. But it looks like millions of business people agree with me and are making decisions based on that. It is up to Obama to convince us that we are mistaken. So far, not so good.

Posted by: C&J at July 10, 2010 10:19 AM
Comment #303337

Rich:

Then we have a problem. You say, “As for your contention that Americans would rather drill than send this case to appeal is completly false. A recent (6/22/10) NYT/CBS poll found that 65% of those polled favored the 6 month moratorium. Further, the poll found that a plurality of those polled (49%) favored banning deep water drilling permanently vs. 42% who suppported continued drilling.”

60% of Americans continue to support off shore drilling.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/offshore_drilling/60_support_offshore_drilling_still_critical_of_obama_and_oil_companies

This is a logical question and answer: if people really support BHO’s decisions, then why is he dropping in the polls. His approval ratings have dropped 20 points in 1-½ years. Got a link on that NYT/CBS poll? Couldn’t find it.

RF:

Your post really isn’t off subject. It shows the continued disconnect between Obama and the American people. There was a time when those in control thought Obama to be the messiah and any questioning of his motives was considered racism. No one wants to be branded a racist, so they just let it go. But, Americans and some of our politicians are beginning to get some backbone and beginning to question his motives and fighting back. There are democrats politicians in the gulf now opposing the administrations moratorium because it is affecting employment in the region.

Obama and his administration are racists and as a result of not being able to pass restitution, they will go through the back door and still give restitution through programs like NHC, it is about “redistribution of wealth. Obama has surrounded himself with people who hold to his same beliefs, hence his latest recess appointment to head obamacare, who blatantly said he supported redistribution of wealth through NCH.

WR:

“Regarding sanctuary cities: Like it or not, the Federal Government is a limited government as set forth in the Constitution. Powers that are not enumerated in Article One are reserved to the states or the people as per the tenth amendment. Article One does not allow Congress to compel local governments to enforce federal law.”

While this is true; if we had politicians who were not worried about a career in politics and reelection, there are things government can do, such as cutting funding to these cities. Either abide by Fed law dealing with illegals or loose funding.

DRR:

“Because he has been extremely PRO-Business.”

This is an ignorant statement. All one has to do is listen to his campaign speeches over the past 3 years to realize he has slammed everyone from big oil, big pharmacy, big insurance, big banking, big auto, etc, etc, etc, and big Wall Street. Every bill he or the dems have worked on is in response to controlling business. Now they are pushing to pass more controls through a lame duck session and democrats get the butts whipped in November. And all of these controls go against what the American people want. Never in my lifetime have I heard a president try to convince the American people, they were pro-business. Perhaps you can name one?

He has not bailed out anything, but what he has done is place the government in control of companies. Why do you thing so many are crying “socialism”? Why do you think he and his talking heads are out there trying to convince the American people, he is not a socialist?

Companies are not taxed: consumers are taxed. Why can’t you liberals understand that companies are in business to make a profit and they will get a profit or they will go out of business? It is the left’s hatred of business that causes them to constantly call for taxes. The problem is unemployment, and without business there is no jobs. Taxes are like any other costs for production, transportation, or anything else; they are passed on to the consumer.

I said two years ago, that unemployment was going up because Obama was going to be elected. Uncertainty kills the market and business. I stated two years ago, no company is going to do anything with the uncertainty of what Obama would do to them. As I speak, I am listening to Fox Business News, and they are saying the exact same thing. Ben Stein is saying companies are scared of taxes, of hiring, of expanding, of using their reserves. Unemployment is still almost 10% and in reality closer to 17-18%. Obama has done nothing to help. His goal is to bring us down. Tell me David, why aren’t democrat politicians running on the accomplishments of Obama, why are most democrats asking for Obama to not campaign for them?

Stephen: links to your %….

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 10:55 AM
Comment #303338

C&J:

I posted this link yesterday and I will repost it. It proves your last statement. These people are democrats economists who supported Obama, but are truely not understanding what he is trying to do. They also question the finacial advisers he has surrounded himself with and the advice he is getting from them. I would say that the liberals on WB are behind the times and need to catch up with the mainstream Democratic Party.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-07/aspen-ideas-festival-obama-loses-support-of-nations-elite/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL3

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 11:03 AM
Comment #303340

Baretta9
You are absolutely correct.

Now for you liberal, southpaws, a look ahead.

Obama knows exactly what he and his appointed henchmen are doing. They are trying to bring the country to its knees. When he feels they are on their collective knees he will institute that change and remaking of America he spoke of in his campaign. He will put in place edicts, laws, executive orders and whatever other mechanics he deems necessary to fix all those problems that he greatly assisted or instituted over the last number of months. He will be as close to a dictator of this country as has been known. Agencies of the national government (not federal) are now implementing small doses of rules that have no accountability. HHS and EPA are leading the way with others to follow shortly. For you staunch democrats for get the party, and start thinking of America’s existence. The desire to make North America Canamex is still on the table and people in power in all three nations are actively working on it. The Dr. just appointed to be in charge of our so called health care at the national level will ration health care just like a dutiful czar should do. He will institute programs that most Americans are opposed to, but since he will have near absolute authority, he will do whatever he feels he and the Obama team deems necessary to gather more authority and control over American citizens. Forget the political parties, and get on the American bandwagon and join in to do away with this socialist scheme of things unless you are socialist and then I am speaking over the weakend.

Posted by: tom humes at July 10, 2010 11:39 AM
Comment #303342

I can’t help but believe there are democrats on this site, who put country above party, I know there are die hard Obamaites who would follow him into hell itself. The overall beliefs of most republicans on this site is to put blame where blame is due. I have seen many republicans who had no love for Bush’s and other republican party policies and have voiced their opinions. After all, we are Americans and we don’t most of us don’t want to see our country fail. But, on the other hand, there are liberals who hate our American way of life and believe America is the cause of all the worlds woes.

I ran across this article and it brings up the point, why didn’t Obama’s justice department go after Rhode Island? Isn’t the police engaged in racism?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg=

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 11:56 AM
Comment #303343

Now, if the SC upheld that police do not need “probable cause, not reasonable suspicion”, to ask a person about their immigration status, Muehler vs Mena; then what possible reason could Holder and Obama have for pushing the suit? Could it be political? Could it be votes? Could it be smokescreen? Why don’t the democrats in AZ support Barry?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 12:12 PM
Comment #303352


“There are liberals that hate our American way of life”

Beretta9:

Social Security has been a part of the American way of life for more than 70 years. Much of the progressive legislation has been a part of the American way of life for even longer. Both have contributed greatly to our American way of life and yet, conservatives are determined to rescind these contributions to the American way of life.

There are conservatives that hate our American way of life.

Posted by: jlw at July 10, 2010 02:07 PM
Comment #303358

jlw:

My actual statement was, “there are liberals who hate our American way of life and believe America is the cause of all the worlds woes.”

It never ceases to amaze me how you liberals on WB can scan through paragraphs of material and links and yet pick the most insignificant sentence to respond to.

But to answer your insignificant question; liberals have been bent on making a welfare state of our nation for 70+ years. Social Security, for all it’s noble intentions, has contributed to the financial condition we are experiencing. It has never been anymore than a slush fund for politicians and had the taxes collected actually been invested, it would not be broke. But, SS funds are simply funds for pet projects.

The rest of your progressive legislation can be placed in the same boat as the recent obamacare, and soon to be cap and trade. Simply another failed socialist program that will drive our country further into debt and heap upon our kids and grandkids a burden that can never be paid. So much for your socialist plans.

I believe the point of my sentence that you so conveniently misquoted, were there are liberals who hate our American way of life, because we are successful and we are the cause of all the world’s woes.

Tell me, do you hate America and blame America for the world’s woes? Do you think we are squandering the world’s recourses, at the cost of depriving the rest of the world?

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 05:05 PM
Comment #303363
Now, if the SC upheld that police do not need “probable cause, not reasonable suspicion”, to ask a person about their immigration status, Muehler vs Mena; then what possible reason could Holder and Obama have for pushing the suit?

B9,

I think you are misinformed about MUEHLER v. MENA. Police obtained a search warrant prior to searching Ms. Mena. The question was whether police could question Ms. Mena about her immigration status even though that was not a subject of the warrant, not whether police have the right to ask for documents from anyone they come in “legal contact” with.

Regarding RI, I don’t have any problems with the RI policy. The police there only investigate immigration status when they have probable cause, thereby protecting our fourth amendment rights.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 10, 2010 06:15 PM
Comment #303365

C&J-
Well, the operative question is, what impresses Wall Street.

You’re assuming these people are financial experts, that they know how the market works, and how to avoid problems. Problem is, we’re talking about the same people who just about bankrupted the economy two years ago, and who were demonstrated to either not know or not care what their behavior did to the economy.

I’ve heard your rhetoric before, heard it in the campaigns that pushed the changes in regulations that made this financial crisis possible.

The problem is not a confidence problem in the markets, it’s a capital and credit problem. It’s an unemployment problem. You call it a confidence problem so you don’t have to go against your free market philosophy, concede that things are mainly your party’s fault.

Beretta 9
Check it out for yourself.

Taxation by association is a vague measure of impact, because the logic goes both ways and six ways to sunday in addition. Tax consumers more, you could argue, and it ends up being a tax on business. Make a sales tax or a VAT, and now you’ve got the IRS up their but, and they’re still probably charging the consumer more so they can still get their money. Don’t tax anybody, and everybody pays through deficit spending and the attendant inflation. As it is, though, Businesses, and their stockholders pay less for their income than most people out there do.

As for why people cry out “socialism”? It’s a legacy of a cheap Right Wing tactic from the Cold War, meant to evoke the specter of communism lurking under every bed. That’s why it gets used: because politicians are lazy, and don’t want to actually have to appeal to people rationally.

As for that Aspen stuff? Those people do not form the foundation of the liberal elites.

Has it occured to you that these are no long the people that most Democrats actually listen to, that there was a pretty strong shift in who is considered a reputatable authority around these parts? Those people, if they’re Democrats at all, are the old party.

As for the rest? You don’t have a clue about Liberals. Not a clue. All your supposed knowledge comes from people who are essentially cheerleaders for your movement. And they’re desperate. They’ve lost two elections, back to back. They’ve lost young voters, more or less. They blame the liberal media for the unpopularity of what they say, but it doesn’t occur to them to think that they may actually be behind the times, from a mainstream perspective, that the unpopularity of what they say may depend less on somebody distorting their words, and more on their faithful reporting of them!

Republicans just can’t seem to fathom that their movement could be on its way out, that if the Republican’s survive the next few years, it’s as a party with a new, more centrist agenda.

You can say we hate America, but that’s just cheap rhetoric. We might as well ask you that question, with all the harm your party’s policies have done to it.

You talk about failed programs that are still solvent, slush funds when your party was an early and eager abuser of the money. You talk about protecting our way of life, well the way of life we currently have doesn’t have a long future. The timeline can be measured in decades how long we can continue to rely on gasoline-driven cars, on a purely resource-oriented basis.

If we continut to try and cling to things the way they are, we’re only going to lead this country into another period of Stagflation, sooner or later, as high energy prices combine with the inevitable return of inflation to produce both low growth and high inflation.

There’s conservatism, the attempt to preserve what is good about the country and society, and then there’s a blind refusal to seek or allow progress to occur. Sooner or later, though, you have to face the way the world’s changing, or you won’t have the ability to save anything. You cannot preserve what you cannot sustain, and you will utterly destroy what you might be able to preserve in a small form if you were willing to compromise.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 10, 2010 06:38 PM
Comment #303366

SD wrote; “You cannot preserve what you cannot sustain, and you will utterly destroy what you might be able to preserve in a small form if you were willing to compromise.”

Hmmm…is SD talking about huge deficits for the next decade? Is he talking about another huge bloated federal program that will suck our economy dry? Is he talking about thrashing our constitution to promote welfare programs? Is he talking about borders so loose that a herd of donkeys carrying illegal drugs can cross at noon? Is he talking about making a mockery of marriage between men and women that has and is the foundation of the family and America?

What exactly is SD trying to preserve?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 10, 2010 07:05 PM
Comment #303368

RF:

SD is back to old tricks of quoting the liberal talking points.

WR:

“I think you are misinformed about MUEHLER v. MENA. Police obtained a search warrant prior to searching Ms. Mena. The question was whether police could question Ms. Mena about her immigration status even though that was not a subject of the warrant, not whether police have the right to ask for documents from anyone they come in “legal contact” with.”

“Mena sued the police, claiming a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures”

https://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2004/muevmen.html

“(1) Did police violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure by detaining Mena in handcuffs for 2-3 they executed a search warrant for contraband on the premises she occupied? (2) Did police violate the Fourth Amendment by questioning Mena about her immigration status during the detention?”

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423

The SC found in favor of the police; thay had the right to hold her and ask her imigration status.

Let’s try this link:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/first_circuit/2010/02/estrada-v-state-of-rhode-island-no-09-1149.html

The police officer asked 15 occupants of a van for identification after a routine traffic stop. Only one had valid license and could speak English. There was no search warrant, they were turned over to ICE, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1506654.html

This was the law in RI and it was upheld. Now tell me how it differs from the AZ law? What is the difference between probable cause with a taillight problem in RI and probable cause of traffic violation in the AZ law?


Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 07:35 PM
Comment #303369

Stephen

The economic breakdown was caused by lots of factors. Government in the form of its regulators plus its pushing of loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie May to bad credit risks, was a big part of it.

It is not only Wall Street that is turning against Obama; it is business in general. Most of these guys were not involved in the financial breakdown and they do indeed know how to run their own businesses better then Barack, who before he became president never ran as much as a Johnny detail.

It is becoming painfully clear that Obama does not have the experience to work with productive business. Unfortunately, he does not have the humility to understand his own limitations. We are seeing what happens when an assistant law professor tries to run a business.

Obama gave us a beautiful dream. Now we are coming back to reality. We the people are back. Let’s see what happens in the next elections.

Posted by: C&J at July 10, 2010 08:40 PM
Comment #303370

C&J,

“The operative factor is the CHANGE. During the election period in 2008, Wall Street was firmly behind Obama, if you judge by their statements and where they contributed their money.”

Of course it is the CHANGE. In 2008, Wall Street was in desperate straits. They needed enormous federal financial support to survive. Trillions of dollars of support had committed by the Bush administration/Federal Reserve and they wanted it continued upon the election of Obama. He was supportive of their survival. Certainly they were supportive of him.

Now, comes financial regulatory reform and, lo and behold, Wall Street has a change of heart about Obama. Just an odd coincidence. I think not.


Posted by: Rich at July 10, 2010 09:30 PM
Comment #303371

Rich

Well, let’s make Obama a one-term president and see what happens.

Posted by: C&J at July 10, 2010 09:38 PM
Comment #303372

Barry will go down in history as worse than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 10, 2010 09:49 PM
Comment #303379

Royal Flush-
What was I trying to preserve.

Let’s see. In opposing Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts, I was trying to preserve our fiscal balance, which I happened to be happy with. In opposing the way that Bush was carrying out his wars, I was hoping to preserve a rather good recent track record on military engagements, and also keep our eye on the ball with Afghanistan.

I’ve been trying to preserve the institutions of science and free thought, the civil liberties that make it possible for America come back from its inevitable human mistakes and its occasional terrible leaders. I’ve been fighting like hell to preserve Congress and the rest of the government as functional, helpful institutions for this country, as the Preamble of the Constitution itself exhorts the government to be.

In a very odd way, my Liberalism is built on a certain kind of conservatism. It’s been my experience that the more people put off actually reckoning with the realities of the situations here in America, the more we’ve suffered for it, and the more harsh, irregular, and disruptive the responses both required and fueled by the passions of a public that believes its government has failed it.

Republicans seem to be for their candidates having a reverse midas touch, degrading everything they touch in Government. They’ve managed the neat trick of becoming radically anti-authoritarian, and radically authoritarian at the same time. You know how they do that? Simple: They use one system of logic to look at their own policies, and another to look at ours.

Perhaps it is a bit of a stereotype to say that Democrats and Republicans are necessarily “More Government/Less Government” in their relationship.

I think if you step back and look at the way things actually are, you will see that Republicans are less for the objective lessening of government, and more for an objective lessening of Democratic and Liberal influence in that government. This is how Medicare Advantage and all that other stuff fits in, because it serves to play to the older voters, and whiter to be politically incorrect, who constitute part of the Republican’s main base. Seniors have demonstrated a conservative bias over time. If Republicans lure them away, a lot of political power goes with them, and is taken from the Democrats.

See, it all makes sense. Indeed, this was done on the political advice of folks like Karl Rove. That is also why Republicans put themselves in the seemingly paradoxical position of pretending to defend the Medicare benefits of the elderly against the healthcare bill.

And since the deficit spending needed to do this benefited contributors, made friends of the Seniors who could get their drugs, and everything else, it was accepted as part of the necessary compromises needed in order to put Democrats in a permanent minority position.

And really, were most Republicans complaining? Not loud enough to make a difference. I mean, the real question is why weren’t you making the challenges back during the last decade? Well, my observation has been that Republicans, while they held the majority, naturally were nervous about losing it. In fact, worse than nervous. You folks have succeeded in creating this deranged mindset that sees every loss of power, every exercise of power on my side, as being the beginning of a slippery slope to doom.

That is how the Republicans can call their own programs socialist. I mean, lets be blunt here: Cap and Trade is originally a Republican concept. So is the Obama healthcare plan, in the broad details. But since they are programs that Democrats can use towards their own success, since Democrats can essentially triangulate on this count, Republicans up top have basically decided that all the small people should be told that it’s all just a socialist plot, that these policies are leftist radicalism in its scariest form.

I watch this sad charade, this blind pursuit of power, and I can’t help but feel sickened by it. Our nation is in deep trouble, trouble your people’s incompetence, arrogance, and obsession with political dominance led to. What’s your response? More of the same.

It won’t help the economy get better, or the armies win more wars. It won’t bring back America as an exporter. It won’t solve our energy problems, or plug up that hole in the Gulf.

It might help preserve the Republican’s electoral fortunes for a couple of election cycles, but since they are averse to actual problem solving, they’ll eventually self-destruct as they did before. America needs help, they are unwilling to give it, and that’s not going to go unnoticed.

C&J-
I can get it even simpler than you: Wall Street lied.

They lied about the relative riskiness of the investments. They lied about their own degree of leverage. They lied to consumers about what they were getting them into. They had bond rating companies lie for them so they could lie to people who were not supposed to make high risk investments.

And really, your party legalized a lot of that lying. They legalized an approach to accounting that let them count outrageously inflated values for the mortgages and other credit they extended people, to name an example.

The beautiful dream was your laissez faire economics. Obama’s hope, the hope he gave us, was that America could awake from this nightmare, that they could do something about the crises that loomed. If that is just some beautiful dream, I’ll do my best not to wake up, because I want to live in a country where we don’t live in fear of our problems coming back to haunt us, but instead where we solve problems, and rebuild our institutions rather than tearing them down.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2010 12:15 AM
Comment #303380
The police officer asked 15 occupants of a van for identification after a routine traffic stop. Only one had valid license and could speak English. There was no search warrant, they were turned over to ICE, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1506654.html

This was the law in RI and it was upheld. Now tell me how it differs from the AZ law? What is the difference between probable cause with a taillight problem in RI and probable cause of traffic violation in the AZ law?

In Estrada, the van was pulled over for making an illegal lane change. That is probable cause for a stop. Observing 15 people unable to speak English establishes probable cause to check their immigration status.

The AZ law has a much lower standard, any “lawful contact” with law enforcement may result in having one’s immigration status queried. “Lawful contact” is a very broad term and does away with the concept of probable cause that we have cherished for many years. See my earlier comment for evidence showing how “lawful contact” can mean any interaction with police that does not constitute the police breaking the law. This is a very bad precedent to set with regards to civil liberties and if upheld puts us one step closer to the dystopia of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We or George Orwell’s 1984.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 11, 2010 07:21 AM
Comment #303381

Someone been smoking the whacky stuff again…

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 11, 2010 07:22 AM
Comment #303382

Beretta9-

Someone been smoking the whacky stuff again…

That’s what I get wondering about every time a Republican opens their mouths. Rand Paul fails a pretty easy question about the Civil Rights act. The Republicans take one of the most endangered Senators, Harry Reid, and after failing to win a primary with a woman who seriously offers barter in the twenty-first century, with chickens no less, as a means to pay medical bills, they go with a woman stupid or foolish enough to suggest to Nevada, a state with 14% unemployment, that Harry Reid’s successful efforts to bring jobs to Las Vegas was a bad thing.

You got Boehner saying that current reforms efforts from the Democrats, are like a nuclear weapon targeted on an ant, and you have the ranking Republican on the committee that oversees energy policy apologizing to BP, calling the fact that it was compelled to put 20 Billion in Escrow a “shakedown”, a “tragedy of the first order”

The Republicans seem to be saying things that most people would only say if they had their judgments impaired by large doses of psychoactive drugs. Worse, people like you, in the base, buy their BS explanations or rationalizations, so you don’t put pressure on them to alter their behavior to suit the mood of the times. You simply assume that your mood is that mood, that people are generally feeling burdened by taxation, burdened by big government, frightened about muslims and other undesirables taking over.

The irony is, you’re deliberately using dissatisfaction at the lack of progress to stir up this anger, but you’re turning around and fooling yourselves into thinking that it’s the same as your dislike of government doing anything. So, you should know that what people want isn’t more inaction, but better, more present action by their government. But you don’t acknowledge it.

And that is why your typical Republican Candidate is having a hard time opening their mouth without sticking their foot in it.

Democrats can speak to their own agenda’s, their own beliefs, and not destroy their popularity with voters. In fact, many voters wish they would stand up for themselves, and push an alternative line to yours.

You think Liberals are having problems because they’re too much unlike you. I say its the opposite. Liberals haven’t been able to distinguish themselves enough. Even if that is a problem today, sheer attrition will guarantee that over time, it will not remain the problem. Republicans, though, are culling the herd in the other direction, away from what most people want. They’re deciding to make the government even more unhelpful, even more radically anti-tax, even more callous in its dealings with the rest of the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2010 11:03 AM
Comment #303390

And your point is???

Posted by: Beretta9 at July 11, 2010 02:24 PM
Comment #303395

SD
You forgot Bonnie Fwank, Cwis Dodge—-oops wrong party, they are some of those dimocrats that never do anything wrong in the order of Charlie Rangle. How could I have ever thought of that. Somehow I just can’t bring myself to say I’m sorry for that statement. I better quit before I come up with some more name like Hilda Solis and Maxine Waters—there I go again naming some of those people on your side, I think they call them dimocrats. Well you get the message or do I have to revisit this pix.

Posted by: tom humes at July 11, 2010 04:31 PM
Comment #303441

When I was nine or ten, my neighbor had fertile ears. His mom made him wash them, though, and they once again became infertile.:)

Posted by: gergle at July 12, 2010 05:11 PM
Comment #303488

Beretta9-
That the whacky Tobacky smoking, owing to such outrageous lapses in judgment, must be mainly on your side.

tom humes-
The arguments on your side are far too predictable. You want to avoid suffering the consequences for supporting Wall Street excesses, so after years of such unstinting, unapologetic support, you want to blame everything that went wrong on the Democrats and the former Government Programs.

You’ve got your nice list of people to villify, and its no different than every other person who has been told who the villains are by conservative radio, internet, and TV sources. You ever wonder why it’s so easy for me to respond? Because before I know about it, Liberal sites that have been listening know what those people you listen to have said, so I read the same damn things long before you open your mouth to say it.

You can name people, I can name policies your whole party’s supported, policies that failed miserably. You just want to keep on naming the scapegoats so you can pretend it was all just another failure for Liberalism, rather than a failure of conservative efforts instead.

Democrats acknowledge they’ve been dealt an imperfect hand. Democrats know they have to keep their eyes on these people. But Republicans? They know they can always point at liberals, and distract their people from paying attention to their corruption, their loyalty to the bank lobbyists. It wasn’t liberalism that corrupted your people, it was their own damn greed and your unwillingness to admit when your ideological expectations have gone awry.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 13, 2010 03:08 PM
Post a comment