Still, and overall, the ruling will revive the eroded, immutable right to defend life, liberty and property. (The title of John Lott’s op-ed encapsulates exactly that: “Court’s Gun Decision An Important Win for Americans Who Want to Defend Themselves.”) This is a war. Progressives have left little of the original Constitutional scheme. A victory for natural rights in the rights-violating society we inhabit is a good thing. The good guys won. A toast to the patriots who fought the good fight: a besieged black man from Chicago and his lawyer.
ICE is supposed to deport, or at least process, illegals aliens apprehended by Arizona law enforcement—OR, MAYBE NOT.
A top Obama official, John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement government, told the Chicago Tribune that the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, SB 1070, is not “good government.”
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano backed the bastard up: “ICE,” she said, “is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel … It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own.”
FoxNews’ Megyn Kelly called this government by fiat.
This is how it rolls in the US. I’ve long contended that commentators who constantly hail America’s unique freedoms are willfully misleading their followers. States’ rights? Those died a long time ago.
The federal government no longer fulfills its most basic negative duty, and that is to protect its citizens. But this is not new.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Update (May 23): Ann Coulter is at her best when she gets legal. She dredges up the “UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE” (1975), in which the SCOTUS unanimously, including every liberal on the Court, decided that “border police could take into account the Mexican appearance of a car’s occupants. They could not do random stops based on nothing but that ‘appearance.'” The Arizona law does not go as far as the SCOTUS’ ruling.
Another interesting point made by AC: “Iconic labor leader, and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez, along with Ralph Abernathy, successor to Martin Luther King, marched against illegal immigration.”
When your city is buckling under the weight of mandated diversity—crime, illiteracy, crumbling and crowded schools, closing hospitals—what do you do? Launch a boycott against a state, Arizona, that is attempting to ward off the same fate.
Slimer Steele, the attention seeking RNC Chairman, assured the WaPo it “was a business decision.”
That’s the extent to which the GOP is attuned to the passions and interests of its base.
Boycott the Republican Party.
Boycotts are the prerogative of private property owners; as their patronage, or lack thereof, affects only those within their economic sphere. LA City pols should go back to doing what they were hired to do: pick up trash, give permits for Gay Pride parades, etc.
The GOP ought to have quietly given a nod to its base and the plank they claim to support—law and order, the right to repel invaders, self-defense—and plonked their pampered behinds in Phoenix. I am sure there are plenty stripper clubs that meet Steele’s exacting standards in that city.
Update I: DICKING AROUND. Is Dick Morris for real? The guy makes Steele look like a man of integrity. His site: there is nothing worth reading there, except for numbers, stats and other probabilities which can be had at Gallop. But Republicans buy his books in the millions.
Update II (May 13): Back to LA-Council clowns. A city that is bankrupt boycotting a state that isn’t—how rich is that? And how well they are serving their constituents!?
If I haven’t yet issued this cri de coeur: Buy Arizona. And write in to tell us what products to look out for.
Charles Krauthammer points out that BHO’s financial-reform bill is a move toward a further increase in the overweening powers of the Executive branch, which will now be able to seize a firm it designates as systemically risky. Where was Krauthammer during the Bush administration? It invented the doctrine of an overreaching executive. Still, he is right.
Michele Bachmann sums up the impetus of the bill: privatizing profits; socializing losses. (By the way, Bachmann is infinitely superior in intelligence to Palin who’s only growing more ignorant with notoriety. The more I see of Bachmann, the more impressed I grow with her demeanor and unshakable command of the facts.
Update I (April 27): As Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has been pointing out, the bogus lawsuit against Goldman-Sachs, a major donor of Obama and the beneficiary of a bailout, is political theater designed to prepare the public for the passage of enormously intrusive financial regulation.
“Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration want to create a permanent bailout mechanism all [the] while spouting their rhetoric of getting tough on Wall Street, but if you look at who is already lining up to support their ‘reform’ measure it’s a who’s who of the big banks that have already received the taxpayer bailout the first time.” … “Wall Street supports this measure. Why? Because big investment houses realize they’ll get bailed out and would have less reason to worry about risky behavior.”
“Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) crafted the Senate version of so-called ‘Financial Reform’ with the support of the President. The procedure used to date resembles the non-transparent and secretive tactics used to pass ObamaCare. The Senate Banking committee marked up the bill in 22 minutes, with no amendments offered and no debate allowed. …
“There are two specific problems with the Senate approach to ‘reform.'”:
“First, this legislation would create a new $50-billion bailout slush fund controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Very big banks and other ‘eligible financial companies’ would be taxed by the FDIC to build up this fund. As with any tax, though, it’s consumers–you and me–who would eventually pay this levy.
The Obama Administration this weekend requested that the $50 billion pre-funded bailout money be removed from the bill. But according to Foxnews.com, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner advocated last year that any bailout funding should be addressed post bailout through a tax on big Wall Street firms. If Senate Democrats only take out the $50 billion slush fund and leave the bailout authority intact, then the taxpayers will still be on the hook for any future bailouts.
Another problem with this bill is that it would bail out the creditors of companies and wouldn’t require any creditor to take a loss after a company starts to fail. If the bailout slush fund is tapped, the FDIC would have the power to reimburse creditors. That could allow the FDIC to pay creditors more than they invested (pursuant to Section 210 of the Dodd bill).
Think about that. If creditors know they aren’t likely take a loss, and risk has been eliminated from an investment, its taxpayers who are assuming all the risk. Of course, taxpayers get none of the rewards if the investments pay off–we would simply be on the hook if they fail. Taxpayers could expect no reward for having insured transactions and protected wealthy investors from any risk. The AIG bailout is a great example of this model.”
Update II: BUDDING BUREAUCRACIES. Senate Republicans are, so far, blocking debate, and thus a vote, on The Bill, which makes them look like obstructionists to a moronic populace.
“Republicans say the bill would set up a permanent bailout of Wall Street banks and create bureaucracies … Dodd’s legislation would create a consumer financial protection bureau at the Federal Reserve with authority to write rules and enforce them at banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets. … The bill would limit the Fed’s regulatory authority to banks with assets of at least $50 billion, transferring its powers to monitor smaller lenders to other regulators. It would also set up a council of regulators to monitor the economy for systemic risk and ban proprietary trading at U.S. banks.”
