printPat Buchanan: “Barack Obama’s war on Arizona is not a war of necessity. It is a war of choice—an unprovoked war, undertaken not to defend constitutional or civil rights, but to pander to his party’s left and Hispanic voters. …”
In a shocking and telling episode in the Rose Garden, Obama stood by mute as Felipe Calderon attacked the Arizona law as “discriminatory.” The next day, Democrats in Congress, with Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano joining in, cheered the Mexican president’s slander that Arizona introduced “racial profiling to law enforcement.”
There was a time when such an insult to a state of our union, on U.S. soil by a foreign ruler, would have produced a diplomatic crisis, if not pistols at dawn.
Democrats cheer as Arizona is attacked by a Mexican leader whose country treats illegal entry as a felony and illegal aliens with a brutality no American would tolerate. …
And what exactly is at the heart of the Arizona law?
Simply this: Being in this country illegally is now a misdemeanor in Arizona, as it is in U.S. law. And as a 1940 U.S. law requires resident aliens to carry their green cards or work visas at all times, Arizona will require police to request such identification if, in a “lawful contact”—a traffic violation or altercation—the officer entertains a “reasonable suspicion” the individual may be here illegally.
“Obama’s War Of Choice…On Arizona.” Pat Buchanan just gets sharper and sharper.
With all due respect to Mr Buchanan I disagree with one thing. This war against Arizona IS a war of necessity for BHO. He needs to win this thing so he can get those millions of votes. So he can provide union thugs with a ready made horde of new members who can be signed up for lower wages to make them more palatable to American businesses. To lose this battle could cost Obama and the Democrats dearly. The country be damned.
Is it ethical to wish for the success of evil if you believe it will bring about a greater good?
Not a day goes by that I’m not grateful for McCain’s defeat. I don’t think any of this genuine conservative outrage could have come about with President War Hero in the White House.
But there is one thing that keeps me up at night: Obama’s defeat in 2012 and the election of another neocon. Then the whole charade begins again. Here’s to a second term for the Great Pharaoh.
Ilana,
I whole-heartedly support the notion that government should always be at the scale of the governance, always favoring as localized as possible. That way those most impacted by the results of the governing control, are instituting/managing the controls.
Citizenship, however, is a national status, not a state status, with state residence, being regulated under the national controls of border entry. It seems to me Arizona’s better choice would have been simply uphold the existing U.S. laws on immigration and sue the federal government for the costs incurred doing such. I’ve always enjoyed your pedantic peotry of cognition, please comment.
Buchanan wrote a good essay. Of course, the Democratic party “leaders” are fully behind Obama as are 50% of the Republican party “leaders” and all the “mainstream conservative pundits”.
On the (political, not border!) fence are such bold “mavericks” as Sarah Palin. On the other side are the common ordinary people (including roughly 50% of “Hispanics”), the concept of government to protect a country from illegal trespass, and current federal law.
Unfortunately, the case or cases will go to the Federal Judiciary – trained specialists on reading into the Living Constitution things that: (a) are not there, (b) should not be there, and (c) those who voted to adopt the Constitution never intended it to be there. Nevertheless, under their authority to “interpret” the Constitution, the President can nullify an act of Congress and prevent state governments from exercising their police powers in accordance with Congressional will.
This type of judicial mischief is one reason why I am completely opposed to insidious nonsense such as a proposed “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the US Constitution.
By the way, somewhere under that “Democrats EVIL Republicans GOOD” mantra of hers, Ann Coulter may have a bit of a brain. Re: (ARIZONA) –
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071510.php3
I agree with Myron on the point of new amendments to the Constitution. When we consider the snakes who are doing everything they can to bypass, ignore, subvert and otherwise junk the Constitution I think it’s better not to try anything new. There’s no telling what they’ll do.
Consider: When a government entity abandons its legal responsibility to enforce a law, do the PEOPLE not have the right to have the next highest and / or next inline governmental entity enforce the that law especially when the lack of enforcement greatly increases the harm to which the citizenry is exposed? Finally, when the elected officials relegate the citizens to, in effect, fend for themselves, then those citizens have an absolute right to enforce the laws and protect themselves. This is not anarchy…it is common sense for self-preservation. Think…if someone breaks into your home, threatens to murder you, your wife, and your children, are you going to ask that person to wait until you can contact the President, your Senator or Congressman, your Governor or your Mayor OR are you going to blow the Bastard away before your family is murdered? The “CASTLE DEFENSE” RULES.
I agree with Van Wijk that things would be almost ad bad with President McCain other than that the 50% of sheepish Republicans would be rallying by the same policies they object to (bailouts, no border wall, stimulus, …) when done by a Democrat.