Obama sides with the lawless over besieged citizens.
Andrew C. McCarthy
Thursday, April 29, 2010
In an inevitable state of ignorance of some of its major provisions, Pres. Barack Obama recently signed a 2,700-page health-care bill. Since then, the president has championed a 1,400-page financial-reform proposal, insisting that it does not provide a blank check for future multibillion-dollar corporate bailouts — but the bill would, in fact, provide a blank-check for future multibillion-dollar corporate bailouts.
The point of these geysers of legislation is to produce tsunamis of regulation. Tens of thousands of pages dense with code will shift control of previously private activity to swelling bureaucracies, unaccountable to any but the most wired insiders. In crony socialism as in crony capitalism, what matters is who you know. When it comes to the law, no one can really know what it is.
In his spare time, on April 8, President Obama signed an arms-reduction treaty with Russia. He urges swift ratification of the accord even though, as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton observes, important provisions are still being negotiated. In the spirit of the times, though, the pact would become the law of the land before those details are finalized, while its authors either don’t know what it says or are lying about it. Administration officials told Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain — who will be central to the Senate’s ratification debate — that the treaty referred to missile defense only in the hortatory, non-binding preamble. Yet when the senators looked at the treaty’s binding terms, they found, right there in black and white, a provision (Art. V, para. 3) that would require the United States to refrain from placing “defense interceptors” in existing missile launchers — a severe compromise of American national security.
So when the president hastily pronounced Arizona’s new immigration bill “misguided” and “irresponsible,” Arizona residents — whom the federal government has abandoned to the siege of Mexican warlords, narco-peddlers, and squatters — may be forgiven for snickering. Come to think of it, snickering has become the default reaction to pronouncements on the law by our ex-law-prof-in-chief , particularly those prefaced by his most grating verbal tic, “Let me be clear . . . .”
Why “misguided” and “irresponsible”? The president elaborated that the Arizona law “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” To be sure, Obama has notions of fairness, but they are his own, marinated in doctrinaire leftism. As for the American ideal that he ceaselessly invokes but clearly doesn’t get, our Constitution’s framers thought fundamental fairness would be fatally undermined by two things: the inability of the governed to consent to legal arrangements because it had become impossible to know what the law is, and the failure of central government to tend to its first responsibility: the nation’s security.
The consent of the governed, it is worth remembering, is the only just source of the power that government wields in a free society. One cannot consent to what one cannot know. Thus, there can be no legitimate government if, as Madison put it in Federalist No. 62, “the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”
Our elected officials and judicial officers don’t rule us. They are there to govern, to implement our will. When they resort to impenetrable legislative monstrosities to implement their own will without our consent — indeed, over our objection — that is not governing. It is dictating.
Maybe that’s the Obama administration’s problem with Arizona’s new law: It is too short (16 pages), too clear, and too reflective of the popular will. Unlike the social scientists in Nancy Pelosi’s federal laboratory, state lawmakers didn’t need to pass the law first in order to find out what was in it. Essentially, it criminalizes (as a state misdemeanor) something that is already illegal (namely, being present in the United States in violation of federal law), and it directs law-enforcement officers to, yes, enforce the law. Democrats and their media echo-chamber regard this as radical; for most of us, it is what’s known as common sense.
And here’s another commonsense proposition: A government that abdicates our national defense against outside forces is no longer a government worth having.
In adopting the Constitution, in giving their consent to our social contract, the sovereign states agreed to cede some of their authority in exchange for one overriding benefit. It was not to have an overseer to monitor our salt intake, design our light bulbs, prepare for our retirement, manage our medical treatments, or mandate our purchases. It was to provide for our security. It was to repel invasion by aliens who challenged our sovereign authority to set the conditions of their presence on our soil.
For that reason, border security has always been the highest prerogative of sovereignty. Immune from judicial interference, it answers to no warrant requirement. At the border, the federal government does not need probable cause — or any cause at all — to inquire into a person’s citizenship, immigration status, or purpose for attempting to enter our country. Agents can detain immigrants and citizens alike. They can perform bodily searches. They can go through every inch of a would-be entrant’s belongings, read his mail, and scrutinize the contents of his computer. A person subjected to this treatment may find it degrading or unfair, but the courts have nothing to say about it. At stake, after all, is the irreducible core of a sovereign people’s power to protect themselves from intruders.
At the southern border, however, the federal government has forfeited its power. As a result, Arizonans are imperiled by Mexico’s brutally violent warring factions. They are crushed economically as the magnet effect of our unsustainable welfare state falls disproportionately on their schools, hospitals, jails, and pocketbooks, to the tune of nearly $2 billion per year.
Arizona is a sovereign state. Its citizens have a natural right to defend themselves, particularly when the federal government surrenders. The state’s new law does precisely that, in a measured way that comes nowhere close to invoking the necessary, draconian powers Leviathan has but refuses to use.
Demagogues are smearing Arizona’s immigration law as “racial profiling” because it endorses police inquiries into the validity of a person’s presence in the United States. The claim could not be more specious. The law does not give police any new basis to stop and detain someone. Police may not inquire into immigration status unless they have a “lawful” basis for stopping the person in the first place. And even then, the police officer must have “reasonable suspicion” before attempting to determine whether the person is lawfully present. And that suspicion must be generated by something beyond race and ethnicity — as Byron York notes, the law expressly says these may not be the sole factors.
The law is clearly constitutional. Yet the Obama administration, having buried unconsenting Americans under avalanches of debt and inscrutable, unconstitutional mega-statutes, is mulling a court challenge, casting its lot with lawless aliens against besieged Arizonans.
A government destructive of our citizens’ basic rights to know, to determine, and to have the protection of the law cannot endure. This one will not. The only question is how much more damage we will allow it to do.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hating the Middle Class
Emmett Tyrrell
Thursday, April 29, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The liberals hate the middle class. There, I said it, and I am glad. Once again I am a truth teller, in this case speaking truth to stone heads. So certain am I of the truth of my asseveration that I honestly doubt any liberal will take issue with me. Can you imagine a liberal coming forward and saying: "Wrong, Tyrrell! I love the middle class." Well, I guess I can imagine it, because liberals are effortless liars. Yet what specifically about the middle class might the liberals adduce to demonstrate their affection? The middle class' sobriety? Hard work? Love of country? Love of liberty?
The liberals' contempt for the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin obviously is fired by their hatred of the middle class. She has said nothing that many ordinary Americans have not said privately, though she does it with charm. I was particularly charmed by her playful taunt directed toward the Prophet Obama at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., in February, when she said, "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya?" At the time, his polling figures were low -- not as low as they fell later, but low -- and not much was "working" for him. Things have not improved.
What seems particularly to offend the liberals is that she is from Middle America and from a state whose citizens pride themselves in self-reliance. Then, too, it has to hurt that she is so easy on the eye while being the antithesis of the feminist. By the way, has there ever been a comely feminist? Yes, Gloria Steinem had her moments, but then as the years went on and her gripes and disappointments multiplied, her anger got the best of her, and today her face looks like a gnarled fist. Palin could teach her a lot, starting with a pedicure and maybe a prayer. That is another thing that brings the liberals to a boil, Palin's being a person of faith. For some reason, religion really alarms liberals, unless it be the religion of the Prophet Muhammad. Now there is an evolution in liberal thought I would not have anticipated.
The tea party movement is another perfectly middle-class phenomenon that sets off fires of indignation with the liberals. I could understand if they simply disagreed with the tea partyers. The tea partyers favor freedom, limited government, low taxes and addressing the staggering debt that government is piling up. These are values that liberals do not champion. But the liberals have to go further, depicting the tea partyers as violent racists. Once again we see how fluently the liberals lie, starting by lying to themselves.
Last week during a seminar at The Heritage Foundation on my new book, "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery," Michael Barone, surely one of the most learned political observers of our time, made a very instructive point. While writing his fine book "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," he discovered that there was in the late 1930s a growing resistance against the New Deal's spreading governmental tentacles. Very much as they are in today's tea party movement, Americans were becoming uneasy about the cost and coercion of FDR's huge government projects. Moreover, as Amity Shlaes has demonstrated in her most recent book, "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," the New Deal was not ending the Depression, but lengthening it.
Barone now believes that had World War II not arrived, this late-1930s tea party manifestation would have supported a stiff challenge to FDR's precedent-breaking third term. He speculates that there is something about America that makes many of its citizens relish their freedoms and suspicious of government involvement in areas Americans envisage as off-limits to government power and inefficiency. That something is the Constitution, which might explain why liberal judges want to be free to ignore it or disfigure it.
Yes, the liberals hate the middle class, and I think I tripped across the reason for their hatred while finishing "Hangover." Whereas conservatism is fundamentally a temperament to delight in reality and in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, liberalism is fundamentally an anxiety. The environment? The Constitution? The middle class? Liberalism is an anxiety about reality. The liberals prefer fantasy to reality -- hence their fluency in lying about the tea party movement and the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The liberals hate the middle class. There, I said it, and I am glad. Once again I am a truth teller, in this case speaking truth to stone heads. So certain am I of the truth of my asseveration that I honestly doubt any liberal will take issue with me. Can you imagine a liberal coming forward and saying: "Wrong, Tyrrell! I love the middle class." Well, I guess I can imagine it, because liberals are effortless liars. Yet what specifically about the middle class might the liberals adduce to demonstrate their affection? The middle class' sobriety? Hard work? Love of country? Love of liberty?
The liberals' contempt for the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin obviously is fired by their hatred of the middle class. She has said nothing that many ordinary Americans have not said privately, though she does it with charm. I was particularly charmed by her playful taunt directed toward the Prophet Obama at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., in February, when she said, "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya?" At the time, his polling figures were low -- not as low as they fell later, but low -- and not much was "working" for him. Things have not improved.
What seems particularly to offend the liberals is that she is from Middle America and from a state whose citizens pride themselves in self-reliance. Then, too, it has to hurt that she is so easy on the eye while being the antithesis of the feminist. By the way, has there ever been a comely feminist? Yes, Gloria Steinem had her moments, but then as the years went on and her gripes and disappointments multiplied, her anger got the best of her, and today her face looks like a gnarled fist. Palin could teach her a lot, starting with a pedicure and maybe a prayer. That is another thing that brings the liberals to a boil, Palin's being a person of faith. For some reason, religion really alarms liberals, unless it be the religion of the Prophet Muhammad. Now there is an evolution in liberal thought I would not have anticipated.
The tea party movement is another perfectly middle-class phenomenon that sets off fires of indignation with the liberals. I could understand if they simply disagreed with the tea partyers. The tea partyers favor freedom, limited government, low taxes and addressing the staggering debt that government is piling up. These are values that liberals do not champion. But the liberals have to go further, depicting the tea partyers as violent racists. Once again we see how fluently the liberals lie, starting by lying to themselves.
Last week during a seminar at The Heritage Foundation on my new book, "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery," Michael Barone, surely one of the most learned political observers of our time, made a very instructive point. While writing his fine book "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," he discovered that there was in the late 1930s a growing resistance against the New Deal's spreading governmental tentacles. Very much as they are in today's tea party movement, Americans were becoming uneasy about the cost and coercion of FDR's huge government projects. Moreover, as Amity Shlaes has demonstrated in her most recent book, "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," the New Deal was not ending the Depression, but lengthening it.
Barone now believes that had World War II not arrived, this late-1930s tea party manifestation would have supported a stiff challenge to FDR's precedent-breaking third term. He speculates that there is something about America that makes many of its citizens relish their freedoms and suspicious of government involvement in areas Americans envisage as off-limits to government power and inefficiency. That something is the Constitution, which might explain why liberal judges want to be free to ignore it or disfigure it.
Yes, the liberals hate the middle class, and I think I tripped across the reason for their hatred while finishing "Hangover." Whereas conservatism is fundamentally a temperament to delight in reality and in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, liberalism is fundamentally an anxiety. The environment? The Constitution? The middle class? Liberalism is an anxiety about reality. The liberals prefer fantasy to reality -- hence their fluency in lying about the tea party movement and the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin.
Che Shirt Reflects Poorly on Culture
Marybeth Hicks
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
I learned long ago that shopping with teenagers requires me to patronize places I would otherwise avoid. The combination of loud, thumpy music, unreasonably priced clothing with manufactured holes in the knees and overly perky salespeople reminds me it is good to be a grown-up.
Recently, however, owing to his incessant habit of rapid growth, my 15-year-old son needed new shoes. Thus, I found myself in the chain store Journeys, where one finds all manner of casual footwear, including styles even a mother can approve.
The Journeys store at my mall is well-managed and well-staffed. The salespeople are truly some of the friendliest, most attentive and most competent I've found in a store that caters to young shoppers.
Still, I can't look these guys in the face. This is because despite their pleasant demeanor, every member of the sales team is pierced and tattooed in the extreme. They even sport "gauged" ear lobes — piercings that stretch the lobe to resemble elephant ears.
So gross.
So I adopt a strategy I have dubbed "Product Scrutiny." Basically, I focus all my attention on the shoes under consideration as though I have never before bought footwear.
On our recent visit to Journeys, it happened they offered a freebie — a hat — for which we qualified by virtue of the size of our purchase. Two pairs of shoes, two packs of socks, tell the folks what they've won.
When the salesman shows us the free hat, I say, "Hmmm, I think the only time this style works is in the Cuban military or with a Che Guevara T-shirt."
My son nods in agreement as we both conclude the hat will go directly to the Halloween closet.
But my comment isn't lost on our salesguy, who offers cheerfully, "We have Che T-shirts!"
I say, "But he was a cold, brutal killer and the chief henchman for Fidel Castro. Why put him on a T-shirt?"
To which the young man responds, "Hey, viva la revolution. I dont like to live in the past."
I can't leave it at that, so I say, "Even in the present, he remains a heinous murderer. Being dead and all, he can't exactly rehabilitate himself."
Transaction complete, my son and I walk to the mall exit, and Jimmy listens to me rant about the magnitude of idiocy and ignorance that seems to permeate an entire generation.
How have we become a culture that thinks it is cool to wear T-shirts and caps glorifying a brutal mass murderer who helped to oppress a society with the scourge of communism? How have our young people adopted a philosophy as vapid and useless as "I don't like to live in the past"?
And what happens to a culture whose youth are so uninformed and uneducated?
Unfortunately, according to a recent study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, we're going to find out. A few weeks ago it released the results of an annual survey of college freshman and seniors, in which 14,000 incoming and outgoing college students were given a 60-question civics test.
Half of the incoming freshmen failed the test, and worse, only 54 percent of graduating seniors passed. The schools that did the worst — that is, their graduating seniors actually scored worse than they did as freshmen — were among the nation's most elite schools.
Another important finding, though, is that four years of college influences students' opinions on a few popular yet polarizing issues: Abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, the divinity of the Bible and the opportunity to succeed in America. That the influence regarding these issues is resoundingly liberal is so obvious as to be a cliche.
So there's the answer to a couple of my questions. We're a culture whose young people think Che is cool because "The Communist Manifesto" is required reading for thousands of college freshmen, but not "The Federalist Papers" or even the U.S. Constitution. They've adopted a vapid "live for today" philosophy because they don't learn the history of our government or anyone else's.
What happens to such a culture?
Only time will tell.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
I learned long ago that shopping with teenagers requires me to patronize places I would otherwise avoid. The combination of loud, thumpy music, unreasonably priced clothing with manufactured holes in the knees and overly perky salespeople reminds me it is good to be a grown-up.
Recently, however, owing to his incessant habit of rapid growth, my 15-year-old son needed new shoes. Thus, I found myself in the chain store Journeys, where one finds all manner of casual footwear, including styles even a mother can approve.
The Journeys store at my mall is well-managed and well-staffed. The salespeople are truly some of the friendliest, most attentive and most competent I've found in a store that caters to young shoppers.
Still, I can't look these guys in the face. This is because despite their pleasant demeanor, every member of the sales team is pierced and tattooed in the extreme. They even sport "gauged" ear lobes — piercings that stretch the lobe to resemble elephant ears.
So gross.
So I adopt a strategy I have dubbed "Product Scrutiny." Basically, I focus all my attention on the shoes under consideration as though I have never before bought footwear.
On our recent visit to Journeys, it happened they offered a freebie — a hat — for which we qualified by virtue of the size of our purchase. Two pairs of shoes, two packs of socks, tell the folks what they've won.
When the salesman shows us the free hat, I say, "Hmmm, I think the only time this style works is in the Cuban military or with a Che Guevara T-shirt."
My son nods in agreement as we both conclude the hat will go directly to the Halloween closet.
But my comment isn't lost on our salesguy, who offers cheerfully, "We have Che T-shirts!"
I say, "But he was a cold, brutal killer and the chief henchman for Fidel Castro. Why put him on a T-shirt?"
To which the young man responds, "Hey, viva la revolution. I dont like to live in the past."
I can't leave it at that, so I say, "Even in the present, he remains a heinous murderer. Being dead and all, he can't exactly rehabilitate himself."
Transaction complete, my son and I walk to the mall exit, and Jimmy listens to me rant about the magnitude of idiocy and ignorance that seems to permeate an entire generation.
How have we become a culture that thinks it is cool to wear T-shirts and caps glorifying a brutal mass murderer who helped to oppress a society with the scourge of communism? How have our young people adopted a philosophy as vapid and useless as "I don't like to live in the past"?
And what happens to a culture whose youth are so uninformed and uneducated?
Unfortunately, according to a recent study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, we're going to find out. A few weeks ago it released the results of an annual survey of college freshman and seniors, in which 14,000 incoming and outgoing college students were given a 60-question civics test.
Half of the incoming freshmen failed the test, and worse, only 54 percent of graduating seniors passed. The schools that did the worst — that is, their graduating seniors actually scored worse than they did as freshmen — were among the nation's most elite schools.
Another important finding, though, is that four years of college influences students' opinions on a few popular yet polarizing issues: Abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, the divinity of the Bible and the opportunity to succeed in America. That the influence regarding these issues is resoundingly liberal is so obvious as to be a cliche.
So there's the answer to a couple of my questions. We're a culture whose young people think Che is cool because "The Communist Manifesto" is required reading for thousands of college freshmen, but not "The Federalist Papers" or even the U.S. Constitution. They've adopted a vapid "live for today" philosophy because they don't learn the history of our government or anyone else's.
What happens to such a culture?
Only time will tell.
Let's Make a Deal, Sr. Presidente Calderon
Rich Galen
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
As regular readers know, because I have the attention span of the average 5-year-old, I rarely write on the same topic twice unless, because I have the memory of a 63-year-old, I forgot that I'd written about it.
Today will be a departure because of the response of Mexican President Felipe Calderón to the new immigration law in Arizona.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Mexico has a population of about 111 million people with a net migration of "-3.61 migrant(s)/1,000 population." I may be wrong about this but that means every year about 400,000 people leave Mexico.
I'm guessing that some of those migrants end up in the United States of America.
According to the U.K. Guardian, El Presidente is muy agravado over this new law and "promised to raise it with President Barack Obama during a visit to Washington next week."
This would be really funny: How about if Maryland State Troopers were to stop Calderón's motorcade on its way in to the District of Columbia from Andrews Air Force Base and made everyone show their passports?
Ok, that's not funny. But this is.
According to reporter Ewen MacAskill:
The Mexican foreign ministry, long used to warnings from the US state department about the risks of travelling to Mexico because of drug wars, retaliated by issuing an alert to Mexicans and migrant communities because of the "adverse political atmosphere" in Arizona.
UPI wrote that the warning "advised Mexican nationals to use 'extreme caution' traveling to Arizona -- even before the law takes effect -- and listed consulates where people can get help."
It added, "As long no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."
Calderón told a group of migrants in Mexico City Monday that
"Criminalizing immigration, which is a social and economic phenomenon, this way opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement."
Sneaking into the United States has long been criminalized. This law applies to people who are illegal aliens who, because the word "illegal" is involved, would appear to have been involved in criminal activity in the first place.
More importantly, it seems that migrants in the U.S. are much safer than migrants in … Mexico as this lead paragraph from another U.K. Guardian article shows:
Stalked by kidnappers, murders, rapists and corrupt officials, the journey Central Americans make through Mexico on their way to the United States is one of the most perilous migration routes in the world.
The report on which that article was based, states:
"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses."
And, before you roll your eyes thinking this was the work of some anti-Mexican hack with an ax to grind, the report was produced and released by Amnesty International - not exactly an organization known for embracing conservative causes.
Whoa! ¡nos trae la cuenta por favor! (Which either means, "check, please!" or "Is this the right road to Tumazunchale?")
Felipe Calderón is whining about the way we are treating immigrants in the U.S. because they may be asked to produce documents proving they are here legally, while immigrants in his very own country are being kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered by the tens of thousands, according to the report.
So, Sr. Presidente, why don't you deal with the social and economic phenomenon of immigration in Mexico and let us deal with the s & e p of immigration in the United States?
Until that, let's have an informal agreement: No American citizens will come to Mexico, and no Mexican citizens will come to the U.S.
¿tenemos un reparto?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
As regular readers know, because I have the attention span of the average 5-year-old, I rarely write on the same topic twice unless, because I have the memory of a 63-year-old, I forgot that I'd written about it.
Today will be a departure because of the response of Mexican President Felipe Calderón to the new immigration law in Arizona.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Mexico has a population of about 111 million people with a net migration of "-3.61 migrant(s)/1,000 population." I may be wrong about this but that means every year about 400,000 people leave Mexico.
I'm guessing that some of those migrants end up in the United States of America.
According to the U.K. Guardian, El Presidente is muy agravado over this new law and "promised to raise it with President Barack Obama during a visit to Washington next week."
This would be really funny: How about if Maryland State Troopers were to stop Calderón's motorcade on its way in to the District of Columbia from Andrews Air Force Base and made everyone show their passports?
Ok, that's not funny. But this is.
According to reporter Ewen MacAskill:
The Mexican foreign ministry, long used to warnings from the US state department about the risks of travelling to Mexico because of drug wars, retaliated by issuing an alert to Mexicans and migrant communities because of the "adverse political atmosphere" in Arizona.
UPI wrote that the warning "advised Mexican nationals to use 'extreme caution' traveling to Arizona -- even before the law takes effect -- and listed consulates where people can get help."
It added, "As long no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."
Calderón told a group of migrants in Mexico City Monday that
"Criminalizing immigration, which is a social and economic phenomenon, this way opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement."
Sneaking into the United States has long been criminalized. This law applies to people who are illegal aliens who, because the word "illegal" is involved, would appear to have been involved in criminal activity in the first place.
More importantly, it seems that migrants in the U.S. are much safer than migrants in … Mexico as this lead paragraph from another U.K. Guardian article shows:
Stalked by kidnappers, murders, rapists and corrupt officials, the journey Central Americans make through Mexico on their way to the United States is one of the most perilous migration routes in the world.
The report on which that article was based, states:
"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses."
And, before you roll your eyes thinking this was the work of some anti-Mexican hack with an ax to grind, the report was produced and released by Amnesty International - not exactly an organization known for embracing conservative causes.
Whoa! ¡nos trae la cuenta por favor! (Which either means, "check, please!" or "Is this the right road to Tumazunchale?")
Felipe Calderón is whining about the way we are treating immigrants in the U.S. because they may be asked to produce documents proving they are here legally, while immigrants in his very own country are being kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered by the tens of thousands, according to the report.
So, Sr. Presidente, why don't you deal with the social and economic phenomenon of immigration in Mexico and let us deal with the s & e p of immigration in the United States?
Until that, let's have an informal agreement: No American citizens will come to Mexico, and no Mexican citizens will come to the U.S.
¿tenemos un reparto?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
A Law Arizona Can Live With
George Will
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
WASHINGTON -- "Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.
It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?
Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy -- judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes -- because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."
But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are now required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights -- the Fourth Amendment -- proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law -- as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."
Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from basing action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts, and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanics. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their backyards at 3 a.m.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
WASHINGTON -- "Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.
It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?
Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy -- judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes -- because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."
But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are now required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights -- the Fourth Amendment -- proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law -- as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."
Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from basing action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts, and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanics. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their backyards at 3 a.m.
Arizona's Ugly But Necessary Immigration Law
Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
On Monday, Matt Lauer of "Today" interviewed Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff who's made a national name for himself cracking down on illegal immigration. Lauer noted that Arizona's new immigration bill has the support of 70 percent of Arizonans. "But get this," Lauer added, "53 percent of those same people said they worry it could lead to civil rights violations."
Lauer and other commentators seem to think that there's something of a contradiction here. I don't see it, perhaps because it describes my own position so well. I support the Arizona law, but I'm also worried that it could lead to civil rights abuses.
It seems that whenever government expands either its powers or its enforcement efforts, you should be worried that it could go too far. But such worries have to be balanced against necessity.
I agree that there's something ugly about the police, even local police, asking citizens for their "papers" (there's nothing particularly ugly about asking illegal immigrants for their papers, though). There's also something ugly about American citizens being physically searched at airports. There's something ugly about IRS agents prying into nearly all of your personal financial transactions or, thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, serving as health insurance enforcers.
In other words, there are many government functions that are unappealing to one extent or another. That is not in itself an argument against them. The Patriot Act was ugly -- and necessary.
Consider California's decision to "lead by example" on global warming. Environmentalists argued that Washington was negligent in fighting climate change at the federal level. Hence California had no choice but to tackle a national problem at the state level. California implemented standards that are considerably more strict than those required (for now) by Washington.
Arizona's law is more humble than that. While California pushed a stricter standard than the one Washington was enforcing, Arizona seeks to enforce the federal law that Washington isn't enforcing.
The constitutional and legal issues make the parallel less than perfect, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, I'd wager that the costs of illegal immigration -- economic, social and environmental -- on Arizona dwarf the costs on California from global warming, at least so far.
President Obama seems to get this, sort of: "Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona."
This is awfully tendentious since he takes it as a given that Arizona's effort to take some responsibility for a problem is best understood as "irresponsible," as if continuing to do nothing at the local level while too little is done at the federal level would be more responsible. Of course, "irresponsible" is lavish praise compared with charges of "apartheid" and "Nazi" coming from some opponents of the law, including Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony.
Regardless, Obama is right insofar as Arizona's effort is the inevitable consequence of Washington's inability to take illegal immigration seriously.
Which is why the Democrats' sudden decision to push for "comprehensive" immigration reform is so disappointing. If this were a sincere effort at reform, it would be laudable. But it's almost impossible to find anyone in Washington not paid to spout Democratic talking points who believes this is anything but a naked political ploy. Even such reliably liberal bloggers as Josh Marshall and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein concede that this is first and foremost a partisan stunt and wedge issue intended to split the GOP and woo Latinos, particularly in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs a game-changer to avoid crushing defeat in November.
Now, I don't mind wedge issues per se -- though liberals have been decrying them for decades. Still, this is beyond the pale. Ginning up a lot of anger on both sides of the issue without any serious hope of success will in all likelihood send the signal that Washington still thinks it's all a big, unserious game. And that is precisely why we will get more laws like Arizona's and make real immigration reform all the harder, if Washington ever tries to pursue it seriously.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
On Monday, Matt Lauer of "Today" interviewed Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff who's made a national name for himself cracking down on illegal immigration. Lauer noted that Arizona's new immigration bill has the support of 70 percent of Arizonans. "But get this," Lauer added, "53 percent of those same people said they worry it could lead to civil rights violations."
Lauer and other commentators seem to think that there's something of a contradiction here. I don't see it, perhaps because it describes my own position so well. I support the Arizona law, but I'm also worried that it could lead to civil rights abuses.
It seems that whenever government expands either its powers or its enforcement efforts, you should be worried that it could go too far. But such worries have to be balanced against necessity.
I agree that there's something ugly about the police, even local police, asking citizens for their "papers" (there's nothing particularly ugly about asking illegal immigrants for their papers, though). There's also something ugly about American citizens being physically searched at airports. There's something ugly about IRS agents prying into nearly all of your personal financial transactions or, thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, serving as health insurance enforcers.
In other words, there are many government functions that are unappealing to one extent or another. That is not in itself an argument against them. The Patriot Act was ugly -- and necessary.
Consider California's decision to "lead by example" on global warming. Environmentalists argued that Washington was negligent in fighting climate change at the federal level. Hence California had no choice but to tackle a national problem at the state level. California implemented standards that are considerably more strict than those required (for now) by Washington.
Arizona's law is more humble than that. While California pushed a stricter standard than the one Washington was enforcing, Arizona seeks to enforce the federal law that Washington isn't enforcing.
The constitutional and legal issues make the parallel less than perfect, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, I'd wager that the costs of illegal immigration -- economic, social and environmental -- on Arizona dwarf the costs on California from global warming, at least so far.
President Obama seems to get this, sort of: "Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona."
This is awfully tendentious since he takes it as a given that Arizona's effort to take some responsibility for a problem is best understood as "irresponsible," as if continuing to do nothing at the local level while too little is done at the federal level would be more responsible. Of course, "irresponsible" is lavish praise compared with charges of "apartheid" and "Nazi" coming from some opponents of the law, including Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony.
Regardless, Obama is right insofar as Arizona's effort is the inevitable consequence of Washington's inability to take illegal immigration seriously.
Which is why the Democrats' sudden decision to push for "comprehensive" immigration reform is so disappointing. If this were a sincere effort at reform, it would be laudable. But it's almost impossible to find anyone in Washington not paid to spout Democratic talking points who believes this is anything but a naked political ploy. Even such reliably liberal bloggers as Josh Marshall and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein concede that this is first and foremost a partisan stunt and wedge issue intended to split the GOP and woo Latinos, particularly in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs a game-changer to avoid crushing defeat in November.
Now, I don't mind wedge issues per se -- though liberals have been decrying them for decades. Still, this is beyond the pale. Ginning up a lot of anger on both sides of the issue without any serious hope of success will in all likelihood send the signal that Washington still thinks it's all a big, unserious game. And that is precisely why we will get more laws like Arizona's and make real immigration reform all the harder, if Washington ever tries to pursue it seriously.
Hysterics against Arizona
The state is only seeking to enforce the nominal immigration policy of the United States; the federal government should try it sometime.
Rick Lowry
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
In the case of the new Arizona immigration law, the reductio ad Hitlerum occurred instantly.
Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote in a blog post, “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.” The president of the Hispanic Federation said the law “reminded me of Nazi Germany.” Cooler heads merely compared it to apartheid or 1960s-era civil-rights abuses.
And here I thought the tea partiers were befouling America’s political discourse with their overheated words. They don’t hold a candle to His Eminence or the assorted other hysterics decrying the rise of totalitarianism in the American Southwest.
Arizona’s offense is to attempt to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, in the absence of any serious commitment to do so on the part of the federal government or our political class.
The Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. This sounds draconian, except it’s been a federal crime for more than half a century — U.S.C. 1304(e). Has the open-borders crowd forgotten that it calls illegal aliens “undocumented” for a reason?
Police officers asking for papers may be redolent of old World War II movies. But consider the offending provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Hitler would be crestfallen. This hardly reeks of extremism. It means the vast majority of requests for documentation will occur in the course of other police business, like traffic stops.
The police already have the power to stop illegal aliens, a power the Arizona courts have upheld; they already can ask about someone’s legal status (the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005 that it has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment); and they already can detain illegal aliens. The Arizona law strengthens these existing authorities.
Will they be abused? Upon signing the law, Arizona governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order for a training program on how to implement it without racial profiling. No matter what her intentions, of course, it’s unavoidable that Latino citizens will be questioned disproportionally under the law; nationwide, 80 percent of illegal aliens are Latino, and the proportion in Arizona must be higher.
Once millions of illegal aliens are in the country, there’s no neat way to get them back out. It’s much better to endeavor to stop them at the southern border, something Washington still refuses to do. During the last eruption of the national immigration debate, Congress passed a law mandating a fence along the border. The Bush administration bid it down to a high-tech “virtual fence.” And the Obama administration has ceased constructing even that. If the federal government had been in charge of building the Great Wall, it wouldn’t have been great or a wall.
It used to be that San Diego and El Paso accounted for most illegal entries. As the border became more secure at those points, Arizona became the hub. The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens out of a population of 6.6 million. They impose countless millions of dollars in schooling, health-care, and incarceration costs, more than $1 billion a year in one estimate. Phoenix has become a kind of lawless Ellis Island, with smugglers holding migrants in “stash houses” there until they can be moved out into the rest of the country.
Arizonians needn’t, and shouldn’t, tolerate this. Critics accuse the state of unconstitutionally devising its own immigration policy. If it had unilaterally declared its border open to the poor, violence-plagued country to its south, this charge might have had force. Instead, Arizona seeks only to enforce the nominal immigration policy of the United States. Perhaps the federal government should try it sometime.
Rick Lowry
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
In the case of the new Arizona immigration law, the reductio ad Hitlerum occurred instantly.
Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote in a blog post, “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.” The president of the Hispanic Federation said the law “reminded me of Nazi Germany.” Cooler heads merely compared it to apartheid or 1960s-era civil-rights abuses.
And here I thought the tea partiers were befouling America’s political discourse with their overheated words. They don’t hold a candle to His Eminence or the assorted other hysterics decrying the rise of totalitarianism in the American Southwest.
Arizona’s offense is to attempt to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, in the absence of any serious commitment to do so on the part of the federal government or our political class.
The Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. This sounds draconian, except it’s been a federal crime for more than half a century — U.S.C. 1304(e). Has the open-borders crowd forgotten that it calls illegal aliens “undocumented” for a reason?
Police officers asking for papers may be redolent of old World War II movies. But consider the offending provision: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Hitler would be crestfallen. This hardly reeks of extremism. It means the vast majority of requests for documentation will occur in the course of other police business, like traffic stops.
The police already have the power to stop illegal aliens, a power the Arizona courts have upheld; they already can ask about someone’s legal status (the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005 that it has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment); and they already can detain illegal aliens. The Arizona law strengthens these existing authorities.
Will they be abused? Upon signing the law, Arizona governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order for a training program on how to implement it without racial profiling. No matter what her intentions, of course, it’s unavoidable that Latino citizens will be questioned disproportionally under the law; nationwide, 80 percent of illegal aliens are Latino, and the proportion in Arizona must be higher.
Once millions of illegal aliens are in the country, there’s no neat way to get them back out. It’s much better to endeavor to stop them at the southern border, something Washington still refuses to do. During the last eruption of the national immigration debate, Congress passed a law mandating a fence along the border. The Bush administration bid it down to a high-tech “virtual fence.” And the Obama administration has ceased constructing even that. If the federal government had been in charge of building the Great Wall, it wouldn’t have been great or a wall.
It used to be that San Diego and El Paso accounted for most illegal entries. As the border became more secure at those points, Arizona became the hub. The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens out of a population of 6.6 million. They impose countless millions of dollars in schooling, health-care, and incarceration costs, more than $1 billion a year in one estimate. Phoenix has become a kind of lawless Ellis Island, with smugglers holding migrants in “stash houses” there until they can be moved out into the rest of the country.
Arizonians needn’t, and shouldn’t, tolerate this. Critics accuse the state of unconstitutionally devising its own immigration policy. If it had unilaterally declared its border open to the poor, violence-plagued country to its south, this charge might have had force. Instead, Arizona seeks only to enforce the nominal immigration policy of the United States. Perhaps the federal government should try it sometime.
How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.
The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?
-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?
-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).
-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.
-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.
All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.
Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights."
But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).
As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.
Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.
Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:
Hipócritas.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.
The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?
-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?
-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).
-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.
-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.
All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.
Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights."
But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).
As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.
Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.
Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:
Hipócritas.
Arizona's 21-Bottle Salute
Brent Bozell
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Arizona officially joined the South this month. In other words, it became for our Northeastern media elitists a state dominated by backward, slack-jawed racists. The Associated Press marked the passage of a tough new anti-immigration law with the leftist version of a Welcome Wagon: "The furor over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol."
Disagreeing with the left -- and more importantly, handing them a political defeat -- brings a lot of ugliness these days from the forces of "tolerance." Character assassination is required. A citizen of Arizona cannot be concerned about higher rates of crime and strained government budgets without being Mexican-food-smeared as an adorer of Adolf Hitler. But what's truly outrageous if not surprising is that the same media that visibly quivered with anger that anyone would draw a Hitler moustache on their hero Barack Obama now present these Nazi smears as not an embarrassment to the left, but as a way of augmenting the left. The "furor was growing" over the tough new law, they dutifully report.
On the "CBS Evening News," Katie Couric calmly forwarded as credible the Nazi charge against those who support enforcing federal immigration laws. On April 23, CBS reporter Bill Whitaker suddenly liked the Catholics: "In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, head of the country's largest Catholic archdiocese, called the law mean-spirited and compared it to Nazi oppression." On April 26, CBS spotlighted a swastika sign with the words "Achtung! Papers Please," and Couric relayed the AP line that "some of those opponents vandalized the state capitol building, smearing refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows." Ho hum.
Don't these "journalists" see the contradiction? Are they really that blind, or that dumb?
A month ago, when the tea party movement brought their ardor to Capitol Hill against a government takeover of the health industry, "ugly" was the defining word. Here's David Muir on ABC's March 20 "World News": "Protesters against the plan gathered on the streets of the Capitol, where late today, we learned words shouted turned very ugly -- reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a congressman." There were no arrests, and no actual proof of the "slurs" alleged. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver backed off the claim he was spit on. The N-word was never used, as so dishonestly claimed.
And still, the tea party is "very ugly."
When protesters are left-wing, how it changes. Look at the Arizona coverage. On the same network on April 24, ABC reporter Mike von Fremd was spinning wildly: "Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested."
This spin line -- that rioting protesters were "mostly peaceful" -- was repeated by The New York Times and CNN (who called them "largely peaceful"). The Times made sure its photo choices radiated sympathy for the protesters. On Saturday, they stood enveloped in a huge American flag. On Sunday, they were holding a sober candlelight vigil. There were no photos of a cop getting hit in the head with a bottle. ABC and NBC noted the protests, but mentioned neither the violence, nor the "mostly peaceful" spin.
A leftist protester of the World Bank was also arrested in Washington on April 24 for felony assault on a policeman, one of eight arrests. No one heard about that violence. Media liberals may dismiss the notion of violence by insisting that policemen haven't been hospitalized. But leftist protests, in the architecture of their organizing principles, rely on making days miserable for police, forcing arrests for disturbing the peace; on forcibly blocking traffic, and then going limp and forcing officers carry them to jail. In the interest of drawing media attention, they often plan on violence against policemen and property. They must sneer at conservative protests as placid garden parties by comparison.
And the tea party protesters are the "ugly," "violent" ones.
A Washington Post article glorifying this last weekend's leftist jog in our nation's capital as a "run on the bank" to "destroy capitalism" offered a telling line. One protester described the expected behavior for their "convergence space" before protest activities, warning, "Don't be a jackass in the neighborhood. Save that for downtown." The sick joke in that line is that protesters can be as aggressive and offensive anywhere they want, and they can count on their media sympathizers to romanticize their struggle against whatever power structure that has failed to bow to their utopian wishes.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Arizona officially joined the South this month. In other words, it became for our Northeastern media elitists a state dominated by backward, slack-jawed racists. The Associated Press marked the passage of a tough new anti-immigration law with the leftist version of a Welcome Wagon: "The furor over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol."
Disagreeing with the left -- and more importantly, handing them a political defeat -- brings a lot of ugliness these days from the forces of "tolerance." Character assassination is required. A citizen of Arizona cannot be concerned about higher rates of crime and strained government budgets without being Mexican-food-smeared as an adorer of Adolf Hitler. But what's truly outrageous if not surprising is that the same media that visibly quivered with anger that anyone would draw a Hitler moustache on their hero Barack Obama now present these Nazi smears as not an embarrassment to the left, but as a way of augmenting the left. The "furor was growing" over the tough new law, they dutifully report.
On the "CBS Evening News," Katie Couric calmly forwarded as credible the Nazi charge against those who support enforcing federal immigration laws. On April 23, CBS reporter Bill Whitaker suddenly liked the Catholics: "In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, head of the country's largest Catholic archdiocese, called the law mean-spirited and compared it to Nazi oppression." On April 26, CBS spotlighted a swastika sign with the words "Achtung! Papers Please," and Couric relayed the AP line that "some of those opponents vandalized the state capitol building, smearing refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows." Ho hum.
Don't these "journalists" see the contradiction? Are they really that blind, or that dumb?
A month ago, when the tea party movement brought their ardor to Capitol Hill against a government takeover of the health industry, "ugly" was the defining word. Here's David Muir on ABC's March 20 "World News": "Protesters against the plan gathered on the streets of the Capitol, where late today, we learned words shouted turned very ugly -- reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a congressman." There were no arrests, and no actual proof of the "slurs" alleged. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver backed off the claim he was spit on. The N-word was never used, as so dishonestly claimed.
And still, the tea party is "very ugly."
When protesters are left-wing, how it changes. Look at the Arizona coverage. On the same network on April 24, ABC reporter Mike von Fremd was spinning wildly: "Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested."
This spin line -- that rioting protesters were "mostly peaceful" -- was repeated by The New York Times and CNN (who called them "largely peaceful"). The Times made sure its photo choices radiated sympathy for the protesters. On Saturday, they stood enveloped in a huge American flag. On Sunday, they were holding a sober candlelight vigil. There were no photos of a cop getting hit in the head with a bottle. ABC and NBC noted the protests, but mentioned neither the violence, nor the "mostly peaceful" spin.
A leftist protester of the World Bank was also arrested in Washington on April 24 for felony assault on a policeman, one of eight arrests. No one heard about that violence. Media liberals may dismiss the notion of violence by insisting that policemen haven't been hospitalized. But leftist protests, in the architecture of their organizing principles, rely on making days miserable for police, forcing arrests for disturbing the peace; on forcibly blocking traffic, and then going limp and forcing officers carry them to jail. In the interest of drawing media attention, they often plan on violence against policemen and property. They must sneer at conservative protests as placid garden parties by comparison.
And the tea party protesters are the "ugly," "violent" ones.
A Washington Post article glorifying this last weekend's leftist jog in our nation's capital as a "run on the bank" to "destroy capitalism" offered a telling line. One protester described the expected behavior for their "convergence space" before protest activities, warning, "Don't be a jackass in the neighborhood. Save that for downtown." The sick joke in that line is that protesters can be as aggressive and offensive anywhere they want, and they can count on their media sympathizers to romanticize their struggle against whatever power structure that has failed to bow to their utopian wishes.
Why Left Talks about "White" Tea Parties
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.
But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:
The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.
It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."
You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.
As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.
But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.
And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.
Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.
Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.
Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.
But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:
The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.
It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."
You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.
As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.
But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.
And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.
Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.
Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.
Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.
State Leadership Emerges in Arizona
Meredith Turney
Monday, April 26, 2010
With one bold action, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer staked a claim for states’ rights last Friday. By signing SB 1070, the landmark legislation authorizing Arizona’s law enforcement to actually enforce federal immigration laws, Governor Brewer took a long-overdue stand against the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own laws, and preventing states from protecting themselves against the tide of illegal immigration sapping states’ strained resources.
The main responsibility of an effective government is to protect its citizens from invasion; to keep them and their way of life safe. That’s exactly what Arizona has decided to do—protect its people. The state has witnessed an appalling level of crime resulting from the scourge of immigration violations, endangering the lives of Arizonans. Shockingly, Phoenix is now the number two kidnapping capital of the world, right behind Mexico.
State lawmakers finally recognized that those who break the first law of illegally entering the country aren’t going to abide by other important laws like driving with a license, paying taxes, or any of the other laws that foster social order. The battle over illegal immigration is fundamentally a war on civilization and social order. Southern border states in particular have suffered under the burden of illegal immigration and its consequent crime.
Texas Governor Rick Perry was the first governor to reopen the discussion on asserting the Constitution’s 10th Amendment right of states to regain federally-usurped powers. As the economy sags and Congress continually flouts the will of the people, plunging the nation into unconscionable debt, states are finally taking back their sovereignty. Arizona’s immigration law is simply the first modern test of this Constitutional principle.
The problems have gotten so bad in Arizona and neighboring states that it can only be likened to a foreign army crossing the border and invading the state—sanctioned by a mute, effete federal government. Polls show that over 70% of Arizona voters support the crackdown on illegal immigration. Since the federal government is unwilling to listen to the people, state government will.
Opponents of immigration reform have attempted to demonize Arizona’s action as a violation of civil rights. Apparently enforcing immigration laws is now itself a violation of the law. It should be clear that illegal aliens—foreigners who have violated United States law—have no rights but to be sent back to their country of origin. Some have even labeled Arizonans as “anti-immigration,” or opposing any foreigners from becoming citizens. But there is a distinct, obvious difference between criminal, illegal immigration and the lawful immigration that made America the most uniquely diverse yet unified country in the world.
While President Obama derides the new law as “misguided,” the truly misguided are Congress and the President—who have consistently disregarded their Constitutional mandate to defend the country from foreign invasion. In fact, the rampant crime, depleted state resources and resulting public anger wouldn’t have reached such untenable levels had the federal government taken action long ago. The political correctness that defends illegal immigration is not altruistic, as its proponents would have us believe. Instead, it tolerates and encourages criminal behavior that harms every citizen affected by violations of immigration law.
The Arizona immigration law may be an inconvenience for some legal citizens, but with the state in crisis, special circumstances merit state enforcement of federal immigration laws. No patriotic American—regardless of race—would balk at a police officer trying to stop crime in their streets, especially when simply asking for identification can be a deterrent. After the abominable acts of September 11th, Americans understood that new safety measures would be required to ensure safety. Showing identification to police officers who suspect they may be dealing with an illegal alien is not racial profiling. Illegal immigrant is not a race, it’s a criminal status. It’s criminal behavior that necessitates identity verification.
Showing identification is nothing new for the average American; it’s part of our daily life. Think of all the activities that require photo identification: airline travel, credit card or check purchases at the store, buying alcohol—and every time a citizens is pulled over for speeding. Unfortunately, airline hijacking, car theft, credit card fraud, forged checks and underage drinking, and now illegal immigration—all criminal behavior—require the everyday verification of one’s identity.
There is an important balance to find in protecting our freedom while maintaining societal order. Allowing police officers to ask for identification from suspected criminals does not tip the scales against freedom. Where there are cases of police abusing their authority, it should be dealt with swiftly and judiciously, as in any other violation of public trust. Opponents of the Arizona law will be quick to publicize such cases and try to make them national, sensational headlines. Every Arizona police officer will now be under intense scrutiny for his or her execution of their duties.
Neighboring states have an interest in joining with Arizona in defending their borders. As illegal aliens see the law enforced, they will inevitably seek refuge in jurisdictions where laws are not enforced. A flood of illegal immigrants into California would only increase the state’s growing $20 billion deficit. As long as other states continue to aid and abet the criminal activity of violating immigration laws, every taxpayer will be forced to pay for it.
For federal taxpayers throughout the country subsidizing illegal immigration, it would be more productive to send their tax dollars to Arizona, where at least they know their taxes are being spent on enforcing immigration laws, fighting crime, and defending the border.
Monday, April 26, 2010
With one bold action, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer staked a claim for states’ rights last Friday. By signing SB 1070, the landmark legislation authorizing Arizona’s law enforcement to actually enforce federal immigration laws, Governor Brewer took a long-overdue stand against the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce its own laws, and preventing states from protecting themselves against the tide of illegal immigration sapping states’ strained resources.
The main responsibility of an effective government is to protect its citizens from invasion; to keep them and their way of life safe. That’s exactly what Arizona has decided to do—protect its people. The state has witnessed an appalling level of crime resulting from the scourge of immigration violations, endangering the lives of Arizonans. Shockingly, Phoenix is now the number two kidnapping capital of the world, right behind Mexico.
State lawmakers finally recognized that those who break the first law of illegally entering the country aren’t going to abide by other important laws like driving with a license, paying taxes, or any of the other laws that foster social order. The battle over illegal immigration is fundamentally a war on civilization and social order. Southern border states in particular have suffered under the burden of illegal immigration and its consequent crime.
Texas Governor Rick Perry was the first governor to reopen the discussion on asserting the Constitution’s 10th Amendment right of states to regain federally-usurped powers. As the economy sags and Congress continually flouts the will of the people, plunging the nation into unconscionable debt, states are finally taking back their sovereignty. Arizona’s immigration law is simply the first modern test of this Constitutional principle.
The problems have gotten so bad in Arizona and neighboring states that it can only be likened to a foreign army crossing the border and invading the state—sanctioned by a mute, effete federal government. Polls show that over 70% of Arizona voters support the crackdown on illegal immigration. Since the federal government is unwilling to listen to the people, state government will.
Opponents of immigration reform have attempted to demonize Arizona’s action as a violation of civil rights. Apparently enforcing immigration laws is now itself a violation of the law. It should be clear that illegal aliens—foreigners who have violated United States law—have no rights but to be sent back to their country of origin. Some have even labeled Arizonans as “anti-immigration,” or opposing any foreigners from becoming citizens. But there is a distinct, obvious difference between criminal, illegal immigration and the lawful immigration that made America the most uniquely diverse yet unified country in the world.
While President Obama derides the new law as “misguided,” the truly misguided are Congress and the President—who have consistently disregarded their Constitutional mandate to defend the country from foreign invasion. In fact, the rampant crime, depleted state resources and resulting public anger wouldn’t have reached such untenable levels had the federal government taken action long ago. The political correctness that defends illegal immigration is not altruistic, as its proponents would have us believe. Instead, it tolerates and encourages criminal behavior that harms every citizen affected by violations of immigration law.
The Arizona immigration law may be an inconvenience for some legal citizens, but with the state in crisis, special circumstances merit state enforcement of federal immigration laws. No patriotic American—regardless of race—would balk at a police officer trying to stop crime in their streets, especially when simply asking for identification can be a deterrent. After the abominable acts of September 11th, Americans understood that new safety measures would be required to ensure safety. Showing identification to police officers who suspect they may be dealing with an illegal alien is not racial profiling. Illegal immigrant is not a race, it’s a criminal status. It’s criminal behavior that necessitates identity verification.
Showing identification is nothing new for the average American; it’s part of our daily life. Think of all the activities that require photo identification: airline travel, credit card or check purchases at the store, buying alcohol—and every time a citizens is pulled over for speeding. Unfortunately, airline hijacking, car theft, credit card fraud, forged checks and underage drinking, and now illegal immigration—all criminal behavior—require the everyday verification of one’s identity.
There is an important balance to find in protecting our freedom while maintaining societal order. Allowing police officers to ask for identification from suspected criminals does not tip the scales against freedom. Where there are cases of police abusing their authority, it should be dealt with swiftly and judiciously, as in any other violation of public trust. Opponents of the Arizona law will be quick to publicize such cases and try to make them national, sensational headlines. Every Arizona police officer will now be under intense scrutiny for his or her execution of their duties.
Neighboring states have an interest in joining with Arizona in defending their borders. As illegal aliens see the law enforced, they will inevitably seek refuge in jurisdictions where laws are not enforced. A flood of illegal immigrants into California would only increase the state’s growing $20 billion deficit. As long as other states continue to aid and abet the criminal activity of violating immigration laws, every taxpayer will be forced to pay for it.
For federal taxpayers throughout the country subsidizing illegal immigration, it would be more productive to send their tax dollars to Arizona, where at least they know their taxes are being spent on enforcing immigration laws, fighting crime, and defending the border.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Defining the conservative versus liberal divide
Star Parker
Monday, April 26, 2010
Now that President Obama is getting ready to make his second Supreme Court nomination, the usual banter is taking place about the court and judicial philosophy.
The Supreme Court, of course, profoundly influences the character of our country.
Although, for instance, many look back on the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal programs as the beginning of the real growth of the American welfare state, it is really key Supreme Court decisions during that time that enabled all of this. Court decisions changing the interpretation of “general welfare”, interstate commerce, and the authority of the federal government to tax changed the game and opened a new era of big government.
At the beginning of the 1930’s, the federal government’s take of national GDP was a little over ten percent. By the mid-1940’s it was over twenty percent, and the trend has been only upward since.
Although much of the discussion about judicial philosophy contrasts how conservative and liberal judges relate to the constitution, I think the real key to conservative and liberal divergence is the world view these judges already have when they sit down to interpret the constitution.
The statement of vision defining American values appears in the Declaration of Independence. Understanding that vision is where I think the most fundamental conservative versus liberal divide exists.
Consider how President Obama relates to the Constitution, as he wrote in his book The Audacity of Hope – “Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth….”
Our president is a moral relativist. So we may expect that he doesn’t take very seriously the idea, as state in the Declaration of Independence, that there are absolutes. That we have God given rights that precede government and that the job of government is to secure them.
Rather than seeing government’s job as securing our rights, the liberal sees it to invent them. The politician – or the empathetic judge – defines what is moral and just.
There’s a lot of speculation about what is driving the tea party movement and why, as reflected in the latest survey by the Pew Research Foundation, Americans’ trust in government is at an all time low.
I think most fundamentally it’s discomfort with this moral relativism that is driving the pervasive unrest.
The whole unique idea of American government – the idea of human liberty – was that there are absolute truths and that individual citizens can and must be protected from arbitrary rulers – whether it is a king or a political class with arbitrary powers.
President Obama said the other day regarding the kind of court nominee he will seek, “…I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights…”
What in the world can this possibly mean from our president who has just signed into law a health care bill which will force every single American citizen to buy a government defined health care insurance policy? A health care bill that opens the door to unprecedented government control over how private individuals manage their health care and the most private decisions they make over their own lives.
Or what can it possibly mean coming from our president who opposed the Supreme Court’s decision a few years ago banning partial birth abortion – which is pure and simple torture and murder of a live infant?
The real differences over liberal and conservative judges is most fundamentally about the world in which Americans will live. Whether we live and will live in a nation in which there are absolute truths or one in which we are at the hands of political arbitrariness in which our lives and property are up for grabs.
Our country is being governed today by those with the latter view of the world and, fortunately, more and more Americans are deeply concerned.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Now that President Obama is getting ready to make his second Supreme Court nomination, the usual banter is taking place about the court and judicial philosophy.
The Supreme Court, of course, profoundly influences the character of our country.
Although, for instance, many look back on the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal programs as the beginning of the real growth of the American welfare state, it is really key Supreme Court decisions during that time that enabled all of this. Court decisions changing the interpretation of “general welfare”, interstate commerce, and the authority of the federal government to tax changed the game and opened a new era of big government.
At the beginning of the 1930’s, the federal government’s take of national GDP was a little over ten percent. By the mid-1940’s it was over twenty percent, and the trend has been only upward since.
Although much of the discussion about judicial philosophy contrasts how conservative and liberal judges relate to the constitution, I think the real key to conservative and liberal divergence is the world view these judges already have when they sit down to interpret the constitution.
The statement of vision defining American values appears in the Declaration of Independence. Understanding that vision is where I think the most fundamental conservative versus liberal divide exists.
Consider how President Obama relates to the Constitution, as he wrote in his book The Audacity of Hope – “Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth….”
Our president is a moral relativist. So we may expect that he doesn’t take very seriously the idea, as state in the Declaration of Independence, that there are absolutes. That we have God given rights that precede government and that the job of government is to secure them.
Rather than seeing government’s job as securing our rights, the liberal sees it to invent them. The politician – or the empathetic judge – defines what is moral and just.
There’s a lot of speculation about what is driving the tea party movement and why, as reflected in the latest survey by the Pew Research Foundation, Americans’ trust in government is at an all time low.
I think most fundamentally it’s discomfort with this moral relativism that is driving the pervasive unrest.
The whole unique idea of American government – the idea of human liberty – was that there are absolute truths and that individual citizens can and must be protected from arbitrary rulers – whether it is a king or a political class with arbitrary powers.
President Obama said the other day regarding the kind of court nominee he will seek, “…I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights…”
What in the world can this possibly mean from our president who has just signed into law a health care bill which will force every single American citizen to buy a government defined health care insurance policy? A health care bill that opens the door to unprecedented government control over how private individuals manage their health care and the most private decisions they make over their own lives.
Or what can it possibly mean coming from our president who opposed the Supreme Court’s decision a few years ago banning partial birth abortion – which is pure and simple torture and murder of a live infant?
The real differences over liberal and conservative judges is most fundamentally about the world in which Americans will live. Whether we live and will live in a nation in which there are absolute truths or one in which we are at the hands of political arbitrariness in which our lives and property are up for grabs.
Our country is being governed today by those with the latter view of the world and, fortunately, more and more Americans are deeply concerned.
How to Offend Barbarians and Promote Diversity
Mike Adams
Monday, April 26, 2010
[Editor’s note: The following column uses strong (though censored) language.]
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am offended by your recent threats against the creators of South Park. I am offended specifically that the creators of South Park were threatened with death and that I received no similar threat. I have made statements against Mohammad that are far more offensive. What can I do to get you to threaten me with death - aside from calling you on the carpet as effeminate and cowardly?
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am disappointed that the post I left on your blog http://revolutionmuslim.blogspot.com/ has been deleted. In that post, I called you on the carpet as being cowards because I simply do not believe you have the courage to engage in real Jihad. If you did, you would not have taken the pains to clarify your recent comments about the creators of South Park. There is no Jihad Lite. You are either willing to die for Islam or you are not. Anyone who is afraid he will get arrested for threatening people who write cartoons for a living cannot be considered a true Jihadist. In fact, I am so certain that you are cowards and frauds that I have little confidence you will leave this post on your blog either. I think you have disgraced Allah and that, in all likelihood, 72 male virgins await you in heaven.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
On the front page of your blog there is a picture of a Muslim holding a sign that says “May Allah make a mushroom cloud over Israel.” I also saw an interview of your spokesperson in which it was said that 911 was a good thing and that your organization saw nothing wrong with the attacks on the World Trade Center. Do you also want Allah to make a mushroom cloud over Manhattan? And, if so, why does President Obama allow you crazy barbarians to continue to live in our country among civilized people?
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
Please give me a mailing address (just send it to the e-mail address I am posting on your blog). In response to an episode of South Park (aired several years ago) that featured a character uttering the phrase “F--- Jesus” I have printed a t-shirt. It says “F--- Mohammad.” My purpose in making this t-shirt is to see whether Muslims can be as tolerant as Christians in response to insults directed towards their religion. Welcome to America, where freedom of religion isn’t free. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am writing to inform you that I have commissioned a painting entitled “Elephant Dung Mohammed.” The purpose of this painting is to further educate you in the realm of religious tolerance. As you probably already know, a painting called “Elephant Dung Mary” was commissioned several years ago at taxpayer expense. I plan to mail you the original copy but I first need an address. Please provide one. And please stop deleting my posts from your blog.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I just tried to call you at your registered phone number (718-312-8203). Sadly, it seems to be out of service. Could you provide me with a new number so I can call towards the end of getting on your death list?
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am writing to inform you that I have commissioned a painting entitled “The P--- Allah.” The purpose of this painting is to further educate you in the realm of religious tolerance. As you probably already know, a painting called “The P--- Christ” was commissioned several years ago at taxpayer expense. I plan to mail you the original copy but I first need an address. Please provide one. And, please, do not delete this - my seventh post - from your blog. Show some respect and tolerance for views other than your own – like the American taxpayers are forced to do all the time.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am writing to invite you to join a new Facebook group I have started called “Mike Adams’ Redneck Jihad.” The group is dedicated to waging Jihad against three types of Americans:
a) The unprincipled coward,
b) The sanctimonious hypocrite and
c) The enemy of free speech.
From what I’ve seen so far, the members of Revolution Muslim are “d) All of the above.”
Monday, April 26, 2010
[Editor’s note: The following column uses strong (though censored) language.]
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am offended by your recent threats against the creators of South Park. I am offended specifically that the creators of South Park were threatened with death and that I received no similar threat. I have made statements against Mohammad that are far more offensive. What can I do to get you to threaten me with death - aside from calling you on the carpet as effeminate and cowardly?
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am disappointed that the post I left on your blog http://revolutionmuslim.blogspot.com/ has been deleted. In that post, I called you on the carpet as being cowards because I simply do not believe you have the courage to engage in real Jihad. If you did, you would not have taken the pains to clarify your recent comments about the creators of South Park. There is no Jihad Lite. You are either willing to die for Islam or you are not. Anyone who is afraid he will get arrested for threatening people who write cartoons for a living cannot be considered a true Jihadist. In fact, I am so certain that you are cowards and frauds that I have little confidence you will leave this post on your blog either. I think you have disgraced Allah and that, in all likelihood, 72 male virgins await you in heaven.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
On the front page of your blog there is a picture of a Muslim holding a sign that says “May Allah make a mushroom cloud over Israel.” I also saw an interview of your spokesperson in which it was said that 911 was a good thing and that your organization saw nothing wrong with the attacks on the World Trade Center. Do you also want Allah to make a mushroom cloud over Manhattan? And, if so, why does President Obama allow you crazy barbarians to continue to live in our country among civilized people?
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
Please give me a mailing address (just send it to the e-mail address I am posting on your blog). In response to an episode of South Park (aired several years ago) that featured a character uttering the phrase “F--- Jesus” I have printed a t-shirt. It says “F--- Mohammad.” My purpose in making this t-shirt is to see whether Muslims can be as tolerant as Christians in response to insults directed towards their religion. Welcome to America, where freedom of religion isn’t free. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am writing to inform you that I have commissioned a painting entitled “Elephant Dung Mohammed.” The purpose of this painting is to further educate you in the realm of religious tolerance. As you probably already know, a painting called “Elephant Dung Mary” was commissioned several years ago at taxpayer expense. I plan to mail you the original copy but I first need an address. Please provide one. And please stop deleting my posts from your blog.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I just tried to call you at your registered phone number (718-312-8203). Sadly, it seems to be out of service. Could you provide me with a new number so I can call towards the end of getting on your death list?
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am writing to inform you that I have commissioned a painting entitled “The P--- Allah.” The purpose of this painting is to further educate you in the realm of religious tolerance. As you probably already know, a painting called “The P--- Christ” was commissioned several years ago at taxpayer expense. I plan to mail you the original copy but I first need an address. Please provide one. And, please, do not delete this - my seventh post - from your blog. Show some respect and tolerance for views other than your own – like the American taxpayers are forced to do all the time.
Mike Adams
adams_mike@hotmail.com
Dear Revolution Muslim:
I am writing to invite you to join a new Facebook group I have started called “Mike Adams’ Redneck Jihad.” The group is dedicated to waging Jihad against three types of Americans:
a) The unprincipled coward,
b) The sanctimonious hypocrite and
c) The enemy of free speech.
From what I’ve seen so far, the members of Revolution Muslim are “d) All of the above.”
Human Rights Watch and the Nazis
Conrad Black
Monday, April 26, 2010
One of the largely unforeseen results of the great democratic and capitalist victory in the Cold War is the success the discredited Left has enjoyed as it scattered to fallback trenches after the rout it suffered at the front lines. The Stiglitz-Krugman economic Left, heavy-laden with Nobel prizes as are their political champions Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and President Obama, have danced themselves into exhaustion on what they took to be the graves of Thatcherism and Reaganomics.
The Green movement, which had been an informal bucolic confederation of Sierra lovers of the wilderness, Greenpeace opponents of nuclear testing, and amiable eccentrics in hiking boots and pith helmets, brandishing butterfly nets and festooned with binoculars, became a rampart of the Left. Like the rural Communist guerrillas of the Colombian FARC, overwhelmed by the influx of massively armed and armored drug lords, the old agitators for cleaner air and water and pretty lepidoptera were inundated by the advocates of deindustrialization, abandonment of the automobile, and Churchillian resolution in the face of untrammeled cow flatulence. The genuine environmentalists were a perfect front for the beaten army of malcontents, radicals, and dull foot-soldiers who crowded like the grim wreckage of Napoleon’s Grande Armée at Smolensk in 1812 into this incongruous political ecosystem.
Now that it has been established that Al Gore’s infamous “settled science” is really such pungent intellectual ordure that it, too, could damage the ozone layer, and that the water levels and world temperature are not rising, the glaciers are not melting, and much of the alarmist data is false, the Left is scrambling for more reliable places to exercise its imperishable purchase on events.
Utterly debunked though their strategic and economic notions were, the social-market Left had learned rigorously the art of the chameleon. Of course the USSR was not really a threat, and the victory in an unnecessary Cold War was hollow, Pyrrhic, illusory, whatever. Academe welcomed and sheltered its defeated and bedraggled warriors and stirring requiems were thundered out in the usual vaulted cathedrals of the liberal media.
But perhaps the most stentorian Te Deum has come from the human-rights organizations. Human Rights Watch was founded by distinguished rights champion and publisher Robert Bernstein, who is still active but long gone from HRW. As the leftist infantry was put to flight, HRW became a clinic for the shell-shocked, who, assisted by the balm of the inevitable George Soros funding, have transformed it into yet another Israel-bashing operation.
Human Rights Watch was set up to rival the British Amnesty International, with a distinctly American flavor. Where Amnesty drew upon a wide membership-contributor base, HRW was and is sustained by large contributors. Where Amnesty had modest offices and made low-key representations to human-rights offenders, HRW produces scores of glossy reports and hundreds of newsletters annually, and operates very conspicuously from luxurious Manhattan offices.
Amnesty International was always suspect, and was led for many years by avowed Sinn Fein terrorist and Lenin (as well, of course, as Nobel) Prize-winner Seán MacBride. Its views were historically clouded by its underlying premise that apparently unjust measures could be taken to promote the defeat of institutionalized injustice, which can be true, but is also the traditional matrix for totalitarian and terrorist conduct.
Thus, when the director of Amnesty’s gender program, Gita Sahgal, publicly complained that Amnesty was being too cozy with and supportive of radical Islam, she was suspended, and HRW gloated. Salman Rushdie and others have attacked the mistreatment of Ms. Sahgal. But the field of competition between Amnesty and HRW has shifted from the identification and championship of the oppressed to hell-for-leather combat in gymnastic hypocrisy. It is all becoming absurdly complicated. The HRW gender-program director attacked British rights advocate Peter Tatchell in 2006 for “Islamophobia, racism, and colonialism” when Tatchell criticized Iran’s summary execution of a large number of homosexuals, just because of their orientation. This complaint, said HRW, was “a Western social-constructionist trope,” and nothing to concern people whose raison d’être is human rights.
As Robert Bernstein attacked his old organization for ignoring repressive societies to blast democracies (especially Israel), and his successors sniveled back (all in the New York Times, of course) that their founder was trying to immunize democracies from accountability, HRW’s military expert blew up like an exploding Christmas tree. Marc Garlasco was already controversial for declaring that Israeli fire had killed seven Arab civilians in Gaza in 2006, then gamely acknowledging to the Jerusalem Post that he had been mistaken and that it was Hamas that was responsible, and then being muzzled as HRW withdrew his retraction directly from the Post. Garlasco told Der Spiegel that he had been responsible, as a civilian Pentagon official, for ordering an air strike on Basra in the 2003 war that killed 17 civilians. There followed, from Mr. Garlasco, serial media confessions that he had caused 50 different air strikes that had killed hundreds of people, but none of his assigned targets, and that these experiences drove him to join HRW.
The Garlasco plot thickened quickly when it emerged that he was a Nazi-memorabilia collector who mused on his Internet site (as “Flak88”) that if his HRW mates knew of his Nazi-memorabilia interest, “I might lose my job.” He was a frequent contributor to such sites as “Wehrmachtawards.com”: “The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold; it is so cool.” HRW piously defended Garlasco as a distinguished collector for a while, as it tried to blame the attacks on him on Jewish belligerence and intolerance. At the same time, it was having some difficulty defending itself for holding fundraising dinners in Saudi Arabia while denouncing Israel in terms that were agreeable to the Saudis, one of the world’s most primitive regimes in human-rights terms. But when a blogger asked if Garlasco’s love of Nazi insignia and costumes was connected to his Israelophobia, HRW “suspended” Garlasco with pay and a confidentiality agreement that remains in force. He is no longer at HRW, and can effuse full-time on Third Reich paraphernalia (a legitimate interest and design genre, but getting so cyber-excited over an SS leather jacket and wearing an iron cross on a T-shirt in a photo of himself he posted on his own website is pushing the OKW dispatch case a bit).
The formerly overindulgent media unearthed the fact that one of HRW’s latest Middle East experts is a veteran of the rabidly anti-Israel Internet publication The Electronic Intifada, and that the deputy head of HRW’s Middle East operations, Joe Stork, was a notoriously radical anti-Israeli commentator who had noisily approved the Palestinian murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.
In this incomprehensible free-for-all, it would make more sense for the human-rights-industry leaders, given their irrational animus against Israel, to become the target for the Nazi-hunting organizations, who are now down to the grotesque pursuit of the likes of John Demjanjuk, who has been prosecuted relentlessly for 30 years, unsuccessfully by Israel (to that country’s great credit) as a Treblinka death-camp guard, and now by Germany, at age 90 and confined to a stretcher (but not a leather jacket), as an alleged Sobibor death-camp guard. In Elie Wiesel and his colleagues, HRW and Amnesty would meet a very formidable adversary.
Monday, April 26, 2010
One of the largely unforeseen results of the great democratic and capitalist victory in the Cold War is the success the discredited Left has enjoyed as it scattered to fallback trenches after the rout it suffered at the front lines. The Stiglitz-Krugman economic Left, heavy-laden with Nobel prizes as are their political champions Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and President Obama, have danced themselves into exhaustion on what they took to be the graves of Thatcherism and Reaganomics.
The Green movement, which had been an informal bucolic confederation of Sierra lovers of the wilderness, Greenpeace opponents of nuclear testing, and amiable eccentrics in hiking boots and pith helmets, brandishing butterfly nets and festooned with binoculars, became a rampart of the Left. Like the rural Communist guerrillas of the Colombian FARC, overwhelmed by the influx of massively armed and armored drug lords, the old agitators for cleaner air and water and pretty lepidoptera were inundated by the advocates of deindustrialization, abandonment of the automobile, and Churchillian resolution in the face of untrammeled cow flatulence. The genuine environmentalists were a perfect front for the beaten army of malcontents, radicals, and dull foot-soldiers who crowded like the grim wreckage of Napoleon’s Grande Armée at Smolensk in 1812 into this incongruous political ecosystem.
Now that it has been established that Al Gore’s infamous “settled science” is really such pungent intellectual ordure that it, too, could damage the ozone layer, and that the water levels and world temperature are not rising, the glaciers are not melting, and much of the alarmist data is false, the Left is scrambling for more reliable places to exercise its imperishable purchase on events.
Utterly debunked though their strategic and economic notions were, the social-market Left had learned rigorously the art of the chameleon. Of course the USSR was not really a threat, and the victory in an unnecessary Cold War was hollow, Pyrrhic, illusory, whatever. Academe welcomed and sheltered its defeated and bedraggled warriors and stirring requiems were thundered out in the usual vaulted cathedrals of the liberal media.
But perhaps the most stentorian Te Deum has come from the human-rights organizations. Human Rights Watch was founded by distinguished rights champion and publisher Robert Bernstein, who is still active but long gone from HRW. As the leftist infantry was put to flight, HRW became a clinic for the shell-shocked, who, assisted by the balm of the inevitable George Soros funding, have transformed it into yet another Israel-bashing operation.
Human Rights Watch was set up to rival the British Amnesty International, with a distinctly American flavor. Where Amnesty drew upon a wide membership-contributor base, HRW was and is sustained by large contributors. Where Amnesty had modest offices and made low-key representations to human-rights offenders, HRW produces scores of glossy reports and hundreds of newsletters annually, and operates very conspicuously from luxurious Manhattan offices.
Amnesty International was always suspect, and was led for many years by avowed Sinn Fein terrorist and Lenin (as well, of course, as Nobel) Prize-winner Seán MacBride. Its views were historically clouded by its underlying premise that apparently unjust measures could be taken to promote the defeat of institutionalized injustice, which can be true, but is also the traditional matrix for totalitarian and terrorist conduct.
Thus, when the director of Amnesty’s gender program, Gita Sahgal, publicly complained that Amnesty was being too cozy with and supportive of radical Islam, she was suspended, and HRW gloated. Salman Rushdie and others have attacked the mistreatment of Ms. Sahgal. But the field of competition between Amnesty and HRW has shifted from the identification and championship of the oppressed to hell-for-leather combat in gymnastic hypocrisy. It is all becoming absurdly complicated. The HRW gender-program director attacked British rights advocate Peter Tatchell in 2006 for “Islamophobia, racism, and colonialism” when Tatchell criticized Iran’s summary execution of a large number of homosexuals, just because of their orientation. This complaint, said HRW, was “a Western social-constructionist trope,” and nothing to concern people whose raison d’être is human rights.
As Robert Bernstein attacked his old organization for ignoring repressive societies to blast democracies (especially Israel), and his successors sniveled back (all in the New York Times, of course) that their founder was trying to immunize democracies from accountability, HRW’s military expert blew up like an exploding Christmas tree. Marc Garlasco was already controversial for declaring that Israeli fire had killed seven Arab civilians in Gaza in 2006, then gamely acknowledging to the Jerusalem Post that he had been mistaken and that it was Hamas that was responsible, and then being muzzled as HRW withdrew his retraction directly from the Post. Garlasco told Der Spiegel that he had been responsible, as a civilian Pentagon official, for ordering an air strike on Basra in the 2003 war that killed 17 civilians. There followed, from Mr. Garlasco, serial media confessions that he had caused 50 different air strikes that had killed hundreds of people, but none of his assigned targets, and that these experiences drove him to join HRW.
The Garlasco plot thickened quickly when it emerged that he was a Nazi-memorabilia collector who mused on his Internet site (as “Flak88”) that if his HRW mates knew of his Nazi-memorabilia interest, “I might lose my job.” He was a frequent contributor to such sites as “Wehrmachtawards.com”: “The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold; it is so cool.” HRW piously defended Garlasco as a distinguished collector for a while, as it tried to blame the attacks on him on Jewish belligerence and intolerance. At the same time, it was having some difficulty defending itself for holding fundraising dinners in Saudi Arabia while denouncing Israel in terms that were agreeable to the Saudis, one of the world’s most primitive regimes in human-rights terms. But when a blogger asked if Garlasco’s love of Nazi insignia and costumes was connected to his Israelophobia, HRW “suspended” Garlasco with pay and a confidentiality agreement that remains in force. He is no longer at HRW, and can effuse full-time on Third Reich paraphernalia (a legitimate interest and design genre, but getting so cyber-excited over an SS leather jacket and wearing an iron cross on a T-shirt in a photo of himself he posted on his own website is pushing the OKW dispatch case a bit).
The formerly overindulgent media unearthed the fact that one of HRW’s latest Middle East experts is a veteran of the rabidly anti-Israel Internet publication The Electronic Intifada, and that the deputy head of HRW’s Middle East operations, Joe Stork, was a notoriously radical anti-Israeli commentator who had noisily approved the Palestinian murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.
In this incomprehensible free-for-all, it would make more sense for the human-rights-industry leaders, given their irrational animus against Israel, to become the target for the Nazi-hunting organizations, who are now down to the grotesque pursuit of the likes of John Demjanjuk, who has been prosecuted relentlessly for 30 years, unsuccessfully by Israel (to that country’s great credit) as a Treblinka death-camp guard, and now by Germany, at age 90 and confined to a stretcher (but not a leather jacket), as an alleged Sobibor death-camp guard. In Elie Wiesel and his colleagues, HRW and Amnesty would meet a very formidable adversary.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Most Enduring Legacy Of Nazi Hate
David Stokes
Sunday, April 25, 2010
On February 1, 1944, two unlikely allies in the United States Senate—Robert Wagner (D-New York) and Robert Taft (R-Ohio)—introduced a resolution that caused shockwaves around the globe. Their initiative advocated American support for “free and unlimited entry of Jews into Palestine for the creation of a Jewish commonwealth.” This was a bold move and one that put the Roosevelt administration on the spot.
Nearly five years earlier, the British government had released a White Paper on the issue of Palestine—one that largely abandoned the Jewish people in that region. Since the 1917 Balfour Declaration and during the period of the British Mandate they had been largely supportive of Jewish migration to Palestine and the idea of a Jewish state there. In essence, the White Paper changed all of that. It advocated severe limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine—this at a time when European anti-Semitism was reaching critical mass.
The gang in Berlin was pleased.
Interestingly, at the time of that 1939 White Paper, two men who would later strongly support the creation of the modern state of Israel saw things differently. Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons on May 22, 1939 “as one intimately and responsibly concerned in the earlier states of our Palestine policy,” and insisted that he would not “stand by and see the solemn engagements into which Britain has entered before the world set aside.”
And here at home, Senator Harry S. Truman from Missouri—who had no clue at the time that he’d be a major player on the world stage in a few years--also issued a forthright condemnation that was inserted into the Congressional Record:
“Mr. President, the British Government has used its diplomatic umbrella again,” (this being an unmistakable dig at Neville Chamberlain) “…this time on Palestine. It has made a scrap of paper out of Lord Balfour’s promise to the Jews. It has just added another to the long list of surrenders to the Axis powers.”
But instead of embracing the ideas put forth by Taft and Wagner in 1944, the White House, State Department and other powerful entities in the government pulled out all the stops to make sure that the idea of proposing a homeland in Palestine for Jews went away. They did this even though they knew very well about the ongoing mass extermination of European Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
The standard answer to the obvious question as to why the Holocaust evoked little official response from our government until near the end of the war has been to cite “isolationism,” or “economic Depression,” or “xenophobia” in our nation. Presumably, the idea of doing anything overtly “pro-Jewish” was politically untenable—so goes the argument.
But a closer look reveals something else going on at the time—and ever since.
The most lasting legacy of the toxins that created an epochal global conflict is the fact that elements of Nazism in many ways survive to this day in Islamism. The short-sightedness of FDR’s cronies was corrected in part by his successor, a man of courage who chose to recognize the new State of Israel eleven minutes after its birth in May of 1948. But the question remains: Why did FDR and company not get on the bandwagon, even while millions of Jews were being slaughtered?
Sadly, the real reason has a lot to do with U.S. surrender to Nazi propaganda—its power and content.
Largely overlooked or dismissed in the years since is the fact that the Nazi propaganda machine, the distortion factory that shaped attitudes in Germany throughout the duration of the infamous Third Reich, had its most lasting impact far away from the boroughs and beer halls of Deutschland. In fact, Hitler’s nightmarish vision of ridding Europe of Jews was only the beginning of what he wanted to do—he wanted to extend The Final Solution to Palestine.
And he had been preparing the hearts and minds of the Muslim world for many years.
Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called, “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.” In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail—particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.
These broadcasts spewed venomous anti-Semitism and pushed every demagogic button imaginable. They were also highly effective. In fact, long after the last vestige of Nazi rhetoric faded from consciousness in Europe, the poisonous seeds planted back then are still bearing deadly fruit.
The mind-set that gave way to the Third Reich is very much alive and well in the Muslim world of the Middle East.
When those two senatorial strange-bedfellows offered their visionary resolution in 1944 about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the “Axis Broadcasts in Arabic” were way ahead of the story. Mr. Herf has accessed a significant cache of transcripts and leaflets produced by the Nazis during the war—materials that have not been adequately examined—until now.
So back in 1944, any hopes a couple of well-intentioned voices in Washington might have had to garner widespread national support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine were dashed by forces largely influenced by the hate-speak of Nazi propagandists. Berlin, broadcasting in Arabic, referred to Taft and Wagner as “criminal American senators,” while announcing, “a great tragedy is about to be unfolded, a great massacre, another turbulent war is about to start in the Arab countries.”
And in phraseology that sounds eerily familiar to what we still regularly hear from Islamists, the Nazis described the stakes as kill or be killed:
“Arabs and Moslems, sons of the East, this menace threatens your very lives, endangers your beliefs and aims at your wealth. No trace of you will remain. Your doom is sealed. It were better if the earth opened and engulfed everybody; it were better if the skies fell upon us, bringing havoc and destruction; all this, rather than the sun of Islam should set and the Koran perish...Stir up wars and revolutions, stand fast against the aggressors, let your hearts, afire with faith, burst asunder! Advance your armies and drive out the menace.”
Bear in mind that this is a Nazi broadcast to the Arab/Muslims in Palestine. Of course, the relationship between Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, is well known and documented (see my article: “Hitler’s Favorite Jihadist”), but the broadcasts from Berlin to Palestine are just now beginning to be examined. And what is being found is further evidence that to refer to Islamists as Nazi or Fascist-like is no smear—or stretch.
The rhetoric broadcasted to the Middle East 70 years ago is still being noised about—and even more pervasively and effectively. Back then, the attitudes it reinforced, complete with distortion, hate and prejudice, caused U.S. officials, from FDR on down, to “go wobbly”—as Margaret Thatcher would say.
It is sadly clear that the most lasting impact of the Nazi propaganda machine is that murderous ideas espoused back then are alive and well in our day and age and still being used to threaten and kill Jews—while nouveau wobblers turn away.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
On February 1, 1944, two unlikely allies in the United States Senate—Robert Wagner (D-New York) and Robert Taft (R-Ohio)—introduced a resolution that caused shockwaves around the globe. Their initiative advocated American support for “free and unlimited entry of Jews into Palestine for the creation of a Jewish commonwealth.” This was a bold move and one that put the Roosevelt administration on the spot.
Nearly five years earlier, the British government had released a White Paper on the issue of Palestine—one that largely abandoned the Jewish people in that region. Since the 1917 Balfour Declaration and during the period of the British Mandate they had been largely supportive of Jewish migration to Palestine and the idea of a Jewish state there. In essence, the White Paper changed all of that. It advocated severe limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine—this at a time when European anti-Semitism was reaching critical mass.
The gang in Berlin was pleased.
Interestingly, at the time of that 1939 White Paper, two men who would later strongly support the creation of the modern state of Israel saw things differently. Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons on May 22, 1939 “as one intimately and responsibly concerned in the earlier states of our Palestine policy,” and insisted that he would not “stand by and see the solemn engagements into which Britain has entered before the world set aside.”
And here at home, Senator Harry S. Truman from Missouri—who had no clue at the time that he’d be a major player on the world stage in a few years--also issued a forthright condemnation that was inserted into the Congressional Record:
“Mr. President, the British Government has used its diplomatic umbrella again,” (this being an unmistakable dig at Neville Chamberlain) “…this time on Palestine. It has made a scrap of paper out of Lord Balfour’s promise to the Jews. It has just added another to the long list of surrenders to the Axis powers.”
But instead of embracing the ideas put forth by Taft and Wagner in 1944, the White House, State Department and other powerful entities in the government pulled out all the stops to make sure that the idea of proposing a homeland in Palestine for Jews went away. They did this even though they knew very well about the ongoing mass extermination of European Jews at the hands of the Nazis.
The standard answer to the obvious question as to why the Holocaust evoked little official response from our government until near the end of the war has been to cite “isolationism,” or “economic Depression,” or “xenophobia” in our nation. Presumably, the idea of doing anything overtly “pro-Jewish” was politically untenable—so goes the argument.
But a closer look reveals something else going on at the time—and ever since.
The most lasting legacy of the toxins that created an epochal global conflict is the fact that elements of Nazism in many ways survive to this day in Islamism. The short-sightedness of FDR’s cronies was corrected in part by his successor, a man of courage who chose to recognize the new State of Israel eleven minutes after its birth in May of 1948. But the question remains: Why did FDR and company not get on the bandwagon, even while millions of Jews were being slaughtered?
Sadly, the real reason has a lot to do with U.S. surrender to Nazi propaganda—its power and content.
Largely overlooked or dismissed in the years since is the fact that the Nazi propaganda machine, the distortion factory that shaped attitudes in Germany throughout the duration of the infamous Third Reich, had its most lasting impact far away from the boroughs and beer halls of Deutschland. In fact, Hitler’s nightmarish vision of ridding Europe of Jews was only the beginning of what he wanted to do—he wanted to extend The Final Solution to Palestine.
And he had been preparing the hearts and minds of the Muslim world for many years.
Jeffrey Herf, a professor of history at the University of Maryland, has written an eye-opening book about the effectiveness of Nazi ideas in the Middle East during the Second World War called, “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.” In it, he describes the Nazi campaign for the minds and hearts of the Arab world in great detail—particularly the Axis radio programs that ran in Arabic around the clock from late 1939 until March of 1945.
These broadcasts spewed venomous anti-Semitism and pushed every demagogic button imaginable. They were also highly effective. In fact, long after the last vestige of Nazi rhetoric faded from consciousness in Europe, the poisonous seeds planted back then are still bearing deadly fruit.
The mind-set that gave way to the Third Reich is very much alive and well in the Muslim world of the Middle East.
When those two senatorial strange-bedfellows offered their visionary resolution in 1944 about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the “Axis Broadcasts in Arabic” were way ahead of the story. Mr. Herf has accessed a significant cache of transcripts and leaflets produced by the Nazis during the war—materials that have not been adequately examined—until now.
So back in 1944, any hopes a couple of well-intentioned voices in Washington might have had to garner widespread national support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine were dashed by forces largely influenced by the hate-speak of Nazi propagandists. Berlin, broadcasting in Arabic, referred to Taft and Wagner as “criminal American senators,” while announcing, “a great tragedy is about to be unfolded, a great massacre, another turbulent war is about to start in the Arab countries.”
And in phraseology that sounds eerily familiar to what we still regularly hear from Islamists, the Nazis described the stakes as kill or be killed:
“Arabs and Moslems, sons of the East, this menace threatens your very lives, endangers your beliefs and aims at your wealth. No trace of you will remain. Your doom is sealed. It were better if the earth opened and engulfed everybody; it were better if the skies fell upon us, bringing havoc and destruction; all this, rather than the sun of Islam should set and the Koran perish...Stir up wars and revolutions, stand fast against the aggressors, let your hearts, afire with faith, burst asunder! Advance your armies and drive out the menace.”
Bear in mind that this is a Nazi broadcast to the Arab/Muslims in Palestine. Of course, the relationship between Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, is well known and documented (see my article: “Hitler’s Favorite Jihadist”), but the broadcasts from Berlin to Palestine are just now beginning to be examined. And what is being found is further evidence that to refer to Islamists as Nazi or Fascist-like is no smear—or stretch.
The rhetoric broadcasted to the Middle East 70 years ago is still being noised about—and even more pervasively and effectively. Back then, the attitudes it reinforced, complete with distortion, hate and prejudice, caused U.S. officials, from FDR on down, to “go wobbly”—as Margaret Thatcher would say.
It is sadly clear that the most lasting impact of the Nazi propaganda machine is that murderous ideas espoused back then are alive and well in our day and age and still being used to threaten and kill Jews—while nouveau wobblers turn away.
Message From Arizona: Don't Tread On Me
Austin Hill
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Does Barack Obama know what’s best for every American?
Does Washington know better than Arizona what’s good for Arizonans?
President Obama’s criticism last Friday of a piece of Arizona state legislation – criticism that came before the Governor had even made a decision about the bill – is further evidence that, for him, the needs and preferences of the individual states are rather irrelevant. Yet it is this very sort of arrogant disregard for the states that led to Arizona’s controversial new illegal immigration bill in the first place, and the President’s remarks serve to rub yet more salt into a wound that has been festering for years.
The new statute empowers local law enforcement agents to stop and check the immigration status of anybody they suspect of being in the country illegally. It is by far the toughest measure against illegal immigration ever to be proposed in the United States, and according to a Rasmussen poll from last Wednesday, April 21, it is supported by 70% of Arizona voters.
But the Rasmussen organization also discovered some other important details about the attitudes of Arizona voters, details that have been largely overlooked. Yes, 70% of Arizona voters support this tough new measure. Yet 53% of them also have concerns that in the process of enforcing the new law and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants, the civil rights of some U.S. citizens would end up being violated.
This is to say that, while a majority of Arizonans are concerned about civil rights violations being entailed in the law’s enforcement, an even bigger majority nonetheless view the law as necessary. Is this a contradiction, or some sort of breakdown in logic? No, not really. Not if you’ve lived in the Southwestern U.S. and you’ve watched this border state drama play-out over the past twenty years or so, as Washington politicians wring their hands, criticize the citizenry, and often just look the other way.
The polling data, strange as it may seem, articulate an important message. “We didn’t want it to come to this point,” Arizona is saying to Washington. “We want a free and open society, yes, but in order to achieve this we must remain a society where everyone plays by the rules. You have failed to uphold our nation’s rules, Washington, and as a result our free and open society is slipping away…”
This sense of society “slipping away” has been mounting for years in the American Southwest. It’s not just about the bankrupting of hospitals and public schools and public social services agencies by illegal immigrants and their children. And it’s not simply a matter of “racism,” as Obama partisans, ACORN enthusiasts, and “Chicano’s Por La Causa” members would suggest.
It’s about illegal immigrant “advocates” and “activists” flagrantly parading in American streets, “demanding” that America treat them better and more “fairly.” It’s about American police officers and private citizens being murdered in cold blood by illegal immigrants, and American politicians and law enforcement agencies being either unwilling, or unable, to do anything about it.
I experienced first-hand California’s “Proposition 187,” the 1994 statewide ballot initiative that sought to cut-off social services to illegal immigrants. In its early stages, the initiative barely got noticed among California’s citizenry.
But when illegal immigrants’ rights advocates began demonstrating in the streets, some literally “parking” big rig trucks on LA freeways and blocking rush-hour traffic for hours on end as a means of “protesting” the ballot measure, the citizens woke up, saw how they were being pushed around by those who weren’t authorized to be in their country in the first place, and then overwhelmingly passed the initiative at the ballot box in November that year.
I experienced first-hand Phoenix, Arizona’s illegal immigrants’ rights back in 2006 and 2007. I remember vividly the march past the offices of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, and the demonstrators who stood outside his office shouting through a bullhorn “come out here and talk to us, Senator Kyl…you represent us, too..”
Since that time, no less than three Phoenix city police officers have been killed on-duty by illegal immigrants. Most recently, a rancher from the rural southern Arizona town of Douglas was murdered at the hands of an illegal immigrant. Robert Krentz had a reputation of being a “good Samaritan” to illegal immigrants stuck along the roadside while attempting to cross the desert. But that didn’t stop an illegal immigrant from gunning-down Krentz and robbing him, as he tended his own land back on March 30th.
Yes, a free and open society is slipping away, and the problem is not easily defined by Republican, Democrat, conservative and liberal categories. But the problem is very real. And Arizonans will have it addressed – one way, or another.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Does Barack Obama know what’s best for every American?
Does Washington know better than Arizona what’s good for Arizonans?
President Obama’s criticism last Friday of a piece of Arizona state legislation – criticism that came before the Governor had even made a decision about the bill – is further evidence that, for him, the needs and preferences of the individual states are rather irrelevant. Yet it is this very sort of arrogant disregard for the states that led to Arizona’s controversial new illegal immigration bill in the first place, and the President’s remarks serve to rub yet more salt into a wound that has been festering for years.
The new statute empowers local law enforcement agents to stop and check the immigration status of anybody they suspect of being in the country illegally. It is by far the toughest measure against illegal immigration ever to be proposed in the United States, and according to a Rasmussen poll from last Wednesday, April 21, it is supported by 70% of Arizona voters.
But the Rasmussen organization also discovered some other important details about the attitudes of Arizona voters, details that have been largely overlooked. Yes, 70% of Arizona voters support this tough new measure. Yet 53% of them also have concerns that in the process of enforcing the new law and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants, the civil rights of some U.S. citizens would end up being violated.
This is to say that, while a majority of Arizonans are concerned about civil rights violations being entailed in the law’s enforcement, an even bigger majority nonetheless view the law as necessary. Is this a contradiction, or some sort of breakdown in logic? No, not really. Not if you’ve lived in the Southwestern U.S. and you’ve watched this border state drama play-out over the past twenty years or so, as Washington politicians wring their hands, criticize the citizenry, and often just look the other way.
The polling data, strange as it may seem, articulate an important message. “We didn’t want it to come to this point,” Arizona is saying to Washington. “We want a free and open society, yes, but in order to achieve this we must remain a society where everyone plays by the rules. You have failed to uphold our nation’s rules, Washington, and as a result our free and open society is slipping away…”
This sense of society “slipping away” has been mounting for years in the American Southwest. It’s not just about the bankrupting of hospitals and public schools and public social services agencies by illegal immigrants and their children. And it’s not simply a matter of “racism,” as Obama partisans, ACORN enthusiasts, and “Chicano’s Por La Causa” members would suggest.
It’s about illegal immigrant “advocates” and “activists” flagrantly parading in American streets, “demanding” that America treat them better and more “fairly.” It’s about American police officers and private citizens being murdered in cold blood by illegal immigrants, and American politicians and law enforcement agencies being either unwilling, or unable, to do anything about it.
I experienced first-hand California’s “Proposition 187,” the 1994 statewide ballot initiative that sought to cut-off social services to illegal immigrants. In its early stages, the initiative barely got noticed among California’s citizenry.
But when illegal immigrants’ rights advocates began demonstrating in the streets, some literally “parking” big rig trucks on LA freeways and blocking rush-hour traffic for hours on end as a means of “protesting” the ballot measure, the citizens woke up, saw how they were being pushed around by those who weren’t authorized to be in their country in the first place, and then overwhelmingly passed the initiative at the ballot box in November that year.
I experienced first-hand Phoenix, Arizona’s illegal immigrants’ rights back in 2006 and 2007. I remember vividly the march past the offices of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, and the demonstrators who stood outside his office shouting through a bullhorn “come out here and talk to us, Senator Kyl…you represent us, too..”
Since that time, no less than three Phoenix city police officers have been killed on-duty by illegal immigrants. Most recently, a rancher from the rural southern Arizona town of Douglas was murdered at the hands of an illegal immigrant. Robert Krentz had a reputation of being a “good Samaritan” to illegal immigrants stuck along the roadside while attempting to cross the desert. But that didn’t stop an illegal immigrant from gunning-down Krentz and robbing him, as he tended his own land back on March 30th.
Yes, a free and open society is slipping away, and the problem is not easily defined by Republican, Democrat, conservative and liberal categories. But the problem is very real. And Arizonans will have it addressed – one way, or another.
Festering for decades
Paul Jacob
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The latest Pew Research Center survey of public opinion shows that Americans trust their government even less than they did before. Apparently, nearly half of us think “the federal government threatens” our “personal rights and freedoms,” while almost a third considers the Feds a “major threat.”
The body designed to represent the views of the American people — the U.S. Congress — has the approval of less than one in five of us.
The Pew people dub the current political situation “a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government — a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.”
Yet, one would be mistaken to view current public unrest as a sharp break from recent times. In 2006, the country repudiated the corrupt, wasteful and dangerous policies and performance of congressional Republicans by voting them out and Democrats in. By the next summer the new Democratic Congress was pulling the lowest approval ratings in the history of the Gallup poll.
The depth of political discontent was clear — and fully bipartisan — long before the latest economic troubles hit. No doubt, a bad economy makes political frustrations more volatile for incumbents, and a good economy can lull the public to sleep on the need for political reform and engagement.
Clearly, however, the origin of our political frustration and anger — the emotions felt by 77 percent of Americans, according to the Pew survey — simply cannot be the bad economy.
Dissatisfaction with our politics — as practiced by both establishment parties — isn’t new. It has been festering for decades, with regular eruptions.
In the late 1970s, a citizen petition to roll back and cap property taxes, California’s Proposition 13, passed against the united political class. Within a few years, the tax revolt it sparked had succeeded in lowering property taxes or capping any increases in 43 other states.
In the 1990s, term limits raged across the country by way of local and statewide voter initiatives. Only a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking down the 23 state laws limiting the terms of their congressional delegations and a totally arrogant and unrepresentative Congress have kept legislative term limits at the federal level from taking effect.
The Pew survey found 95 percent of Americans agreed that it is a problem that elected officials in Washington “care only about their own political careers.” Of those, 81 percent cited it as a “major problem.”
Now, we see the Tea Parties and a new outpouring of public engagement in politics.
Yet, there is another side to this story that ought to be news: the near universal lack of response from those in public office.
With the public so up in arms, where are the serious reform proposals? Where is the acknowledgement of congressional mistakes? Where are the additional checks and balances and limitations on federal government power?
Our constitutional republic is run and maintained via a representative democracy (with, at the state level, some refreshing bolts of voter input through initiative and referendum). So, our system of government’s entire sense of legitimacy rests on the people feeling that the government acts with their consent. (This is a very American ideal, and one that is bedrock to our common sense of right and wrong in government. It is also bedrock to the perspective I share with readers of my Common Sense email letter.)
When the people lose faith in their government, it’s serious. But when the people lose such faith and those they elect to represent them take no notice of it — or any action to restore public confidence — the problem is more than just “serious.”
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The latest Pew Research Center survey of public opinion shows that Americans trust their government even less than they did before. Apparently, nearly half of us think “the federal government threatens” our “personal rights and freedoms,” while almost a third considers the Feds a “major threat.”
The body designed to represent the views of the American people — the U.S. Congress — has the approval of less than one in five of us.
The Pew people dub the current political situation “a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government — a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.”
Yet, one would be mistaken to view current public unrest as a sharp break from recent times. In 2006, the country repudiated the corrupt, wasteful and dangerous policies and performance of congressional Republicans by voting them out and Democrats in. By the next summer the new Democratic Congress was pulling the lowest approval ratings in the history of the Gallup poll.
The depth of political discontent was clear — and fully bipartisan — long before the latest economic troubles hit. No doubt, a bad economy makes political frustrations more volatile for incumbents, and a good economy can lull the public to sleep on the need for political reform and engagement.
Clearly, however, the origin of our political frustration and anger — the emotions felt by 77 percent of Americans, according to the Pew survey — simply cannot be the bad economy.
Dissatisfaction with our politics — as practiced by both establishment parties — isn’t new. It has been festering for decades, with regular eruptions.
In the late 1970s, a citizen petition to roll back and cap property taxes, California’s Proposition 13, passed against the united political class. Within a few years, the tax revolt it sparked had succeeded in lowering property taxes or capping any increases in 43 other states.
In the 1990s, term limits raged across the country by way of local and statewide voter initiatives. Only a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision striking down the 23 state laws limiting the terms of their congressional delegations and a totally arrogant and unrepresentative Congress have kept legislative term limits at the federal level from taking effect.
The Pew survey found 95 percent of Americans agreed that it is a problem that elected officials in Washington “care only about their own political careers.” Of those, 81 percent cited it as a “major problem.”
Now, we see the Tea Parties and a new outpouring of public engagement in politics.
Yet, there is another side to this story that ought to be news: the near universal lack of response from those in public office.
With the public so up in arms, where are the serious reform proposals? Where is the acknowledgement of congressional mistakes? Where are the additional checks and balances and limitations on federal government power?
Our constitutional republic is run and maintained via a representative democracy (with, at the state level, some refreshing bolts of voter input through initiative and referendum). So, our system of government’s entire sense of legitimacy rests on the people feeling that the government acts with their consent. (This is a very American ideal, and one that is bedrock to our common sense of right and wrong in government. It is also bedrock to the perspective I share with readers of my Common Sense email letter.)
When the people lose faith in their government, it’s serious. But when the people lose such faith and those they elect to represent them take no notice of it — or any action to restore public confidence — the problem is more than just “serious.”
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Not Too ‘Hip’ and ‘Edgy’ for Censorship
Don’t worry about Iran’s nuclear program, but if you meet a tea partier waving some placard about the national debt, try not to catch his eye.
Mark Steyn
Saturday, April 24, 2010
I suppose the thinking runs something like this. All things considered, the polls on Obamacare aren’t totally disastrous, and the president’s approval numbers seem to have bottomed out in the low forties, and when you look at what that means in terms of the electoral map this November, you’ve only got to scare a relatively small percentage of squishy, suburban moderate centrists back into the Democratic fold, and how difficult can that be?
Hence, Bill Clinton energetically on the stump, summoning all his elder statesman’s dignity (please, no giggling) in the cause of comparing tea partiers to Timothy McVeigh. Oh, c’mon, they’ve got everything in common. They both want to reduce the size of government, the late Mr. McVeigh through the use of fertilizer bombs, the tea partiers through control of federal spending, but these are mere nuanced differences of means, not ends. Also, both “Tim” and “Tea” are three-letter words beginning with “T”: Picture him upon your knee, just Tea for Tim and Tim for Tea, you’re for him and he’s for thee, completely interchangeable. To lend the point more gravitas, President Clinton packed his reading glasses and affected his scholarly look, with the spectacles pushed down toward the end of his nose, as if he’s trying to determine whether that’s his 10 a.m. intern shuffling toward him across the broadloom or a rabid armadillo Al Gore brought along for the Earth Day photo op.
Will it work? For a long time, tea partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say “I’m becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending,” that’s old Jim Crow code for “Let’s get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson.” Frank Rich of the New York Times attempted to diversify the tea-party racism into homophobia by arguing that Obamacare’s opponents were uncomfortable with Barney Frank’s sexuality. I yield to no one in my discomfort with Barney Frank’s sexuality, but, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to blame it for more than the first 4 or 5 trillion dollars of federal overspending. Eschewing such cheap slurs, Time’s Joe Klein said opposition to Obama was “seditious,” because nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately for Klein, thanks to “educator” William Ayers’s education reforms, nobody knows what “seditious” means anymore.
So enough with all the punch-pulling about seditious, racist homophobes. It was time to go for broke and bring out Bill Clinton to explain why the tea parties are the new front in the war on terror. Don’t worry about Iran’s nuclear program, but if you meet a tea-party supporter waving some placard about the national debt, try not to catch his eye and back away slowly without making any sudden movements, lest he put down his placard and light up his suicide belt.
As longtime readers know, I have enormous respect for the Democrats as masters of the politics of personal destruction. What a track record! “Bushitler,” “General Betray-Us,” — excellent stuff, up there with Oscar Wilde. But this is, like, a whole new level: Bill Clinton is on the road demonizing (and with an impressively straight face) half the American people as the express lane to ka-boom! And the poodle media are taking it seriously.
Meanwhile, Comedy Central — you know, the “hip,” “edgy” network with Jon Stewart, from whom “young” Americans under 53 supposedly get most of their news — just caved in to death threats. From a hateful 83-year-old widow who doesn’t like Obamacare? Why, no! It was a chap called Abu Talhah al Amrikee, who put up a video on the Internet explaining why a South Park episode with a rather tame Mohammed joke was likely to lead to the deaths of the show’s creators. Just to underline the point, he showed some pictures of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director brutally murdered by (oh, my, talk about unfortunate coincidences) a fellow called Mohammed. Mr. al Amrikee helpfully explained that his video incitement of the murder of Matt Stone and Trey Parker wasn’t really “a threat but just the likely outcome.” All he was doing, he added, was “raising awareness” — you know, like folks do on Earth Day. On Earth Day, lame politicians dig a hole and stick a tree in it. But aggrieved Muslims dig a hole and stick a couple of comedy writers in it. Celebrate diversity!
Faced with this explicit threat of violence, what did Comedy Central do? Why, they folded like a Bedouin tent. They censored South Park, not only cutting all the references to Mohammed but, in an exquisitely postmodern touch, also removing the final speech about the need to stand up to intimidation.
Stone and Parker get what was at stake in the Danish-cartoons crisis and many other ostensibly footling concessions: Imperceptibly, incrementally, remorselessly, the free world is sending the message that it is happy to trade core liberties for the transitory security of a quiet life. That is a dangerous signal to give freedom’s enemies. So the South Park episode is an important cultural pushback.
Yet in the end, in a craven culture, even big Hollywood A-listers can’t get their message over. So the brave, transgressive comedy network was intimidated into caving in and censoring a speech about not being intimidated into caving in. That’s what I call “hip,” “edgy,” “cutting-edge” comedy: They’re so edgy they’re curled up in the fetal position, whimpering at the guy with the cutting edge, “Please. Behead me last. And don’t use the rusty scimitar where you have to saw away for 20 minutes to find the spinal column . . . ”
Terrific. You can see why young, urban, postmodern Americans under 57 get most of their news from Comedy Central. What a shame 1930s Fascist Europe was so lacking in cable.
Fifteen years ago, Bill Clinton set out to hang Timothy McVeigh around the necks of talk radio and, with a further stretch, Newt and the congressional Republicans. It was an act of contemptible but undeniably brilliant opportunism. It worked out so well for him that a couple of years later, after the Princess of Wales’s fatal car crash, George Stephanopoulos enthused to Christopher Hitchens: “Tony Blair’s handling this really well. This is his Oklahoma City.” As Hitchens remarked, this is the way these people think.
Which works fine when you’re up against phantom enemies of the kind Clinton preferred to take on while giving real threats the run of the planet. If the tea partiers were truly the murderous goons they’ve been portrayed as, they would draw the obvious lesson from the kid gloves with which Comedy Central strokes Islam. They would say, “Enough with peaceful rallies where we pick up the litter afterwards. Let’s just threaten to decapitate someone. You get more respect that way. At least from the media.”
But they won’t do that. Because, notwithstanding their outrageous demonization by the media, they’re not terrorists. So, in the end, Comedy Central has incentivized Islamic violence and nothing much else. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to its jelly-spined executives for reminding us that the cardboard heroes of the American media are your go-to guys for standing up to entirely fictitious threats. But for real ones? Not so much.
Mark Steyn
Saturday, April 24, 2010
I suppose the thinking runs something like this. All things considered, the polls on Obamacare aren’t totally disastrous, and the president’s approval numbers seem to have bottomed out in the low forties, and when you look at what that means in terms of the electoral map this November, you’ve only got to scare a relatively small percentage of squishy, suburban moderate centrists back into the Democratic fold, and how difficult can that be?
Hence, Bill Clinton energetically on the stump, summoning all his elder statesman’s dignity (please, no giggling) in the cause of comparing tea partiers to Timothy McVeigh. Oh, c’mon, they’ve got everything in common. They both want to reduce the size of government, the late Mr. McVeigh through the use of fertilizer bombs, the tea partiers through control of federal spending, but these are mere nuanced differences of means, not ends. Also, both “Tim” and “Tea” are three-letter words beginning with “T”: Picture him upon your knee, just Tea for Tim and Tim for Tea, you’re for him and he’s for thee, completely interchangeable. To lend the point more gravitas, President Clinton packed his reading glasses and affected his scholarly look, with the spectacles pushed down toward the end of his nose, as if he’s trying to determine whether that’s his 10 a.m. intern shuffling toward him across the broadloom or a rabid armadillo Al Gore brought along for the Earth Day photo op.
Will it work? For a long time, tea partiers were racists. Everybody knows that when you say “I’m becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending,” that’s old Jim Crow code for “Let’s get up a lynching party and teach that uppity Negro a lesson.” Frank Rich of the New York Times attempted to diversify the tea-party racism into homophobia by arguing that Obamacare’s opponents were uncomfortable with Barney Frank’s sexuality. I yield to no one in my discomfort with Barney Frank’s sexuality, but, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to blame it for more than the first 4 or 5 trillion dollars of federal overspending. Eschewing such cheap slurs, Time’s Joe Klein said opposition to Obama was “seditious,” because nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately for Klein, thanks to “educator” William Ayers’s education reforms, nobody knows what “seditious” means anymore.
So enough with all the punch-pulling about seditious, racist homophobes. It was time to go for broke and bring out Bill Clinton to explain why the tea parties are the new front in the war on terror. Don’t worry about Iran’s nuclear program, but if you meet a tea-party supporter waving some placard about the national debt, try not to catch his eye and back away slowly without making any sudden movements, lest he put down his placard and light up his suicide belt.
As longtime readers know, I have enormous respect for the Democrats as masters of the politics of personal destruction. What a track record! “Bushitler,” “General Betray-Us,” — excellent stuff, up there with Oscar Wilde. But this is, like, a whole new level: Bill Clinton is on the road demonizing (and with an impressively straight face) half the American people as the express lane to ka-boom! And the poodle media are taking it seriously.
Meanwhile, Comedy Central — you know, the “hip,” “edgy” network with Jon Stewart, from whom “young” Americans under 53 supposedly get most of their news — just caved in to death threats. From a hateful 83-year-old widow who doesn’t like Obamacare? Why, no! It was a chap called Abu Talhah al Amrikee, who put up a video on the Internet explaining why a South Park episode with a rather tame Mohammed joke was likely to lead to the deaths of the show’s creators. Just to underline the point, he showed some pictures of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director brutally murdered by (oh, my, talk about unfortunate coincidences) a fellow called Mohammed. Mr. al Amrikee helpfully explained that his video incitement of the murder of Matt Stone and Trey Parker wasn’t really “a threat but just the likely outcome.” All he was doing, he added, was “raising awareness” — you know, like folks do on Earth Day. On Earth Day, lame politicians dig a hole and stick a tree in it. But aggrieved Muslims dig a hole and stick a couple of comedy writers in it. Celebrate diversity!
Faced with this explicit threat of violence, what did Comedy Central do? Why, they folded like a Bedouin tent. They censored South Park, not only cutting all the references to Mohammed but, in an exquisitely postmodern touch, also removing the final speech about the need to stand up to intimidation.
Stone and Parker get what was at stake in the Danish-cartoons crisis and many other ostensibly footling concessions: Imperceptibly, incrementally, remorselessly, the free world is sending the message that it is happy to trade core liberties for the transitory security of a quiet life. That is a dangerous signal to give freedom’s enemies. So the South Park episode is an important cultural pushback.
Yet in the end, in a craven culture, even big Hollywood A-listers can’t get their message over. So the brave, transgressive comedy network was intimidated into caving in and censoring a speech about not being intimidated into caving in. That’s what I call “hip,” “edgy,” “cutting-edge” comedy: They’re so edgy they’re curled up in the fetal position, whimpering at the guy with the cutting edge, “Please. Behead me last. And don’t use the rusty scimitar where you have to saw away for 20 minutes to find the spinal column . . . ”
Terrific. You can see why young, urban, postmodern Americans under 57 get most of their news from Comedy Central. What a shame 1930s Fascist Europe was so lacking in cable.
Fifteen years ago, Bill Clinton set out to hang Timothy McVeigh around the necks of talk radio and, with a further stretch, Newt and the congressional Republicans. It was an act of contemptible but undeniably brilliant opportunism. It worked out so well for him that a couple of years later, after the Princess of Wales’s fatal car crash, George Stephanopoulos enthused to Christopher Hitchens: “Tony Blair’s handling this really well. This is his Oklahoma City.” As Hitchens remarked, this is the way these people think.
Which works fine when you’re up against phantom enemies of the kind Clinton preferred to take on while giving real threats the run of the planet. If the tea partiers were truly the murderous goons they’ve been portrayed as, they would draw the obvious lesson from the kid gloves with which Comedy Central strokes Islam. They would say, “Enough with peaceful rallies where we pick up the litter afterwards. Let’s just threaten to decapitate someone. You get more respect that way. At least from the media.”
But they won’t do that. Because, notwithstanding their outrageous demonization by the media, they’re not terrorists. So, in the end, Comedy Central has incentivized Islamic violence and nothing much else. Nevertheless, we should be grateful to its jelly-spined executives for reminding us that the cardboard heroes of the American media are your go-to guys for standing up to entirely fictitious threats. But for real ones? Not so much.
Finding the Founding
Kathryn Lopez
Friday, April 23, 2010
Washington recently began a debate about whether there should be federal government action taken to change the American palate, so that consumer taste buds can adjust to the mandatory use of less salt. And John Loughlin, a candidate for Congress who recently visited my office with a copy of the Constitution, was not amused.
Loughlin, who is running as a Republican in Rhode Island, looked and looked in our nation's founding document. But he couldn't really find where fiddling with food fell in the scope of the government's business.
Loughlin is running for the seat currently occupied by the retiring Patrick Kennedy. Conveniently, Loughlin's dog-eared Constitution had "compliments of Rep. Patrick Kennedy" stamped on it. Everywhere I go some group seems to be handing a copy out. The Constitution, it seems, is the hottest ticket in town.
When I was talking to people and snapping pictures at a recent Tea Party, I ran into a man sitting and reading a Heritage Foundation pocket-sized version. At a cocktail party in Northern Virginia this week, I was handed another one from the American Civil Liberties Union. The list goes on.
And then there are the Turner women, who are all about "We the People."
Juliette Turner, the 12-year-old daughter of actress Janine Turner, a cast member on NBC's "Friday Night Lights," read the Constitution over spring break.
"I heard Sarah Palin say at a Tea Party that we need to educate ourselves about our government. And I asked, 'how'?" Janine told me of the inspiration to read and discuss the Constitution with her daughter. The senior Turner's answer to the question she posed is Constituting America. It's a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to reach, educate and inform America's youth and her citizens about the importance of the Constitution" and the rights it enshrines and protects.
Who is devaluing these rights? Well, just look around. In the "comprehensive" federal legislation pouring out from our nation's capital, it's freedom that gets sacrificed: Compelling abortion funding while trying to hide it in health-care "reform"; a banking "reform" bill which, "as it exists, now, is a change in our philosophy as a country," as Rep. Spencer Bachus, a Republican from Alabama, recently explained it to me.
Turner, like many a Tea Partier, understands such issues: "I'm afraid that our government seems to be infringing on too many areas of our life."
How did we get here? How do we reclaim our Founding identity? How about an essay contest? How about a blog? "I keep having a dream about a billboard on the Sunset Strip for constitutingamerica.org." Turner tells me. There's no billboard yet, but there's a communal reading going on. Constituting America's 90-day read-the-Constitution project is in full swing. Constituting America has constitutional scholars, activists, and think-tank analysts contributing to an accompanying blog.
And as for the contest: It's aimed at elementary-school, middle-school and high-school students. It incorporates verbal and Web video talents. Turner believes that people who creatively engage with the Constitution will be "on fire" as a citizens. "On fire" is a phrase you'll hear frequently from Turner, who has a passion for civics that channels exactly what I've seen at Tea Parties.
"Many of us are finding our voice right now," she says. They're going to protests and town halls and starting blogs and contributing to conservative politicians like Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and Marco Rubio, running for Senate in Florida, and realizing nothing is inevitable in politics. They are considering running for local office themselves.
And Janine Turner's task includes building the foundation for the next generation's civic voice, while encouraging all of us to do the same. Starting with her daughter and maybe with an opportunity for yours, too. Prizes include, appropriately, a visit to Constitution Hall.
I write this minutes after reading a piece about how the media is overblowing the Tea Party movement, which turns out to be just a lot of right-leaning Americans. It's not a revolutionary movement or a new phenomenon. It's Americans who see their views being sidelined by the majority power Washington, and asserting those views.
Turner, the daughter of a West Point graduate, stood next to me recently looking out on the National Mall. "I think our Founding Fathers would be proud," she said. Maybe not about too-big-to-fail banks or health care we can't pay for or infringements on civil liberties. But they would be proud of the fact that Americans are paying attention and getting involved and, instead of giving up, are fighting back.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Washington recently began a debate about whether there should be federal government action taken to change the American palate, so that consumer taste buds can adjust to the mandatory use of less salt. And John Loughlin, a candidate for Congress who recently visited my office with a copy of the Constitution, was not amused.
Loughlin, who is running as a Republican in Rhode Island, looked and looked in our nation's founding document. But he couldn't really find where fiddling with food fell in the scope of the government's business.
Loughlin is running for the seat currently occupied by the retiring Patrick Kennedy. Conveniently, Loughlin's dog-eared Constitution had "compliments of Rep. Patrick Kennedy" stamped on it. Everywhere I go some group seems to be handing a copy out. The Constitution, it seems, is the hottest ticket in town.
When I was talking to people and snapping pictures at a recent Tea Party, I ran into a man sitting and reading a Heritage Foundation pocket-sized version. At a cocktail party in Northern Virginia this week, I was handed another one from the American Civil Liberties Union. The list goes on.
And then there are the Turner women, who are all about "We the People."
Juliette Turner, the 12-year-old daughter of actress Janine Turner, a cast member on NBC's "Friday Night Lights," read the Constitution over spring break.
"I heard Sarah Palin say at a Tea Party that we need to educate ourselves about our government. And I asked, 'how'?" Janine told me of the inspiration to read and discuss the Constitution with her daughter. The senior Turner's answer to the question she posed is Constituting America. It's a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to reach, educate and inform America's youth and her citizens about the importance of the Constitution" and the rights it enshrines and protects.
Who is devaluing these rights? Well, just look around. In the "comprehensive" federal legislation pouring out from our nation's capital, it's freedom that gets sacrificed: Compelling abortion funding while trying to hide it in health-care "reform"; a banking "reform" bill which, "as it exists, now, is a change in our philosophy as a country," as Rep. Spencer Bachus, a Republican from Alabama, recently explained it to me.
Turner, like many a Tea Partier, understands such issues: "I'm afraid that our government seems to be infringing on too many areas of our life."
How did we get here? How do we reclaim our Founding identity? How about an essay contest? How about a blog? "I keep having a dream about a billboard on the Sunset Strip for constitutingamerica.org." Turner tells me. There's no billboard yet, but there's a communal reading going on. Constituting America's 90-day read-the-Constitution project is in full swing. Constituting America has constitutional scholars, activists, and think-tank analysts contributing to an accompanying blog.
And as for the contest: It's aimed at elementary-school, middle-school and high-school students. It incorporates verbal and Web video talents. Turner believes that people who creatively engage with the Constitution will be "on fire" as a citizens. "On fire" is a phrase you'll hear frequently from Turner, who has a passion for civics that channels exactly what I've seen at Tea Parties.
"Many of us are finding our voice right now," she says. They're going to protests and town halls and starting blogs and contributing to conservative politicians like Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and Marco Rubio, running for Senate in Florida, and realizing nothing is inevitable in politics. They are considering running for local office themselves.
And Janine Turner's task includes building the foundation for the next generation's civic voice, while encouraging all of us to do the same. Starting with her daughter and maybe with an opportunity for yours, too. Prizes include, appropriately, a visit to Constitution Hall.
I write this minutes after reading a piece about how the media is overblowing the Tea Party movement, which turns out to be just a lot of right-leaning Americans. It's not a revolutionary movement or a new phenomenon. It's Americans who see their views being sidelined by the majority power Washington, and asserting those views.
Turner, the daughter of a West Point graduate, stood next to me recently looking out on the National Mall. "I think our Founding Fathers would be proud," she said. Maybe not about too-big-to-fail banks or health care we can't pay for or infringements on civil liberties. But they would be proud of the fact that Americans are paying attention and getting involved and, instead of giving up, are fighting back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)