Sunday, April 25, 2010
What part of "illegal" do you not understand?
By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer
PHOENIX – Civil rights activists called on President Barack Obama to fight a tough new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants Sunday, promising to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply if the measure goes into effect.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona told about 3,500 protesters gathered at the state Capitol that the Obama administration can help defeat the law by refusing to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police and turned over to federal immigration officers.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," said Grijalva, a Democrat.
Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. It requires police to question people about their immigration status — including asking for identification — if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say it would undoubtedly lead to racial profiling, because officers would be more likely to ask people who look Hispanic.
Supporters have dismissed concerns of racial profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law Friday, has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion someone is in the U.S. illegally.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. It also allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws.
Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking Sunday in New York, said that just as freedom riders battled segregation in the 1960s, he would organize "freedom walkers" to challenge the Arizona law.
"We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest," Sharpton said.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon's office said in a statement Saturday that "the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law" and "the criminalization of migration, far from contributing to collaboration and cooperation between Mexico and the state of Arizona, represents an obstacle to solving the shared problems of the border region."
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
My Take: All right now--why does the Justice Department need to look at it? Arizona is only enforcing federal law. The question you need to ask if "why does the federal government not enforce its own laws?"
Washington has no problem threatening to force health insurance on everyone but for some reason is unwilling to go after people who, by defintion, are felons for being in this country illegally. Of course, we know the answer and it has nothing to do with Al Sharpton.
Corporations are looking for slave labor.
People you do not have to pay much because if they do, they are going to be deported. Only some because there are over 14 million illegal immigrants in this country. I don't blame them for coming. If someone were to offer me free health care, education and housing, I would hop over the border in a heartbeat. The problem is not with the people coming over the border (though learning English would help...) but the people on this side of the border encouraging them to come over here. You see the far Left and its cult of diversity teaming up with the far Right and its urge to control and enslave and above all, drive down labor costs.
When you hear the term "racist", it usually means the person shouting it knows they have lost the argument.
My parents are from overseas. They got a visa, learned English (90% anyway...) and contribute to our society, such that it is. It s not about race, its about resources. There are over 300 million people in this country and resources can only stretch so far. Anyone with half a brain can see this...
...unless there is another motive in mind, especailly in the Southwest.
Look up "Reconquista"...
My favorite part of the story is in the front where protesters threaten not to comply with the law.
Sounds like a good plan to use when the slavedrivers in DC try to spring health care on us in 2014.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Not something you see every day...
Iranian snipers, completely attired in ghilli suits, marching proudly though Tehran...I am not sure what the point is, but there they are. A closer look reveals those are Russian made weapons they are carrying.
Not a lot to write about today, I am in the middle of the Peloponnesian War paper that is due on Thursday. Yes, I know its only Monday but better to get it out of the way now.
I still think Athens was guilty :-P
Now, how do I say that in 15 pages.....
Not a lot to write about today, I am in the middle of the Peloponnesian War paper that is due on Thursday. Yes, I know its only Monday but better to get it out of the way now.
I still think Athens was guilty :-P
Now, how do I say that in 15 pages.....
Monday, April 12, 2010
Terms for the Supreme Court?
No one ever said democracy was perfect. Winston Churchill even remarked once that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest."
One thing I have never understood about our Constitution is the insistence the Founding Fathers put on life time appointments in the Supreme Court.
The President serves two four year terms and he/she/it has to win an election to get to the White House. Senators and Representative have to face the voters and explain what they have done. Not a perfect system and, in my opinion, not nearly enough turn over, but the accountability is there. Theoretically anyway.
Not so with the Supreme Court.
Not only are they beyond recall or public pressure but they quite often do not know what they are doing. Not "seemingly", not "occasionally" but quite often do not seem to know their right hand from their left. I think ten year appointments are not asking too much.
Yes, I know. The current set up was devised to keep legal decisions free from pressure but maybe if the justices were accountable for some of the moronic decisions they have made, they just might think a little more.
Looking for examples?
Dred Scott decision. Remember that one? The one that ignored the rights of enslaved people in a DEMOCRACY and started the countdown to the Civil War?
Plessy v. Ferguson. The decision that made segregation legal and virtually ignored the deaths of over a million Americans in 1861-1865.
Over the last generation, the Supreme Court seems to think it is also a legislature and began embarking on adventures in judicial activism.
Many point out that it was the Court's activism that ended segregation but remember, it was the Supreme Court that legalized it and upheld slavery in the first place. It was only right and proper the justices undo the mess their predecessors created
.
.
Lately the decisions seem hostile to democracy itself...State supported discrimination seems back in vogue with Gratz v Bollinger and our property rights are under siege not from federal authorities but local land developers who are friends with whatever city council is nearby thanks to Kelso v New London. And lets not forget the recent decision to allow corporations, even foreign ones, to donate as much as they like in an election while American citizens are limited to $2500 each.
When you note David Souter's actions on the bench against his words at his confirmation and the obvious lack of qualification of Sonya Sotomayor combined with the quasi fascistic leanings of the late William Rhenquist, any kind of limit seems like a good start.
Not to mention some sort of common sense test.
Good luck with getting anyone in DC to pass that...
Monday, April 5, 2010
Spring football
No, not the XFL....this is a picture from the United States Football League from 1983. This is Steve Young of the LA Express, playing in front of about 4 people, in the first USFL game, Los Angeles' 20-15 win over the New Jersey Generals.
I was talking to my brother in law during Easter and we both thought it would be great if football were a year round sport. If the USFL had stayed with its original plan of playing only in Spring with non super stars (well, go after two or three...) and staying under an actual salary cap, the league would have not folded in 1985 and they would still be around today.
Now there is talk (and a website) of a new USFL that is a direct successor or continution of the old one from the 80s. It was supposed to launch this year but that was postponed unti 2011. Sounds a little sketchy but maybe it will happen. The resurrected USFL is supposed to use as many of the old team names as possible. I would like to see the LA Express and Tampa Bay Bandits return.
There is room in this country for more than one football league. The NFL is the on top of the heap and the new UFL is clearly no threat. It sees itself as a compliment. I think the return of the USFL would help the older league in the long run and all three could exist easily enough.
But if you do bring back the Pittsburgh Maulers, please change that logo!
I was talking to my brother in law during Easter and we both thought it would be great if football were a year round sport. If the USFL had stayed with its original plan of playing only in Spring with non super stars (well, go after two or three...) and staying under an actual salary cap, the league would have not folded in 1985 and they would still be around today.
Now there is talk (and a website) of a new USFL that is a direct successor or continution of the old one from the 80s. It was supposed to launch this year but that was postponed unti 2011. Sounds a little sketchy but maybe it will happen. The resurrected USFL is supposed to use as many of the old team names as possible. I would like to see the LA Express and Tampa Bay Bandits return.
There is room in this country for more than one football league. The NFL is the on top of the heap and the new UFL is clearly no threat. It sees itself as a compliment. I think the return of the USFL would help the older league in the long run and all three could exist easily enough.
But if you do bring back the Pittsburgh Maulers, please change that logo!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
April 2, 2007
I was not about to try and upstage Good Friday....
On April 2, 2007, I gave Michelle her ring at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh!
We celebrate every second day of April. It was a great Spring day and has been ever since. I don't remember the pollen being so bad...LOL
There were a couple of odd reactions to the news of the engagement. The idiot program director at the crappy radio station I was working part time at seemed particularly upset (he was never happy about anything...from what I hear, he is still a loser, miserable and alone...) while a cop who frequents one of my stores kept saying for at least a year later that giving my future wife her engagement ring at the Steelers' home stadium was "coolest thing ever!"
Friday, April 2, 2010
Happy Good Friday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)