Crying Bigotry: Last Refuge Of The Liberal
August 28, 2010
Crying Bigotry: Last Refuge Of The Liberal
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Posted 08/26/2010 07:00 PM ETALL OF US ‘GREAT UNWASHED’ SHOULD READ THIS SUMMARY OF JUST WHERE THINGS ARE STANDING. I FOR ONE AM IN FAVOR OF A DEFEAT OF LIBERALISM AND FOR THAT I HAVE BEEN CALLED DIVISIVE. IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT. THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE WITH SOCIALISM, IT MUST BE DEFEATED AT EVERY TURN IF WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE WE HAVE COME TO LOVE AND BELIEVE IN. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!!!
“Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the 40-year liberal ascendancy that James Carville predicted into a full retreat.
Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" — this part is less remembered — "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? ... “ READ MORE IN INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Read More...
AZ Judge Raises Realities of Poruous Border
July 23, 2010
AZ Judge Raises Realities of Porous Border
By JACQUES BILLEAUD and PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writers July 23, 2010I used to say, “There’s nothing wrong with a federal judge that a good election wouldn’t cure!” But, maybe this judge gets it. Stay tuned.
“PHOENIX – The judge who will decide whether Arizona's new immigration law is constitutional hasn't indicated whether she'll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law.
Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country's interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona.
"You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored," said Bolton, who didn't issue a ruling after the two hearings.
Bolton has been asked to block the law from taking effect as she hears seven lawsuits by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights groups and others that question the constitutionality of the measure, which has reignited the national immigration debate.
Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and trample on the rights of the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Supporters say the law is a necessary response to combat the litany of problems brought on by illegal immigration and the federal government's inability to secure the border.
Bolton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, repeatedly questioned Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler to explain how specific provisions of the law intruded on federal authority as he had argued.” READ THE FULL ARTICLE Read More...
Obama vs. Arizona: The President is fighting a reckless war that will backfire politically
July 09, 2010
Obama vs. Arizona: The President is fighting a reckless war that will backfire politically
New York Daily News ANDREA TANTAROS Thursday, July 8th 2010, 4:00 AMBy filing this arrogant lawsuit the Obama regime has only given the supporters of the AZ law greater public forum and only serves as an invitation for other states to follow suit with AZ. If a sizable number of states pass similar legislation, the immigration issue could mobilize more conservatives than the Tea Party movement ever dreamed of.
“The Obama administration is getting quite the reputation for bucking the wishes of the people. From pushing through an unpopular health care bill to imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling that's costing the already-suffering gulf region precious jobs, it has refused to back down when it comes to the will of the masses.
Now, President Obama's Justice Department has decided to sue the State of Arizona over its new law targeting illegal aliens, when a majority of the public favors the legislation, leaving many to wonder if the increasingly detached White House has gone too far.
The administration says its lawsuit is all about the law; Arizona, it says, is trying to enforce immigration statutes - which is the federal government's job alone.
It's hard to believe from a President who has already shaken the finger of moral disapproval at the bill.
Rather, anyone with basic political sense can see the move for what it is: a purely political maneuver intended to invigorate Hispanic voters - a key piece of the Democratic base - in time for the November elections. Obama is hoping that a bloody judicial showdown on immigration will translate into high turnout for Democrats. And that could be enough to sustain Democratic majorities in Congress.
Don't count on it. For the strategy to work, registered Hispanic voters would need to turn out in droves over what essentially boils down to a nuanced debate between federal versus states’ rights. ... [Snip] ... Declaring war on the State of Arizona is one thing. Declaring war on the State of Arizona while the economy is on the verge of bankruptcy and a double-dip recession is another. Restoring jobs and economic and national security should be the President's top concerns. If he doesn't change course, it'll be him who is on trial next in the court of public opinion.” Read more Read More...