harmonicminer

Here is the introduction to Andy McCarthy’s comments on today’s Arizona Immigration Decision

On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

There is much more at the link above, including references to other federal court precedents that the judge seems to have decided to ignore… presumably because they would not have led to the decision she appears to want. (She is a Clinton appointee, and presumably leans left, as essentially all of his appointees did.)

There are other federal laws, laws the enforcement of which requires local law enforcement to be directly involved, and even take initiative, on matters ranging from kidnapping to terrorism to the Mann Act to drugs, literally thousands of laws. 

There is no precedent for the federal government to sue to stop a state from enforcing federal law in a constitutional way.  Imagine if local peace officers were not allowed to notice if someone was selling illegal drugs (mostly federal laws), or to stop a kidnapping, or arrest someone carrying a grenade launcher (not illegal according to some state laws, but banned federally for most civilians).  Imagine if local peace officers were not allowed to notice someone carrying a sign advocating the assassination of Obama, or the bombing of a federal facility?

That is the ridiculous position we’d find ourselves in, if the notion that local peace officers can’t enforce federal law every became consistently applied, and that’s why the judge’s decision is ridiculous.

This was a PURELY political lawsuit, brought by a president who wants to buy off the Hispanic vote in 2012, even at the cost of the congress in the 2010 midterms, a president who cynically believes that Hispanic voters are in favor of illegal aliens in large numbers. 

I hope he is wrong in ascribing such motives to legal Hispanic voters.  If he is right, it will be interesting to see exactly how much other American citizens care about this.  How many who usually don’t vote can be energized to get to the polls to avoid amnesty (official or unofficial) for illegals?

Not enough, I fear.

You probably won’t see this on any network broadcast. It’s amazing a local TV station in Atlanta made the report.

But don’t worry. Obama has our borders under control.

A scientist who makes his living in SETI, searching for alien societies who might be communicating with us, says that It’s too late to worry that the aliens will find us

STEPHEN HAWKING is worried about aliens. The famous physicist recently suggested that we should be wary of contact with extraterrestrials, citing what happened to Native Americans when Europeans landed on their shores. Since any species that could visit us would be far beyond our own technological level, meeting them could be bad news.

Hawking was extrapolating the possible consequences of my day job: a small but durable exercise known as SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

Although we have yet to detect an alien ping, improvements in technology have encouraged us to think that, if transmitting extraterrestrials are out there, we might soon find them. That would be revolutionary. But some people, Hawking included, sense a catastrophe.

Consider what happens if we succeed. Should we respond? Any broadcast could blow Earth’s cover, inviting the possibility of attack by a society advanced enough to pick up our signals.

On the face of it, that sounds like a scenario straight out of cheap science fiction. But even if the odds of calamity are small, why gamble?

For three years, this issue has been exercising a group of SETI scientists in the International Academy of Astronautics. The crux of the dispute was an initiative by a few members to proscribe any broadcasts to aliens, whether or not we receive a signal first.

In truth, banning broadcasts would be impractical – and manifestly too late. We have been inadvertently betraying our presence for 60 years with our television, radio and radar transmissions. The earliest episodes of I Love Lucy have washed over 6000 or so star systems, and are reaching new audiences at the rate of one solar system a day. If there are sentient beings out there, the signals will reach them.

Detecting this leakage radiation won’t be that difficult. Its intensity decreases with the square of the distance, but even if the nearest aliens were 1000 light years away, they would still be able to detect it as long as their antenna technology was a century or two ahead of ours.

This makes it specious to suggest that we should ban deliberate messages on the grounds that they would be more powerful than our leaked signals. Only a society close to our level of development would be able to pick up an intentional broadcast while failing to notice TV and radar. And a society at our level is no threat.

The flip side is that for any alien society that could be dangerous, a deliberate message makes no difference. Such a society could use its own star as a gravitational lens, and even see the glow from our street lamps. Hawking’s warning is irrelevant.

Such considerations motivated the SETI group at the International Academy of Astronautics to reject a proscription of transmissions to the sky. It was the right decision. The extraterrestrials may be out there, and we might learn much by discovering them, but it is paranoia of a rare sort that would shutter the Earth out of fear that they might discover us.

Not everyone agrees.

Then there’s this, from a scientist who has written science fiction about nice aliens who “uplift” less than sentient species into full sophont status.  Maybe one of them would try to “uplift” humanity…

I’m not deeply worried that ET wants to come to Earth and eat us or something.  But if ET is out there, and can get here, and wants to get here, I really doubt that it would be out of a sense of altruism.  What if ET is at the same moral level as the Aztecs?  Maybe they believe in sacrificing low-level cultures (that would be us) to appease the Dark Energy God.

I mean, they could always just send a nice note, if all they want is to be pen pals.  And everyone knows it isn’t a good idea to meet in person with people you just met on Facebook….  let alone give them your home address.

Democrat and  Former Colorado Governor, Richard Lamm first gave this speech in 2004.

The title should pique your curiosity.  The content should give you serious pause

Please read it all.  It was only a five minute speech.  But it is sobering, to say the least.

Clearly there are those who take great exception to the recently passed immigration law in Arizona. The cries of outrage and the accusations of racism seem to be coming from everywhere.  In fact there is a clear attempt to couch this entire subject under the banner of race and racism, which should come as no surprise since that particular accusation has become quite a useful tool, both to squelch disagreement and dissent as well as to promote particular political agendas.

So, for those who feel as though our laws on immigration should not be enforced.  For those who feel that illegal immigrants should be granted a path to citizenship without obeying the existing laws.  For those who feel as though there is a compelling reason to ignore the laws of the land with respect to immigration I have a couple of simple questions:

#1: Which laws shall we enforce and which ones shall we ignore?

#2: Who gets to decide the answer to question #1?

An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship

A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment’s first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

……………………….

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”

George Will’s piece, linked above, gives a nice history of the 14th Amendment, and explains clearly why it should not be interpreted to mean that all babies of illegal aliens are automatically US citizens.  But somehow, I don’t think Congress is likely to act on this anytime soon, since the Democrats want to turn as many illegals as possible into voters… for them.  That’s why they are loathe to enforce our borders, they are for same day registration/voting and “motor voter” laws, and are only too happy to accept the support of illegal alien activist organizations.

I’m sure the Democrats mourn the passing of ACORN, which was famous for finding ways for illegals to vote, not to mention evade taxes and other laws.

So we won’t see a Congressional reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment anytime soon.  But read all of Will’s piece.  It’s essential information for the next time someone tries to convince you that it makes any kind of sense Constitutionally for anchor babies to be automatic US citizens.

Latino Identity Politics and Immigration Payback

Over the past several years, pro-immigrant groups, Latino organizations, and Democratic Party-linked institutes in Washington have been on the same page about immigration and politics. Basically, it’s been a politics of numbers—bringing the growing number of Latinos and immigrants into the Democratic Party.

The entire article is basically a confession that both Democrats and “immigration rights” activists intend for people who entered the USA illegally to become Democrat voters, overwhelming the electorate with people who don’t understand the foundations of US society.  The article is not written by raving right-wing lunatics.  It is written by the people who are DOING it.

There is even a thinly veiled admission that “comprehensive immigration reform”  and “pathway to citizenship” are simply code phrases for “adding more Democrat voters who came here illegally.”

Read and weep, if you love your country.

Then call your senator and congressional representative. You haven’t been hearing so much about this issue lately, with economic issues center-stage. But “comprehensive immigration reform” is still back in the dressing room, waiting to make a dramatic appearance in the second act.

I see where Janet Napolitano has finally apologized to veterans for the outrageous “right-wing extremist” report issued by her agency. Apparently she claimed the report was issued “prematurely”. So, I guess that means they meant to say the same thing, only a little later.  Some apology.  It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

So that’s one apology to a group from the American Legion.  If I were king for a day I’d give her a printout containing the home addresses of every veteran who has returned from Iraq or Afghanistan.  Then I’d give her a Greyhound Bus schedule and tell her not to return to Washington until she had personally visited and apologized to each and every one.  But that’s just me….

Anyone want to wager who’ll be the recipient of the next apology?  There are so many from which to choose.  Perhaps the next group will be all those who hold life to be sacred.  Then she could proceed to apologize to all those who believe in the rule of law, especially laws that protect our nations borders.  Finally she could wrap it up with a sincere “I’m sorry” to everyone who thinks the 10th amendment to the Constitution is actually valid.

Now I realize that’s a lot of apologies and she may be a little overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task.  But she can always go to her boss for advice on how best to proceed.  He’s really excellent at the art of apology, just look at how well he did on his recent international trip.  Obama apologized to anyone who would listen for what an “arrogant” nation we have been – especially to all those poor little totalitarian regimes out there.

Yes, I’m confident Janet Napolitano will be able to successfully complete her apology tour with help from “The Messiah”.  And we can all rest easy knowing our president has placed someone of impeccable competence and character at the helm of the federal agency charged with the protection of our country from terrorist actions.

On second thought maybe she should apologize to every citizen of this nation.  Then she should resign in disgrace. (Don’t hold your breath!)

Obama is proceeding with “immigration reform” (spelled a-m-n-e-s-t-y) in spite of the fact the American people clearly and unequivocally voiced their opposition to this the last time it was proposed.  Why?  Because amnesty and citizenship for illegals qualifies them for union membership.  And an increase in union membership is an increase in Democrat voters.  Obama has made no effort to disguise this as his motivation.

Obama is radically pro-abortion.  He is in favor of the killing of unborn infants with no restrictions, paid for with a government check.  He is also in favor of killing children born alive as a result of a botched abortion.  He is in favor of forcing doctors to perform abortions even if those doctors have a moral objection.

Does anyone remember Obama’s soft-spoken, relaxed and seemingly innocuous little comment to Joe the plumber?  “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”.  We now see that what he meant was a wholesale destruction of capitalism and a premeditated effort to replace it with socialism.

Obama is robbing our future generations of any hope of prosperity by an orgy of federal spending unheard of in our country.

Obama is reaching into the board rooms of private companies and firing employees.  He has crossed a line between public and private sectors that is unprecedented.

Obama has just completed an international trip with the message of appeasement to our enemies.  When, in the course of human history, has appeasement ever worked?

Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.  Is there ANYONE who thinks this is a good thing?

The laundry list of Obama appointees who were revealed to have unpaid taxes is shameful.  Is there ANY private citizen who could get away with this wanton disregard for tax laws by simply saying “Oops, I’m sorry”?

The Republican Party is currently populated with political eunichs.  Where is the voice of opposition?

Obama wants to socialize medicine.  If this happens it will complete his coup d’état and America as we know it will be gone forever.

Many citizens of this great country are simply left speechless by this apparently unstoppable. radical, ultra-liberal assault on America.  So many of us feel a combination of powerlessness and outrage in the face of what is happening.  Many are asking, “What can I do to stop this madness?”  Not all of us have a public forum from which to vent our frustrations.  Not all of us are eloquent of speech or skilled in writing.  But we all have family and friends.  We all live lives that are made up of relationships.  This is where the battle must be fought – one friend, one family, one realtionship at a time.  Those of us who do believe America is essentially good – that it was founded and made great on a firm foundation of Judeo-Christian beliefs, that it is a place where people can be free, that perserverance and hard work will be rewarded and that anyone can acheive the American dream – must share our convictions and persuade our family and friends that it is an America worth fighting for.  For outrage is not enough, feeling helpless and powerless is no excuse, and inaction is not an option.

Yeah, I know it’s starting to sound like there should be a choir humming “My Country Tis Of Thee” in the background.  I don’t care. It is a battle worth fighting…but we had better start now.

A recent appointment by President-elect Obama draws praise from the National Council of La Raza, a frightening thing indeed when one considers the basic intent of La Raza, which is essentially open borders between the US and Mexico, at a minimum.

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) hailed today’s announcement by President-Elect Barack Obama that Cecilia Muñoz will become the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs in his administration. Muñoz currently serves as Senior Vice President for NCLR’s Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation.

“I am deeply honored and very heartened that one of the Obama Administration’s first Latino appointments is someone who has so ably served this organization and the Latino community with dedication and distinction for more than 20 years,” stated Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO.

“Cecilia leaves a legacy of advocacy and accomplishment virtually unmatched in the Latino community, and we will miss her greatly,” continued Murguía. “But I can say with absolute certainty that no one will work harder for her country and for the ideals and priorities of the Obama Administration. We congratulate her and salute President-Elect Obama for this inspired appointment.”

“We hope to see more Latino appointments in the upcoming weeks,” concluded Murguía.

Combined with the appointment of (anti-fence) Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security, this is pretty bad news to anyone who had any hope of Obama finishing the fence, let alone delaying the declaration of straight amnesty for illegal aliens, past and future.   Cecilia Muñoz is a well-known open borders activist.

Obama may be planning a “moderate” foreign policy, but it’s getting ever clearer that domestic policy is going to go pretty far left, as Obama pays off on his campaign obligations.

Michelle Malkin :: Townhall.com :: Illegal Immigration and the Mortgage Mess

It’s no coincidence that most of the areas hardest hit by the foreclosure wave — Loudoun County, Va., California’s Inland Empire, Stockton and San Joaquin Valley, and Las Vegas and Phoenix, for starters — also happen to be some of the nation’s largest illegal alien sanctuaries. Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime (the accursed species of loan to borrowers with the shadiest credit histories). A quarter of all those subprime loans are in default and foreclosure.

Read the whole thing.  It is both stunning and a bit chilling.

Continue reading “Home loans for illegals: a personal aside”

San Francisco (like Santa Monica, and others) is a “sanctuary city” with regard to illegal aliens, meaning that its city council voted in 1989 “not to cooperate with federal immigration investigations”. In other words, there is a city ordinance to break federal law, and obstruct justice, and, incredibly, the federal government puts up with it, mostly. Now the city is actually buying plane tickets and escorting criminal illegal aliens out of the country, to avoid federal investigations. Continue reading “SF City officials on lam with illegal alien criminals”