Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants

So far, some eight states have approved allowing driver's licenses for illegal immigrants (Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Illinois, and of course, California). Kentucky is trying to become number nine. Democratic legislators have introduced House Bill 396 which would allow illegal immigrants the opportunity to apply for a driver's permit (either given in their native language or with a translator they provide), and if they successfully pass the written portion (also given in either their native language or with the help of a personally provided translator) and then go on to pass the driving portion (with someone in the car with the driver to, again, "translate"); a privilege now afforded only to legal residents of the US and Commonwealth of Kentucky. Gone would be another legal barrier to follow existing, but often ignored or unenforced state and federal laws; thus blurring the distinction between legal and illegal residency.

Currently, most illegal immigrants are flocking to Washington, Utah, and New Mexico, which have become meccas for fraudulent document brokers, human smugglers, and other criminal elements. While Maryland is considered allowing illegal aliens the opportunity to obtain a driver's license, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez has expressed deep concern over granting legitimacy to individuals who are in violation of US laws, has indicted that she will begin taking steps to revoke the 2003 state laws. Meanwhile, states which has enacted tougher laws in general against illegal immigrants, have seen substantial drops in applications, along with an exodus of individuals thought to be in the state illegally. With this, there has also been drops in applications for taxpayer based programs. The result being considerable savings to taxpayers. Meanwhile, other states, such North Carolina, which originally considered allowing driver's licenses being issued, have now reversed direction, and will require proof of residency in the future. Their license currently includes a pink stripe to indicates the holder's may not use the license as a valid form of identification.

In most states, including Kentucky, all drivers are required to obtain and keep current auto insurance. In Illinois, a state which mandates auto insurance for instance, there are approximately 250,000 illegal immigrants currently on the road. There is an estimated 80,000 accidents caused by uninsured illegal immigrants, resulting in $660 million dollars in damage according to the Highway Safety Coalition as reported in a article in Yahoo! News dated January 27, 2013. According to a Los Angeles Times article dated January 16, 2013 by Ben Poston, illegal immigrants are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident according to a report by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. California has the highest number of illegal immigrants. This, of course, begs the question: how will states enforce their mandatory insurance laws given the nature of driver's illegal, and often transitory status as well as language barriers since many illegal immigrants refuse to learn English? The result will likely lead to higher insurance rates for drivers in general as costs are merely passed along to cover the damaged caused by uninsured drivers.

Then there is the nature of the drivers license itself. Most states (and even the federal government) accepts driver's licenses as legal identification cards. This in itself allows the holder to easier access to renting apartments, obtaining jobs by providing proof of identity on I-9 forms, applying for grants and taxpayer based services, opening banking and savings accounts, cashing checks, buying guns or airplane tickets, renting cars, entering secure buildings such as court houses, obtaining prescriptions, and much more. In short, the line becomes blurred between legal and illegal status. So, who are some of those pushing for the "all-but-legal" status of illegal immigrants?

Well, to be sure, most are liberals and mostly Democrat. However, many are also religious groups. In Connecticut for instance, the leading group is Congregations Organized for a New Connecticut ("CONECT"), which is allegedly comprised of some 200 activists and based in New Haven. In Kentucky, it's Kentucky Jobs with Justice located in Louisville and the Kentucky Council of Churches, which is in Lexington and, of course, the Kentucky ACLU.

Kentucky residents opposed to House Bill 396, are encouraged to call the toll free number 1-800-372-7181 to voice their disapproval. They are also strongly encouraged to click onto the House Bill link below to go to the home pages of the bill's sponsors to register their disapproval. However, Kentucky residents are urged to do so quickly before the bill moves on.

Can Illegal Immigrants Get Auto Insurance?
http://www.autoinsurance.org/can-illegal-immigrants-get-auto-insurance/

Should Illegal Immigrants be able to obtain a Driver's License in the US?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-illegal-immigrants-be-able-to-obtain-drivers-licenses-in-the-u-s

Pink Strip of NC driver's license for illegal immigrants
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/21/pink-stripe-on-nc-driver-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants-has-some-concerned/?intcmp=obinsite

2013 Kentucky House Bill 396
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13RS/HB396.htm

Supreme Court Hears Arizona's SB 1070

Illegal immigration is back in the news with the Supreme Court reviewing the constitutionality of Arizona's SB 1070. The law, which passed in April of 2010, really isn't controversial. All it did was take existing but scattered federal laws, codified them, and added teeth to enforce them. Had the federal government done this to begin with, there would have been no need for Arizona's law, which has been copied by five other states.

Obama instructed Attorney General Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Justice, to challenge the law. The DOJ alleged that Arizona overstepped its authority by attempting to usurp the federal government's sole authority to create laws pertaining to immigration. Obama had questioned the law, saying it was a threat to our "basic notions of fairness", which, ironically, is what most Americans thought of Obama's bailout of Wall Street and those most responsible for the general economic collapse to begin with. As an aside, Mexico asked to join in the complaint against Arizona, which the Obama Administration granted. A first for a foreign government to be allowed by the United States' Department of Justice to be allowed to participate in a lawsuit against a sovereign state. The lower court largely found in favor of Arizona, therefore, the DOJ decided to waste more of your money by pursing this all the way to the Supreme Court.

So far, things aren't looking so good for Holder and Company. Several of the Justices have expressed dismay at the DOJ's efforts, and apparently at least one or two have indicated to DOJ's attorneys that this borders on a frivolous action. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most liberal member of the High Court and a Hispanic, said the DOJ's case was not "selling very well". Of course, the real reason for the lawsuit in the first place was the Obama Administration's to attempt to curry favor with the Hispanic population while, at the same time, provide underpaid and overworked (and often abused) workers for unscrupulous employers. Unfortunately, since these individuals are in the country illegally, they have little if any recourse.

I expect closing arguments shortly and a rather quick decision by the court with little dissention from its members. Arizona did not attempt to create new immigration law as alleged by Obama, Holder, and the DOJ. Rather, it was the failure of the federal government over at least two administrations, to take affirmative steps to end illegal immigration. One could even argue that the federal government abrogated its authority by its failure to act. As a result, Arizona and several other states, including Utah, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, and South Carolina simply made use of existing federal laws. Assuming the Supreme Court agrees, look for more states to take similar actions.

Iowa Takes Steps Against Illegal Immigration

Iowa recently took a step forward by passing a bill that would anyone to report a business employing illegal immigration to the state attorney general's office. The bill requires the attorney general's office; the various county attorney's office; and the local police department to follow up and investigate the complaint. Verified complaints will be reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and employers face the prospect of losing their the business licenses. Included in the bill is participation in E-Verify, which is employers will be required to use to match applicants and their social security number in order to cut down on fraud. There are an estimated 65,000 illegal aliens currently living in Iowa, which is costing state taxpayers approximately $349,700.00.

The downside to the bill is the added burden in terms of tying up manpower and additional costs to investigate each and every allegation. Secondly, there is currently an unofficial policy being imposed by the DOJ on ICE, the Border Patrol, and other federal agencies to look the other way when it comes to enforcing illegal immigration laws. Nevertheless, the bill will benefit Iowans by effectively cutting down on the illegal population in the state, as well as reducing potential abuses illegal aliens may suffer by unscrupulous employers who are notoriously known to force workers to work long hours in often dangerous and unsanitary conditions while paying them substandard wage and no benefits (including health), and because they are breaking federal immigration laws, have no recourse.

On a related note, Congress members are finally moving to bar illegal workers from receiving tax credits (that's right---not only do taxpayers dollars go to paying for the healthcare, education, and other for other social safety net programs that illegal aliens take advantage of, they also get tax refund checks!).

As originally reported by Minuteman PAC on February 11, 2012, illegal immigrants are barred from earned income tax credits, while not prohibited from receiving child tax credits, which average about $1800 per recipient. The US Treasury Department reported that $4.2 billion of your tax dollars sent some 2.3 million individuals with no valid social security numbers, or in other words, illegal aliens who filed a federal tax return(see the importance of E-Verify now?).

Congress is attempting to pass legislation that would require proof that recipients are legal workers. The article concludes that taxpayers could save about $10 billion dollars over the next ten years. One obstacle to the bill is overcoming the issue of "anchor babies". US law states that children born in the United States are automatically citizens even though the parents may not be. The intent of the law, passed as the 14th Amendment to Constitution, was to insure the former slaves born in the US were automatically made US Citizens. The wording of the amendment was intended to apply to anyone either born or naturalized and to whose allegiance was solely to the laws of the United States. Some members of Congress are reviewing an possible amendment to that law to require a least one parent to be a US citizen in order for the child to also be consider an citizen. For a more information, you may want to check out an article entitled "Birthright Citizenship" at: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

Things are, well, just different in Texas. Take for example a recent change in reporting requirements by the Texas High Education Coordinating Board. Under the new law, colleges in Texas must now send "reminders" to all students who are illegal residents and receiving in-state tuition that they must seek to obtain legal status in exchange for continuing to receive the lower tuition rates.

Opponents give the new requirement a failing grade and claim that such reminders could result in jeopardizing the students current status if they contact federal authorities. I can see their point. How does a student comply by notifying ICE or some other federal agencies regarding the illegal status in order to continue receiving the reduced tuition rates without facing the possibility of being deported! Well, the good news is, I suppose, the Obama Administration is not doing much to actively enforce deportation. Recently, the DOJ dismissed several thousand deportation cases while Janet Napolitano, Director of the Department of Homeland Security, continues to push for passage of the ill-named pro-amnesty "Dream Act".

The bottom line is that we're all over the place with our immigration policy. It used to be that if you wanted to come to America, you got in line and applied, or you got a "green card" in sort of a "try before you buy" live and work permit. Exceptions were sometimes made by the State Department on a case by case basis. Nowadays, there is no coherent policy. The result is individuals, mostly otherwise lawabiding, coming illegally to America, in search of jobs. They have no intent on becoming US Citizens; learning the language, culture, or traditions of America. It's all about the money. What an ironic twist for a Capitalist nation. Our taxpayer funded safety net, already strained, becomes stretched even further thanks to legal(and not so legal)loopholes and misplaced compassion; a compassion which may lead to the further collapse of our infrastructure and perhaps, to the system itself.

America: A Welcoming Country

America has always been a welcoming country. We are a nation of immigrants. We came here for many reasons, but most often in search of freedom. Whether that "freedom" was one of religion; both "of" or "from", or freedom of opportunity; to pursue one's ambitions. It may be freedom of associate with or from other individuals or groups. The choice was ours. All we asked of government was to be left alone; to keep to a minimal its intrusion on our lives. Our Founding Fathers were in complete agreement.

We came here speaking many languages and of different economic strata, but mostly poor. Most had little more than the clothes on their backs. Shoes were often optional. We knew life would be a struggle, but if we scrimped and worked hard, somehow the lives of our children might be better than ours had been. Most succeeded, though not necessary in the way they had envisioned. A few failed. But their success or failure was largely of their own making and not imposed on them by accident of birth.

Despite our teeming diversity, we were all linked by one thing; to be Americans. In whatever far off land we came, it was the common dream we shared. We often freely lent a hand to the newcomer. After all, we weren't that far removed from them. We never asked nor expected government to do what neighbors do freely for neighbors. A nation of which valued the individual was also the nation which came together as one.

What has changed? Have we become jaded? Perhaps arrogant or selfish with our freedoms? Certainly we are more cynical people than our forefathers. We learned not to trust our most trusted institutions; school, church, our employer, our employees, and most of all, our government. Skepticism, it seems, doesn't have a minimum daily dosage. It is true that we believe that our nation is second to none. Perhaps in our arrogance we've tried to force feed our values to the world. Many among us believe that we are a unique people chosen by God to be the "light of the world". Our national sense of freedom compels us to believe that everyone has the right to believe as they choose, even if imposed. Yes, we are indeed selfish of our freedoms, but America has never been a selfish country. We have give more to others than any other nation in history. If anything, we are a deeply compassionate people.

Perhaps then, what changed was not us, but the nature of the immigrant. We do not see today's "unwashed masses" seeking to become "American". In the name of compassion, we've embraced multiculturalism. We've encouraged immigrants to keep their customs, costumes, cuisine, religions, and the thread that binds, language in our misplaced compassion. In doing so, we lost the evolution of "becoming". The cure for freedom was worse than the disease of freedom. Once, we engaged in the "becoming" by accepting all that others brought with them. The national act of "becoming" was called the "Great Melting Pot". What was more "American" than a hamburger; hotdog; pizza; chow mien or everyone being Irish on St. Patrick's Day or German during Oktoberfest? We freely mixed and explored each other's religions and tradition, while in the Old World, they chose slaughter instead.

What stirred this "Great Melting Pot" was a simple ingredient. It was our common language. No matter where we came from; from what social class, we succeed because we could talk with each other. We even incorporated each other's words and expressions in to our everyday vernacular. It came known as "American English". It was our very mother tongue. Today's immigrant keeps their own language. By doing so, they remain a separate people. Not truly of their homeland. Not truly American.

Our governments mistakenly deepened the divide by making it easier to remain separate by encouraging immigrants to maintain their native language by creating multi-lingual documents. Businesses picked on this too. Short term profits over long term national oblivion. Once it was necessary to learn the host nation's language to survive and interact. Even the required tests to become a US citizen can be offered the language of your choice.

When we first came to these shores, we knew America was to be our new home. We severed our old loyalties. For today's immigrant, that is not necessarily true. Many routinely travel back and forth to their homeland; send money and other items back to the homeland. Their national loyalties remain afar, and it's reinforced down through the generations. Their ties still bind. They develop no attachment to the land that now supports them. Theirs is solely economic. As a result, they never accept the validity of our culture or our laws. Someone will always to defend them. Separate but more than equal is the new political reality.

What does it mean to be an American? That's a question we each must address; individually and as a nation. I believe there can be no divided loyalties. I believe that we are Americans by choice. In the land of the free, we are free to leave anytime we want to. We welcome those who want to add their uniqueness to ours. If you expect us to adapt, you may have a long uncomfortable wait. And while you're waiting, please learn our language. It's called English. It will help you blend in. Don't expect us to learn your language unless you're willing to learn French, Italian, German, Russian, Yiddish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, and every other language on this planet because that is what America represents; the best the world has to offer, and the only way we can continue to achieve is by being able to speak to each other.

Americans are a religious people. That doesn't mean we always attend a church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or a sacred grove. It does mean that we respect all religions equally. Even the right to no religion at all. If you can't accept that, you might want to stay where you're at.

There is no "honor" in "honor killings". Women contribute as much (if not more) as men. We are our equal partners in all things, so don't expect American women to bear your guilt and hide behind closed doors...or veils. And don't expect to hide behind your religion to impose your version of a second class status. We as a People respect religion, but we won't tolerate the intolerance of a caste system imposed in name of any god or social class.

Americans reserve the right to say what we want when we want about what we want. We will also write what we want about what we want. In short, it's our God-given right to freedom of expression. We'll also hang out with whomever we want too. That's called freedom of assembly. Wanna know more? Read the Bill of Rights. We realized there are certain restrictions. It's something else Americans tend to do well. We call it taking responsibility for our actions. When we don't, well, there are recourses for that too.

So, as hard as it is to believe, Americans will support your right to criticize us. But with that right, comes our right to respond in kind. And, so, with that, I will close this edition of Another Opinion. But in doing so, remember that being an American means being part of the many. Perhaps, then, it's no wonder that our defacto national motto has been "E pluribus Unum" or "Out of many, one."

Backdoor Amnesty

In what can only be described as "middle finger salute" to the American People, President Obama has decided once again to ignore the Will of America. While the number of Americans opposed to illegal immigration has always remained a super majority, Obama has ordered his Co-Conspirator-in-Chief, Janet Napolitano, head of the so-called Department of Homeland Security to cease deporting illegals in what can only be described as "backdoor amnesty" for the estimated 12 million or more illegal immigrants now living in America (the Justice Department under Eric Holder has slowed its investigating and prosecution of illegals to crawl). No doubt that as word spreads, tens of thousands more will pour over the border in order to get in on the "good" deal.

Obama issued his presidential directive on August 18, just one day after heading off on his vacation fundraising jaunt to Martha's Vineyard. Although he has no legal authority under the Constitution to issue such a directive (all matters of immigration are the preview of Congress), it will takes months if not years for Congress to bring this matter up; draft a deal and vote it (heck, they couldn't even agree on raising the debt ceiling). I'm sure that it was on coincidence that the fiat order was issued while Congress was adjourned for campaigning...err...I mean summer break. The result is a de facto executive amnesty policy, which come over the sustained objections of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

So, why would Obama issued such an order if he knew he had no legal authority to? I think the answer is rather simple. First, with Congress out, who is going to object? The liberal leaning media? You? Please. Second, the Obama Administration has been trying unsuccessfully for the last two years to implement some form of amnesty. With his approval ratings hovering somewhere between dismissal and fat chance, Obama desperately needs the support of Hispanic voters. Hispanics, as everyone knows, is the largest minority in America and increasing (they are currently 16.3% of the population compared with the former largest minority, Black Americans, who are just over 12%). It's only through his magnanimous, though illegal actions, that Obama can hope to win their support. In addition, Hispanics are more likely than not to register as Democrats, which would give the Democratic Party a literal insurmountable lock on national elections (not to mention some states). Another beneficiary is Big Business.

Hispanics, both illegal and legal, are more willing to work for less money and few, if any, benefits. Obviously, it's advantageous for Big Business to increase the low wage workforce. Of course, the big losers are unions and the average working American. Unions lose because Hispanics have historically been less likely to challenge their employers for higher wages and benefits (they have, however, been successful with efforts to improve work conditions) or join unions. As an aside, Hispanics are now competing with and surpassing blacks for many of the same jobs. Federal programs, formerly directed primarily to blacks, are now being redirected to Hispanics is reflection of their new acquired clout.

The average American loses because not only are they competing with lower wage workers in other countries, they would be competing with lower wage workers right in their own backyard. Yes, the average American worker is better educated, skilled, and motivated, employers may need those same competitive advantages, but only fewer of them. In addition, it may still prove to be cheaper to hire two (or three) low wage workers and train them for specific task rather than hire one higher wage American worker. Politics does make strange bed fellows doesn't it?

Suggested Reading:

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1913722586?page=NewsArticle&id=24343&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FAIR%20Enews&utm_content=Enews+Aug+19+2011

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/public-opinion/americans-oppose-rewards-illegal-immigra.html

http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml

http://www.theroot.com/views/how-illegal-immigration-hurts-black-america


Bilingual Ballots Anyone?

In related matter, the Obama Administration is expected to order state and local governments to start printing ballots in Spanish and other languages. The argument is that it would make voting easier and more accessible to voters. What it does in actuality is encourage individuals not to learn English and increases the likelihood of voter fraud as well as increase the financial burden of state and local governments who will bear the costs.

Suggested Reading:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/08/19/chavez-bilingual-ballots-are-a-bad-idea/?subscriber=1


A Few Final Thoughts

Everyone wants to come to America. Frankly, there aren't any long lines at other embassies. America is a nation of immigrants. Immigration is what made America the greatest nation the world has yet seen. We are a country which demands honesty and fair play, from other nations; from our politicians; and from ourselves. That's why things other countries would shrug off so infuriate us (take President Clinton's trysts for example). Illegal immigration is another example.

Most Americans don't have a biased bone in their body, so let's drop the alleged "racism" once and for all. They don't care where someone is from, as long as they got here above board. America is first and foremost a nation of laws. We expect you to apply and go through the same steps are everyone else. "Cutting in line" is one of those things that sticks in our crawl. The other is not bothering to learn our language (which is English in case you didn't know) or learning our customs and traditions. We view that as a slap at our history; our national sacrifices; and us personally. Not that we care what native language is or the customs of your native country; this not there, so adapt damn it. We came here to be something greater than ourselves. We came here to be Americans. If that's why you're here, great. Welcome home. If not, don't forget to pick up a few post cards on your way out.

Illegal Immigration Issues/State of America

South Carolina moved ahead with signing of one of America's toughest anti-illegal immigration bills. Modeled on Arizona's SB 1070, the bill was signed into law by South Carolina's Governor Nikki Haley. The bill, which passed the State House of Representatives by a margin of 69 to 43, requires employers to use the federal E-Verify database to confirm the legal residencies of all new employees. Employers are given a one year "grace" period to implement the program. Failure to do so results in escalating penalties cumulating their business's license being revoked.

Meanwhile, US District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. has been busy undermining Georgia's anti-illegal legislation, HB 87. The judge has suspended sections 7 and 8, allowing police officers to inquire into a suspect's legal status when stopped for "probable cause" such as suspicion of committing a criminal act, and prohibiting someone from knowingly transporting and/or harboring an illegal immigrant. However, one section of the bill will be allowed to stand.

Individuals convicted of using false identification (and I assume that includes the use of stolen social securities numbers) could face up to 15 years as a guest of Georgia's infamous penal system and a fine of $250,000 (that would be in US dollars not pesos in case you're curious). Meanwhile, sections 7 and 8 are on appeal by Georgia's Attorney General Sam Olens. Look for a slightly modified version of the two sections to be implemented.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues efforts to circumvent existing national laws and overwhelming opinion of America by declaring that illegal immigrants enrolled in a "education center", which I assume could be almost anything from a continuing adult education class to college, may not be deported. I guess the president is striving for a better educated class of illegal aliens. Some states are now awarding in-state tuition to illegal aliens who enroll in their colleges or universities, and in case you're wondering, yes, they may apply for and obtain taxpayer based grants and loans. Who says crime doesn't pay? In addition, illegal immigrants living with relatives currently serving in the US military are also currently exempt for deportation. No word from the White House on how closely they must be related.

So, what's moral of today's story? Don't come here illegally and use a stolen ID to get a job. Simply enroll in a local college and get a free education or find some relatives who came here legally and who has a cousin is serving in the military and simply move in. Better yet, do both!

Real Estate 101: Location, Location, Location

What the best places to live if you're coming here illegally? According to a Fox News story by Bob Dane, the top five "sanctuary states" in America are California, Maryland, Washington State, Illinois, and Connecticut. According to Dane, California take in 1/4 of all illegal immigrants. Native Californians pay a staggering $2438.00 in extra taxes per resident for that "honor". No wonder people and businesses are leaving California in droves and the state is bankrupt. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sacramento impose fines on businesses and individuals moving out in order to build up their coffers.

Next up is Montgomery County Maryland where residents voted in their own version of the so-called "Dream Act". Look for those local officials to start hitting up the state for more money as residents learn the true costs of their generosity. Chicago and Cook County is the biggest haven in Illinois while New Haven is the top spot in Connecticut.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/29/illegal-aliens-guide-to-top-five-best-places-to-live-in-america/#content

State of America

Meanwhile the economy continues to tank. Recent unemployment numbers are dismal as employers hold back on hiring despite increasing profit levels and stocks of inventory. The "official" unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, which translates to over 14 million souls looking to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. That number masks an even greater number; the number of individuals who are underemployed (working part time but seeking a full time job and well as overqualified individuals employed in jobs beneath their skills and/or education), as well as those who have simply stopped looking. That "unofficial" number is just over 20% of Americans.

The previous time it took to find a job was five weeks. Now it six months. If you're over 45 years old, that number jumps to 52 weeks! For those in the their 50's (like yours truly), some economists are predicting that they may never find work again. Welcome to the new reality of the new economy. Employers added on 18,000 jobs nationally while economists called for a bare minimum of 105,000 with an ideal job growth number of 225,000. Folks, that's just not going to cut it.

The Obama Administration has tried the discredited practice of blaming the prior administration, but that's not going to work. After six months, the current condition of the economy belongs to whomever is in office. Meanwhile, Congress keeps mouthing about how they feel our pain. Really? How about giving up their salary for the average number of weeks one of their constituents is unemployed? Maybe that would help them feel our pain. Maybe forgo those gym privileges we pay for.

Globally, Europe is teetering thanks to the financial mismanagement of Greece's government. Things aren't much better in Pacific Rim with Japan trying to cope with its recent disaster and the regional bad boy, North Korea, on the edge of economic collapse and contemplating war just to keep things afloat (Pyongyang has long played military blackmail with West in order to prop up it's economy. They recently closed all universities and sent the students to the fields to work, partly for economic reasons and partly to stave off a possible student led revolt). Events in the Middle East continued to make themselves felt at the gas pumps. Finally, the looming US debt crisis. Republicans want no tax increases (especially for the rich and big business) while the Democrats are calling for tax increases on everyone except the poor. Both sides claim to speak for America and that it won't blink first. To me, the only winner here are those wealthy special interests groups and their corresponding industries like banks and oil companies. The loser? Who else but the American Taxpayers.

All this brings me to something I've been thinking about for awhile now. Is America the same democratic Republic our Founding Father created? It seems that dream died a long time ago. Today, we are a Corporate Republic, or Capitalist Democracy if you prefer. The end result is the same. We are less longer citizen and more consumer. We've become little more than economic serfs. Employees are seen as necessary liabilities. We live and die by our credit rating. Our government, irrespective of which political party currently dominates, serves as the front man for global corporations who respects no laws except the law of profit. Governments are there to maintain order and keep the people in check.

The reformers we elected are suffocated under the weight of internal party machinery; their energies and passions diffused with endless committee and subcommittee meetings, leaving no time to carry out the reforms they promised. The bulwark of worker rights, the once proudly independent unions are now treated like second class participants and the cash cow for the Democrat Party. Rather than support the best candidate to defend working men and women, union leadership limit their support largely to Democrat candidates while the rank and file look to their own economic self interests. The public's distain for the both parties, and the political process could explain, in part, the drop in union membership to a historic low; only 7.2% in the private sector and 36.2% in the public sector (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html?_r=1).

As an ardent supporter of unions (and a member), I find these numbers deplorable. We need to move beyond partisan politics. Our problems are much too serious and the stakes for you and I are much too high. We need term limits, serious campaign finance reform, and an independent union movement.

Weinergate; Not So Sweet Home Alabama

Weinergate. It couldn't get any better for a political junkie. The story is an old one; as old as civilization. A middle aged man seduced by power, surrounded by "yes men", believing that the rules of society simply doesn't apply to him trying to impress chicks. There have been countless examples down history, but don't think men are the only ones guilty bad behavior. Women too have been just as guilty. It always seems to be someone in a position of perceived authority, be lawyers, judges, business leaders, politicians, clergy, or teachers.

Here we have a successful New York Congressman with great future; an attractive wife (who is allegedly expecting again)and kids. Same old song with a different singer. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) at first denied the risqué pictures, sent out over his cell phone was "hacked' by some political rival. As the evidence began to amount and the lie became indefensible, Weiner fessed up and is now taking a brief leave of absence from Congress to see "counseling" and "treatment". Oh, so stupid behavior is now something clinically treatable? Only if Richard Nixon knew that following Watergate, or Bill Clinton after Monica. However, he is steadfastly clinging to his office (besmirched though it may be) in hopes of some other more interesting story comes along and bumps him from the headlines. A few reports claim that he is so far into debt, he can't quit. He needs our money. In his head, he's thinks that he can weather the storm just a little longer, it will be alright. Meanwhile, he hides.

Americans are a forgiving people. We can forgive most anything...except a lie. We've seen all before. Politicians, like clergy, community leaders, sport figures and educators are held apart from society. These are the people we look up to. They inspire us. When they mess up, it's there for all to see thanks to 24/7/365 a day media coverage from hundreds of sources. While Weiner has apologized, I wonder about the sincerity of it. The fact that he initially denied what was obvious comes as no surprise. Most of us deny the truth until we're forced to confess. That's human nature. That he's now seeking "treatment" is not surprising either. It's partial an attempt to demonstrate his remorse, and partly to buy time in the hopes that the fury will pass over and he'll be able to resume living his life as before. Perhaps more cautiously this time.

People are attracted to power. It's considered to be the ultimate aphrodisiac. Individuals with power come to believed they not above the law, but that, somehow the law and/or society's morality simply doesn't apply to them. If Weiner was sincere, he would have made his apologies and then promptly resigned. The fact that he hasn't indicates to me that he really doesn't believe he's done anything wrong. The apology was perfunctory and as soon as another story comes along, everything will be right in his world again.

The Democratic Party's leadership has condemned his actions. His fellow legislators on both sides of the aisle have condemned his behavior. Various local leaders in his home district have condemned his actions. If he is unwilling to resign voluntarily, then it will be necessary for his constituents to organize a petition to recall Wenier and schedule a special election as soon as possible that the business of government can resume.

Years ago, a number of television shows featured the loveable ole drunk as comic relief. Those days are long gone. We, as a society, no longer find alcoholic behavior funny nor are we willing to tolerate it. The same public distain of indecent sexual behavior applies too, be it a priest sexually abusing little boys; a minister having an affair or hiring hooker; a business person making sexual overtones to a fellow employee; a teacher and a student; or, as in this case, another politician on a power trip.

Our public leaders need to be reminded, and reminded often, that they have no power of office except that which we loan them. The moment they violate our trust should be the moment their term in office comes to an end.



Not So Sweet Home Alabama

Alabama just out did Arizona in passing the toughest anti-illegal bill in the country. On Thursday, the Alabama legislator passed HB 56, which mirrors Arizona's SB 1070, but goes further by requiring since it covers education as well as voting, employment, and law enforcement. Employers must now utilize E-Verify to confirm that an individual's name matches up with the social security number. Law enforcement officers may check to verify the immigration of status of a person stopped for violation or if the officer has reason to suspect that the individual is there illegally. Individuals may also be fined for knowingly providing transportation to an illegal resident. The bill will require education officials to confirm the immigration status of their students. Finally, HB 56, authored by Mickey Hammon (R), denies any "sanctuary" status by state or local agencies and as well as by individuals or organizations such as churches.

Supreme Court Upholds SB1070: Americans Win One

For months now, I’ve told you in this blog that Obama’s attempt to overturn Arizona’s SB 1072 anti-illegal immigration law would fail. Well, it has. In a majority decision, the US Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 on Thursday, May 25, 2011, that the Obama Administration was on the wrong side of this issue. Arizona’s Attorney General is moving forward to appeal a lower court’s decision barring the law from taking effect. The lawsuit was filed by the US Justice Administration, and was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). You may recall that the USJA also allowed the Mexican Government to participate a party in the lawsuit; a first ever, to my knowledge, that a foreign government was allowed to participate in a lawsuit brought by the US federal government against a sovereign US state.

What the US Justice Administration didn’t seem to understand was that SB 1072 simply pulled together existing federal laws into one all encompassing bill and added additional teeth to it. Eric Holder, who heads up the US Justice Administration, alleged in their complaint, filed at the behest of the Obama Administrative, that only the federal government can establish or dictate immigration policy. While true, Arizona wasn’t seeking to “establish” its own immigration policy. It merely codified existing, but unenforced federal laws.

You see, this was an attempt to confuse the argument by the Justice Administration to convince the high court that the Arizona governor and legislature had in some way gone “rogue” the way it did the liberal media outlets in order to intimidate over states to back off their efforts to curtail illegal immigration. As it turned out, Holder and Company was successful in only pulling the robe over just three of the Justice’s eyes, namely Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Of course, while they never had a chance with the America People, but the federal government seems less concerned these days with the interests of the average American and more focused on special interest groups. The decision opens the door for other states to move forward with their own versions of SB1070. The law will go a long way in preventing businesses from hiring illegal aliens as well as curtailing attempts to hide or provide assistance to illegals in Arizona.

The law also upheld the use of E-Verify by companies. E-Verify allows a business to ensure that the social security number match the name of individual. While it doesn’t “punish” businesses that don’t use E-Verify, they do lose the ability to cite not using E-Verify as a defense when they unknowingly hire someone here illegally.

The next big fight and I mean “big” fight will likely be Obama’s second attempt to find a way toward some form of amnesty for the estimated 13 million illegals currently living in the US (you can also bet that he won’t call it “amnesty” after his last thumping). Part of that fight will, no doubt, include an amendment to make basic English (read, write, and spoken)required for all immigrants, and to make Enlgish our "offical" national language.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/high-court-sustains-ariz-employer-sanctions-law/

Illegal Immigration: What's the Latest?

As regular readers of AO know, I take a particular interest in illegal immigration. I see it as a national security as well as an economic threat to this country. In additional to the estimated 12 million illegal residents now in this country they are an untold number of individuals from nations hostile to the US. ICE agents have repeatedly found money and paraphernalia from countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and the like. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said that 663 individuals from countries with know terrorist ties were arrested in 2010. It’s only a matter of time before one or more of these groups make good on their threats of killing Americans. Of course Congress, Homeland Security, and the President will condemn the act and there will be the usual investigations and condemnations, but by then it will be too late. There will be dead Americans.

The American People have, for over well over a decade, demanded loudly and repeatedly for government to solve the border crisis; not ‘band-aid” it over and not ignored it. Former president Bush promised a wall. We never got it. It was only partially funded and all but dropped. Border Patrol agents are understaffed, under funded, and often under orders not to engage. Gangs control whole sections of US territory along the border. Our own government even put up warning signs for US citizens to stay out. According to Texas Congressman John Culberson, an illegal alien crossing the border had an 84% chance of not being prosecuted.

The report went on to say that of the 447,731 illegals apprehended by US Customs last year (2010), 73, 263 (or 16.4%) were actually prosecuted. Along the Tucson area, where the majority of arrests occurred, the percentage was even worse, with only 14.5%. If you were going to commit a crime and had an 84% chance of success, with little in the way of punishment, what would you do? Congressman Culberson added that enforcement was so lax, that many of those arrested were held only a few hours and “had a chance to home for dinner”.

Of course, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claims that our southern border has never been more secured! Perhaps she’s thinking about the days of Poncho Villa or the Mexican-American War! Seriously, however, Secretary Napolitano is actually distorting the number the way politicians and bureaucrats often do. In claiming the southern border secure, Napolitano is only looking at instances of arrest and prosecution, which accounts for about 15% of the total rather than all those arrested. Furthermore, Napolitano admitted the DHS “deferred” action on 900 cases in 2010.

Did you that more people along a Mexico-Texas border town were killed in 2010 than in the war in Afghanistan? Ciudad Juarez Mexico, which just across the Rio Grande from El Paso Texas had more deaths, all related to its losing drug war with local drug cartels, than the entire country of Afghanistan. There 3,111 individuals murdered compared to 2421 civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is moving ahead with its lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070, which, as you’ll recall, did little more the codify under state statute the various laws which now exist at the federal law and added more “teeth”. The Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, alleges in his complaint, that regulating US borders is a federal matter.

The AG is right…sort of. Arizona isn’t attempting to establish foreign policy. They are simply incorporating existing federal law at the state level. Furthermore, while states may not weaken a federal law, they may strengthen a federal law, which is what Arizona has done. Arizona’s Governor, Janet Walker publicly stated that the State carefully studied the issue from every point possible, and even requested legal opinion from the US Attorney General’s office. Who will prevail? Hard to say. Certainly legal opinion rests with Arizona (and several other states that are looking at imposing similar laws). However, the Obama Administration is pushing hard to keep these illegal immigrants in American (the current running joke is that Obama is wanting to discourage the use of the name “illegal immigrants” and start calling them what they are, “undocumented Democrats”).

President Obama, speaking with Hispanic reporter, recently said that illegals had nothing to worry about if they were doing “all the right things”, which included a job, staying out of trouble, and I assume, keeping a low profile. Wouldn’t “doing all the right” mean obeying US law? Anyway, I digress. Obama was simply making it clear that his administration intended to drag its feet, delay, and otherwise impede any efforts to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, what at what cost?

Well, with the federal government’s version of proctology exam upon us, that is, Tax Day---April 15. Let’s look for a moment at what Obama’s efforts to protect illegal immigrants actually cost you and me. According to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the tax burden for welfare, estimated welfare care, and education exceeds $100 billion per year. That breaks down to $1000.00 per taxpayer per year (and no, you can’t claim them as a dependent). Of those who do pay into the system, for every $5.00 in services they take, they pay in an estimate $1.00. I’m no accountant, but I do know a thing or two about economics, and I can tell you those numbers don’t work for long (see: http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation#p/u/4/H8lLU7XjcWc).

Meanwhile, while states are working to stop illegal immigrants, other states have given the green light to illegal residents. Both Washington State and New Mexico remain easy places for illegal to get a driver’s license. In both states, recent bills were passed to allow illegal immigrants to apply for drivers licenses. One can only assume that the driver’s test was not in English either. In Maryland, the State Legislature voted to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens. The bill, which passed 27-20, allows illegal aliens to attempt Maryland colleges at a reduced rate, saving them (or is it Maryland taxpayers?) $10,000 per year in tuition. US residents from neighboring states, however, were not afforded the same privilege.

According to a recent article, Lana Reed, a former social service case worker, testified before the Kansas legislature’s House Judiciary Committee, that case workers were required by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services policies to ignore fraudulent documentation by immigrants, and thus, in effect, facilitate fraud against Kansas taxpayers. Finally, Utah passed three laws that, among other things, granted amnesty to “guest workers” as well as concluded an agreement between Utah and Mexico to provide businesses to migrant workers ( (HB 116 and HB 466). Funny, isn’t that a foreign policy issue? Wonder when US Attorney General Holder intends on filing a lawsuit against Utah for butting into a federal matter? (see: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23944&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#4).

Lastly, do you remember the outcry from the Left (especially the media) over the deportation of 4 year old? The child, a girl named “Emily”, whose parents are illegal aliens, refused to accept custody from DHS agents after her grandfather, who was accompanying her on a flight to New York, was detained on an immigration charge.
Spokesman Lloyd Easterling said "CBP strives to reunite children who are citizens with their parents. If the parents decide not to take custody of their children, the CBP works with other agencies to guard the security and the well-being of these children. That includes handing them over to other families”.

Easterling added that, “In this case, Emily's parents were offered the opportunity to pick her up, but they decided to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather”. I wonder why the media didn’t report this part of the story. Just asking.

Illegal Immigration and Kentucky: HB 321 and SB 6

I know this is going to be hard to believe, but the Kentucky House of Representatives actually thought out of the box for a change. On February 3rd, the House Committee on Labor and Industry passed HB 321, otherwise known as the E-Verify Bill, by a margin of 93 to 3 (the three nays were John Bell (D-23), Kelly Flood (D-75), and Mary Lou Marzian (D-34). The bill will now move to the Senate for approval (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB321.htm).

The bill’s aim is to curtail illegal immigration by eliminating its principal cause, employment. If the bill becomes law, contractors would face a five year ban from government contracts, and includes contractors who deal with local school districts. The bill’s lead sponsor is Bob Damron, a Democrat representing House District 39.

There are 14 other states that have similar legislation designed to eliminate employment of illegal immigrants while another 17 are either considering E-Verify or strengthening existing legislation. However, in rural states such as Kentucky, the main source of employment is in agriculture. Outlying counties such as Anderson, Warren, Barren, Fayette, Garrad, and Scott are the hardest hit by the costs of illegal immigration. Democrat Greg Stumbo (D-95) is considering introducing a bill that applies E-Verify to all employers in Kentucky, which would obviously make more sense (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html). Stumbo is also the Speaker of the House.

As for the Arizona like SB1070, Kentucky Senate Bill 6, which would give police and other law enforcement authorities the power to question and detain individuals suspected of being the country illegally, is going nowhere. Senate Bill 6, which was introduced by State Senator John Schickel (R-11), came under a barrage of protests lead by the liberal leaning Jobs for Justice, as well as numerous churches, Labor unions and pro-amnesty groups. While supporters of the bill were present, the media, as expected, gave primary coverage to the bill’s opponents. However, from what I was able to find out, the Anti forces, anticipating Senate Bill 6, were out in front with their organizational efforts while the supporters of the bill were lagging far behind as if they expected to be given a fair hearing. I wonder what they were thinking?

According to a poll published by Pure Politics on March 2, 2011, support for the House Bill (the E-Verify bill) was 64% while support for Senate Bill 6 was only 25% with 12% giving no response or didn’t care (http://mycn2.com/politics/immigration-cn2-poll).

Meanwhile, other states such as New Mexico are moving ahead with their own versions of the Arizona’s SB 1070 to head off the problem before it becomes more a serious issue like it has in Arizona. With a poll approval of the bill of 85%, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez signed into law SB 152 which would allow law enforcement to question and detain individuals here illegally. It would not allow law enforcement officials to stop someone solely on immigration status (http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2011/02/legislator_immigration_law_reeks_of_arizona).

In Colorado, a bill allowing law enforcement officials to report suspected illegals to prosecutors has passed its first hurtle in the Colorado State House. The bill, HB 1088, was introduced by Republican Mark Barker. The bill would also force bail bondsmen to forfeit the bond if the individual is deported. According to Barker, who originally withdrew and then reintroduced the bill, he wanted to change the language of the bill from “probable cause” to “reasonable grounds” in order to avoid possible legal challenges when determining legal status. The bill will face another vote in the House before moving on to the Senate (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/02/24/colorado-house-oks-bill-to-report-illegal-immigrants/).

So, while other states move ahead with pro-active legislation, Kentucky continues to muddle along. Nevertheless, HB 321 is a good start. Hopefully Stumbo or someone else will step up to plate and put forward some more expansive legislation to do the job that SB 6 could have done.


From the Middle East to the Midwest

In case you haven’t noticed, gas prices are skyrocketing (and welcome back to earth by the way). Oil prices on the open market are setting near record highs at $104.00 a barrel. Truly black gold. To compound matters is the most of the oil producing countries are facing internal instability, which is a politically correct way of saying the people are tired of being on the short end of the oil stick. Most of these nations are ruled by autocratic royalty, principally installed there by their former colonialist masters like Great Britain and France. Others are ruled by maniacal tyrants under such misleading names as “People’s Republic” with titles like “President” or “Great Leader” living in worlds apart from their struggling citizens.

Remember the “liberation” of Kuwait? It was better known as the First Persian Gulf War or Operation Desert Storm, though Operation Desert Shield was aimed at removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein invaded oil rich Kuwait under the pretext that it was in actuality a “disputed” province which properly belonged to the “people of Iraq”. In truth, Hussein wanted control of the oil fields and direct access of the Persian Gulf and shipping lanes. The Hitler-wannabe thought the West would do nothing due to the costs and time factor of mounting an invasion. He wasn’t concerned about his Arab neighbors. He had already cowered them (the Arab mindset seems to appreciate and respect force or at least its threat of it).

Anticipating Western (especially American) sensibilities, the royal Al-Sabah family of Kuwait promised political reform (especially for women and Christians, who would actually be allowed to practice their religion with a minimum of interference from the state authorities. Hussein, in what has to be one of the top three military blunders of all time (the other two being Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia), allowed Western troops almost six months of military buildup. Secondly, his generals planned a stagnated front war similar to the earlier war between Iraq and Iran.

Had Hussein agreed to maintain (or increase) oil production at current or lower prices, it’s doubtful there would have been any serious resistance to his occupation of Kuwait other than the usual empty rhetoric of the impotent United Nations. Given the proximity of his military forces to Saudi Arabia and the other regional oil producers, a little implied threat would have ensured their cooperation. The Kuwaiti royals would have found a comfortable exile in one of the neighboring capitals. Of course, that’s now a matter for War Colleges and historians to examine.

In the end, Hussein was militarily neutered and Kuwait was liberated. Of the new freedoms promised by the royal family, few have been implemented. Women were given the right to vote and participate in politics in 2005 by a narrow vote of 35 to 23. Freedom of religion for non-Moslems and freedom of speech are still sketchy. Such then was the first global resource war. There will be many to come, except these may pit Western nations against each other while facing another, mightier threat in the form of China and India.

Tunisia was the first to accomplish its revolution, followed by Egypt. Both countries had a minimum body count. The media seems to make big copy over 10 or 20 dead. Revolutions are bloody affairs. Those in power never willingly relinquish it. In revolutions and coups past, thousands dead were not unheard of. In a regional known for its brutal strongmen, individuals like Hosni Mubarak deserve some praise. He could have made things much worse. However, men like Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi are more typical.

Gadhafi came to power in the usual fashion, by military coup. Another Hitler admirer, he quickly allied himself to the more militant Mideastern factions. He was hosted (and protected) on numerous occasions various terrorists and terrorist organizations like Carlos “The Jackal” Ramirez who masterminded numerous terrorists operations during the 1970’s; Black September which was responsible for the Munich Massacres (which Carlos also had a hand in); Abdul Abbas, the hijacker of the Achilles Lauro; and of course, Yasser Arafat, who was head of the PLO. Gadhafi, anxious to try his hand at state supported murder, sponsored the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, resulting in the deaths of 270 individuals in 1988 and the earlier bombing of a discotheque in Berlin in 1986. Of course, all the while, he continued to drift further and further from reality and the brutality of regime only increase until it reached its present boiling point.

The Libyan dictator now faces uncertain domestic military support (he’s allegedly ordered the murder of some bomber pilots who refused to attack civilian populations). As a result, he has hired Algerian mercenary pilots and gunmen to kill his own people and destroy oil production. If he can’t have it, no one will I suppose.

So, what will be the outcome? Well, first, there’s no doubt that this psychopath’s days in power are limited. Pressure is on for the US or other nation to provide military support in the form of equipment and/or tactical intelligence. At present, the situation is at a stalemate with rebel forces controlling the Eastern part of the country where most of the oil wells are located. Even if Gadhafi survives, his reign will remain highly unstable. It will only be a matter of time before there is either another better organized attempt or Gadhafi is assassinated. Meanwhile, the pro-democracy revolution continues to spread across the Middle East into Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman, and Bahrain. It’s only a matter of time before it makes its way to Saudi Arabia and Iran. The more unstable the region becomes, the more you can expect to pay at the pump. Oil executives don’t need much of an excuse to bump up prices (and profits).

With the increased instability in the Middle East, as well as the dwindling supplies (most oil producing nations have either reached or passed oil producing peak capacity. The US passed theirs in the 1970’s), coupled with the developing super-nations like China and India, as well as lesser third world countries, we can only expect demand to dramatically increase as we also must cope with climate change. We, and I mean America, has to get serious about finding alternatives to oil and gas. We will never totally replace either, but we can, and must, lessen our dependence on petroleum derived energy through solar, wind, hybrid, water, and nuclear power. Until that day comes, you better get used to the idea of $5.00 and higher prices at the pump.

Obama Sues Arizona over SB1070

President Obama has ordered the Justice Department to formally file suit against Arizona. Their allegation is that the Arizona’s new tough anti-illegal law is “unconstitutional” in that matters relating to immigration fall exclusively to the federal government. In what could be dubbed as “Showdown at the OK Corral” over the issue of illegal immigration, Arizona’s Governor Brewer may want to hang out a “Welcome to Tombstone Mr. President” as his administration bumbles into a lawsuit they really don’t want any part of.

The general rule regarding federal law versus state law is that a state law can not impede or contradict existing federal law. It does not matter if the federal law is haphazardly enforced or not. At present, the federal government does not have a single coherent law regarding illegal immigration, and certainly takes an uneven approach to its enforcement with little in the way of “teeth”. As a result, illegals have little fear at being stopped. An arrest and deportation is of only minor inconvenience, and they’re often right back in this country within a few days. Employers too have little to fear from federal government which rarely investigates and even more rarely prosecutes (lack of personnel and money). Individuals seen “running for the border” are often not stopped under existing federal law, who must be stopped in the act.

Arizona’s new law, however, provides law enforcement officials with the legal authority to stop and arrest anyone thought to be here illegally provided they have justifiable probable cause. To avoid charges of discrimination, Arizona requires all law enforcement personnel to take racial sensitivity classes, with an emphasis on avoiding racial profiling. In short, Arizona lawmakers anticipated the Justice Department’s lawsuit and took every step to ensure its law would be compliant with existing federal law.

Seventeen other states have begun to take steps to enact similar legislation as Arizona’s. Three states, Utah, South Carolina, and Oklahoma have already taken steps to stop illegal immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html). Oklahoma has, for instance, made it a felony for transport or shelter illegal immigrants, and they’ve blocked efforts by illegal immigrates to obtain driver’s licenses and in-state tuition. 

 A bill will be introduced in 2011 to seize the property of any business that knowingly employs illegal immigrants. A good step, but I wonder if this includes religious groups who act as if they are exempt from local, state, and federal laws when it comes to illegal immigration. They often smuggle, shelter, and find housing and jobs for illegal aliens, and at the same time, instruct them in steps they can take to circumvent existing laws concerning public assistance.

Meanwhile, Obama has ratcheted up the rhetoric about providing illegal immigrates with blanket amnesty. Obama said during a speech, which received little national press coverage, at American University on July 1 that he would seek to provide the estimate 11 million illegals with “pathway for legal status” and went on to claim that our southern border have never been more secure. 

Under his version, illegal immigrants would have to acknowledge that they broke the law; register; pay their taxes and possibly a fine; learn English. Geez, I wonder if that would have worked for Al Capone? (“Ah, sorry about that St. Valentine Day’s thing. I’d like to pay back taxes on my rackets in cash. Anyone want a beer?”). Obama has even hinted that he may bypass Congress and issue an executive order. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Obama has become quite adapt at doing end runs around Congress. For more, I suggest checking out: FairUs 

Book Review

There’s an old joke that if you remember the sixties, you probably weren’t there. That’s the basic premise behind Bernard von Bothmer’s new book, “Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush”, at least, if you’re a Republican. The sixties, as the author correctly points out, was really two eras. The first, “the good sixties”, was from the late 1950’s to the Kennedy assassination in 1963. 

In fact, up until Kennedy’s murder, America was still basking in the afterglow of the Eisenhower Years, with a few exceptions such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the literal brink of nuclear war (Soviet Premier Khrushchev ordered the Russian Navy to stand down due to, in large part according to Khrushchev, Kennedy’s “lack of experience”), Sputnik, the Berlin Wall, and America’s first tentative steps into Vietnam.

Von Bothmer goes to describe “the bad sixties” as 1964 to 1974 as a time of America’s quagmire in Southeast Asia, student protests, the SLA, Black Panthers, the Gray Panthers, the SDA, set-ins, campus takeovers, Chicago Police Riots during the Democratic Conventions, the murders of Dr. King and RFK, the War on Poverty, moon landings, and finally, America’s military defeat in Vietnam and Watergate. In between we had the Civil Rights, Women’s, and Gay movements. We had NOW, rock’n’roll, love-ins, the Summer of Love, Hell’s Angels, the Green Movement, drugs, and sex galore. It was an era of pushing the limits…any limits.

The book, all 232 pages of it, was interesting; though provocative may be the more operative word since von Bothmer contends there is a subtle battle raging between the Left and Right as to who will ultimately “own” the legacy of the 1960’s. According to the author, it was the Right who broke the 1960’s into essentially the “good” and “bad” years, with the obviously the Republican afterglow of Eisenhower representing the best part and the Democratic led latter years as representational of all that was bad about the era (of course, Watergate serves as a explanation point for the Democrats while Vietnam underscores the decade for the Republicans).

It has often been said that the victors write the history. Personally, I don’t believe the history of the sixties has yet to be written. The sixties was as much about conservative blue collar white kids and poor blacks marching off to a unpopular war as it was for the sons of the rich being deferred or the burning of draft cards, bras, and communes. 

The book makes a great effort at trying to make some sense of an incredible era in today’s political light, though it is clear that the author lays much of the blame at misrepresenting the icons of the 1960’s at the feet of the Republicans. There was much that good about the 1960’s, and much that was bad. I don’t think either side is any more right or wrong as the other. It was also a time when people believe we could do better as a society, and they tried. Oh, and by the way, I was there.

Poll Results

Our last poll asked if you thought the federal government should sue Arizona for enforcing existing immigration laws. 37% of you said they should while 63% of you did not. Actually, I think it’s a good idea. Have I lost my mind you wonder? No; at least I don’t think so. The reason is because I see this blunder by the DOJ as something of a “friendly” lawsuit. The lawsuit will show the true intent of Arizona’s law was to protect its citizens. Secondly, that it was designed to be compliant with federal law (such as it is). Third, a decision in favor of Arizona will spur on other states to enact similar legislation. And fourthly and perhaps most importantly, a defeat of the DOJ may, just may mind you, prompt Obama and Congress to do something about illegal immigration instead of sit there on Capitol Hill like a bunch of bobble heads.