One had only to listen to the “talking heads” news shows yesterday and in the previous week to know that none of the people who are so incensed at Arizona’s SB 1070 which deals with illegal immigration has ever read it.
To see this confirmed, one need look no further than the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton who appeared on one of these programs. Now it would be reasonable to question where her area of responsibility and the subject in question demonstrates much, if any, congruence. But since when has ignorance stopped a politician from proving it by opening their mouth? Anyway, Hillary opined, and I paraphrase, that if Arizona law enforcement pulled over someone with an accent and even if the person was a legal resident from another state, they’d be required to show proof of their legality. As she understood it she concluded.
Well Hillary, since 1946, Federal immigration law has mandated that all Resident Aliens carry their so-called “Green Card” at all times. And in 1946, the party in power was Democratic with the now much-revered Harry Truman at the helm. How do I know all this? Because I carried one for years until I became a citizen in the mid 80’s.
I am grateful to a friend of mine who is contemplating a run for the Arizona Senate for bringing my attention to the preposterous assertions which follow. I’d tell you my friend's name but I don’t have his permission.
Anyway, one of the first Op-Ed correspondents who swung into the anti-Arizona fray writes for the New York Times and again, the most obvious characteristics were ignorance and stupidity.
He started out like this, “Arizonans, like all Americans, have every right to be furious about Washington’s protracted and bipartisan failure to address the immigration stalemate. To be angry about illegal immigration is hardly tantamount to being a bigot.”
So far so good but common sense would not prevail for very long. “But the Arizona law expressing that anger is bigoted, and in a very particular way. The law dovetails seamlessly with the national 'Take Back America' crusade that has attended the rise of Barack Obama and the accelerating demographic shift our first African-American president represents.”
Would someone please tell me where any valid connection can be made between any provision of the Arizona statute and any one race, nationality or ethnic group? Furthermore, much of the new law was lifted straight out of Federal legislation which was promulgated long before any modern crusade came into being and long before Obama was inflicted on us all.
But he went on, “Officials in at least 10 other states are now teeing up their own new immigration legislation. They are doing so even in un-Arizonan places like Ohio, Missouri, Maryland and Nebraska”.
Again, the writer attempts some amazing leaps of credibility. Does this buffoon really think that the problems being experienced are restricted to the southern border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? And does he further believe that other states don’t see problems with illegals from Africa and Eastern and Western Europe and Asia as well as Central America?
Then he went on to try to equate the Tea Party with SB 1070 and again I ask, just where is there any evidence of this? Many Arizonans are Caucasian. Some Caucasians belong to the Tea Party. Some Arizonans belong to the Tea Party. Is this enough to prove cause and effect? With that logic in mind, try this: Crows are Birds. Crows are Black. Ergo all Birds are Black.
And I would be remiss were I not to point out that many members of the legal Latino community in Arizona are heartily sick and tired by the violence and drug dealing which they see and hear about every day. They have children and young people too and want to see them grow up safe and healthy and to be able to find work when the time comes.
What then followed may not be the most ridiculous assertion of the whole piece but it’s close. “The angry right and its apologists also keep insisting that race has nothing to do with their political passions. Thus Sarah Palin explained that it’s Obama and the ‘lamestream media’ that are responsible for ‘perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part’ of Arizona’s law.”
If it isn’t the New York Times and the Washington Post and MSNBC and CNN et al who are insisting it’s all about “being brown”, then who is it?
From the Governor on down, it has been made clear to law enforcement that any profiling is illegal and so does SB 1070. Furthermore any such activity will be dealt with accordingly and we know that the Feds are looking over Arizona’s shoulder as well because they’ve said so. And they’d just love to shine that spotlight wouldn’t they?
In a rare admission that Obama himself is playing the race card as well as the sex card, the New York Times article concluded with a mention that Obama put up a routine YouTube video calling for the Democratic base to mobilize last week which he defined as “young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women and that the Republican National Committee attacked him for playing the race card”. As well they should because that’s what it is.
Now the clarion call has gone out to the Unions around the country as well as the socialist enclaves of places like San Francisco and Oakland to boycott everything Arizonan. Well, I for one, can get along by baking my own sourdough bread and I can’t think of a darn thing I want from Oakland. And if you’d ever been there, you’d know why.
And the latest attempt is to pull next year’s All Star game from Phoenix. Now that’ll really be popular with Latinos both legal and otherwise who will glean so much income from that event but I’m sure it make perfect sense to liberals.
After all when did they care about people? Ideology is all that matters.
And here is a codicil to this post. The candidate for the Arizona Senate is one Doug Little.
Go get 'em Doug!!
No comments:
Post a Comment