“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"
Saul Alinsky-Rules for Radicals
I have pointed out before that people are making all sorts of accusations and assertions about the Arizona immigration law which are in direct contradiction to what is in the law. This is not really a surprise being that it is a well known and often employed political ploy to establish a narrative about something before facts can catch up to the reality.
The left is particularly adept at this and employ it, as in this case, with reckless abandon. The entire Global Warming meme was basically generated this way, the desired conclusion was arrived at then facts were manipulated, distorted and hyped to create the illusion of a reality that just ain't so. Another example would be the Tea Party Movement, a narrative was created and continues to evolve about ordinary Americans trying to portray them as -pick you slander .
For this "new left", the narrative is the only reality that counts.
In the case of the Arizona Law the left put out a story line which a sympathetic and complicit media not only reported but harped on in order to create the impression that the law said one thing when in fact it says the opposite. This is dangerous stuff really, especially about something as touchy as the immigration debate. The worst part is that even as the truth becomes known the falsehoods continue as if they had not been exposed. This method, used in all the above cases, is meant to intimidate opposition and create a new base line of debate even though it is built upon a lie.
I was reading an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (yes it was painful) about the end of a hunger strike to protest the Arizona law where this so called newspaper informed their readers:
About 20 hunger strikers, mostly students, had camped out in front of the school's administration building since May 3. Their initial protest target was Arizona's new immigration law, which requires police to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
This is a total fabrication, if police did that they would not only be in blatant violation of the very law they site, they would violate the constitution and their oath to uphold it, which the police obviously know. The law is so explicit on this point that it takes total ignorance of the facts, possible, or knowingly distorting the truth, probable, for the San Francisco Chronicle to print such lies.
The Truth,here is the pertinent section of the actual text of the law as amended which makes a mockery of the above paragraph:
B. For any lawful (contact) stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien (who) and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not (solely) consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
The words in parentheses were stricken in the new text to clarify. As anyone even I a non lawyer can read, the police can not "stop and question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally" less alone does "Arizona's new immigration law... require" them to do so. In fact it forbids them both here and in other places explicitly from doing so.
Why would a so called journalist feel it acceptable to mislead his readers, or more aptly manipulate his readers? Why not, the highest offices in the land do it with seeming impunity.
Of course at that time the president had not read the bill, which makes you wonder why he would make such incendiary remarks about something he knew nothing about. So he did what he should have done before he said anything and tasked his Attorney General to look into it and see if it is anything for the Federal Government to be concerned about."You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed," Obama said. "That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."
President Obama April 27, 2010
We all assumed that the AG being such a strong advocate for "fairness" if not the Federal system of government would study the matter. Of course this did not stop him from expressing his "opinion" on the matter on the same day as his boss:
Holder voiced similar concerns. He said the measure was “unfortunate” in that it might give rise to potential “abuse” by law enforcement officials.Comforting isn't it that the Attorney General of the United States has such high regard for law enforcement. I would suggest that any law is subject to abuse but that does not stop us from enacting them now does it?
But Holder had more to say on the Arizona law this past Sunday:
“I don't think it's racist in its motivation. But I think the concern I have is how it will be perceived and how it perhaps could be enacted, how it could be carried out. I think we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done, and that is I think something that we have to try to avoid at all costs.”
Those "abusive" policeman going around in violation of the law and the Constitution was and is obviously Mr. Holders number one concern. Ironic isn't it that the man who sent SWAT teams in to "arrest" a five year old boy and send him back to Cuba is so concerned about the abuse of law enforcement:
....About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, "You wouldn't send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?" Holder answered, "No, we don't expect anything like that to happen." Then the Department did precisely that. The day after the seizure, Holder appeared again with Russert, who asked, "Why such a dramatic change in position?" "I'm not sure I'd call it a dramatic change," Holder answered. "We waited 'til five in the morning, just before dawn."
Such compassion. Regardless of his past use and abuse of law enforcement, we are sure that he would not prejudge the Arizona Law before he had actually read it, would he?
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television....
So the Attorney General has been getting his facts from the SF Chronicle too.
..."I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
Well of course the Attorney General of The United States of America would not prejudge the legislature of the sovereign state of Arizona or besmirch the Governor not having actually read what they passed with overwhelming support of the residents of the state. God forbid that an Administration would fuel the fires in a racially sensitive area.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Well if Holder had not read the law, how could he possibly know how it could lead those "abusive" law enforcement types to be led to racially profile? By the way isn't the whole negative aspect of racial profiling that it is racist? That people are not given due process under the law due to their skin color or ethnicity? So to accuse people of racial profiling is to accuse them of racism.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.
"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
Me too Ted, I wonder that too. Perhaps it has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually in the law, or what is true and what is not.
The truth is that like most of what the extreme leftist say, the truth, the facts are a distant second to their agenda. If the law was so obviously unconstitutional, which it is not, at least on civil liberties grounds, then Holder would have already challenged it. It serves his and his Presidents purposes politically to keep the pot boiling, that is what they do. It is the same reason that they will not rule out trials in New York City for KSM, chaos is their ally.
This is why I have lost all respect for the Democratic Party, if you can still call it that, they lie. Over the years I have watched as the Democrats have been overrun by the most unscrupulous "I did not have sex with that woman", liars. I tried to pass it off as typical political spin and posturing-it is not. It is in fact a political method which is used to manipulate public opinion in order to gain and retain power and it is frightening both in its "audacity" and its deceit.
“The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends
justifies almost any means.”
Rules For Radicals
If we are to remain a free people this insidious political movement must be exposed for what it is and we must begin to purge it from our Republic, what is left of it. Consider that a nation is based upon the relationship between its citizens and its government, it is as simple as that, a relationship. What do you think the outcome will be if we willingly enter into a relationship with a government who not only lies but uses it as a tool to control us? Where every statement every act is nothing more than a means to an ends regardless of the truth and citizens can not trust a word their leaders say because they blatantly deceive in order to achieve and maintain power. Would you remain in such a relationship in any other aspect of your life?
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:44
No comments:
Post a Comment