Monday, July 12, 2010

What's wrong with this picture?

On Election Day, 2008, citizens who attempted to vote at one precinct in Philadelphia were confronted by two members of the New Black Panther organization, one of who was brandishing a club and verbally intimidating voters. (See the NY Times article)

After receiving complaints from voters, the Justice Department pressed charges against the two demonstrators ... who failed to respond to the charges. At this point the Justice Department was on the fast track to win the case by default. In fact, the presiding judge ordered a default judgement against the defendents in this Voter Intimidation case.

Then Attorney General Holder's office instructed the prosecuting attorneys to drop the charges, on the basis that, based on evidence, the case should not go forward.

That is to say, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the men were intimidating voters .. despite the existence of a video made of the incident, and people were willing to testify that they felt 'intimidated.

Apparently the Obama administration, which was voted in during that election, didn't consider it significant that black people were intimidating white people at the voting booth.

Well, Black people cannot be prosecuted, in this country, for voter intimidation against white people. Only white people can be charged with, and convicted for, racial bias and hate crimes.

So what IS the Obama administration doing?

They are suing the state of Arizona over the state's SB1070, which will require Arizona police officers to check the credential of people they detain for 'other law infractions' to determine whether they are legally in the state ... and in the country.

The issue seems to be that Arizona, by enacting this law, has assumed responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws which are the province of the Federal Government.

The problem is, the Federal Government is not enforcing its own laws, and by its inaction the flood of "illegal immigrants" has proved to be a hardship to the people and state of Arizona.

On the other hand, if Arizona attempts to enforce Federal Law, they are infringing on the rights of the Federal Government. This seems to be the main complaint of the Obama Administration.

Outrage over the statute’s racial implications and debate over crime at the border have distracted attention from certain abominations the law contains. They are there, and they are numerous.

Chief among them is the statute’s own illegal entry into federal territory. Washington may be doing it badly, but controlling the borders is a federal job, not a state task. And while some state laws about immigration are fine constitutionally, this one isn’t.

The Arizona statute says police must check the legal status of whomever they stop or detain for any offense, however minor, if they reasonably suspect illegal status. Sidestep the argument over what reasonable suspicion means and notice that the law also says the cops can’t release a suspected alien until they confirm legal status.

That could take a while if every peace officer in the state of Arizona is on the line with immigration authorities.

If you can’t release suspected illegals until you confirm their status, this means you book them. Jails that are already overcrowded will be stuffed with people stopped for minor offenses who may or may not be illegal aliens.

How are these governments going to pay for more jail space? More cops? Police chiefs and sheriffs want to know.

If law enforcement is the least bit important to you, consider this, too. Any officer or prosecutor will tell you it’s tough enough coaxing cooperation from crime victims and witnesses in communities where illegal aliens reside.

Making immigration enforcement Job One for local and state officers will deepen fear within those communities. It will create and enlarge neighborhoods where no crime is solved, no criminal punished, no law is enforceable.

Well, the Delaware Online Website's opinion page seems firmly convinced that the Arizona law is both unconstitutional (although they don't make it clear in what way the law is unconstitutional ... wouldn't they have quoted the Constitution to make their point?), and apparently they consider the law unwieldy, expensive, and detrimental to the normal business of Arizona Law Enforcement Personnel.

On the other hand, neither Delaware nor D.C. have had to deal with the problems congruent with a flood of illegal immigrants.

When was a Delaware rancher murdered by immigrants? When was the last time a Delaware Deputy Sheriff was shot by drug traffickers from Mexico? Which was the last Delaware hospital closed because illegal immigrants were inundating the emergency rooms with requests for health services ... for which they could not pay, but the hospital was legally obligated to accept them 'anyway'?

And are there signs posted in the vicinity of Delaware's Southern Border stating that it is unsafe to travel there, because of the high volume of aggressive drug traffickers?

Arizona is fighting back. And they have already received over a half-million dollars in donations for their 'legal defense fund' .. mostly from people who don't even live in Arizona.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced today that she is creating a fund for individuals to donate toward the upcoming court date, regarding the law. Reportedly, 9,000 contributions have come in so far that total more than $500,000. Over 7,000 of those donations came from individuals outside of the state. The law has come under heavy fire from the federal government, and has been the focus of a number of different lawsuits. One of those lawsuits was filed earlier in the week by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The fund even has a web site: Opponents to the law have said that they do not believe that immigration laws should differ from state to state, and that there needs to be one federal law to ensure that our borders are secure.

(link to donation site added)


What's wrong with this picture?

Our border states find themselves obliged to "do the job that American's won't do".

That is, secure our borders.

We need a new President, a new Administration. We need someone who will do the job they were hired to do. The simplest expression of this constitutional imperative may be to "Ensure Domestic Tranquility".

Unfortunately, this Administration interprets this clause in the preamble to the Constitution to mean that the individual states will not upset the tranquility of this Administration.

And that's just wrong.

This administration should be charging and convicting people who deny citizens the right to vote without intimidation.

It should be the first line of defense of our borders ... not the unreliable and lazy "final line of defense".

And it should NOT be wasting time and resources by persecuting states who are trying to do something to resolve the Illegal Immigration problem.

What's wrong with this picture?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


UPDATE: July 16, 2010:

Here is a Fox TV Interview with the DOJ whistleblower attorney who described the machinations in the Voter Rights Division of the Obama Department of Justice regarding the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation at a Philadelphia voting location during the 2008 Presidential Election.

No comments: