Several states are in the process of working on legislation that would require Presidential candidates to provide legal proof of Constitutional eligibility in order to be placed on that particular state’s ballot. Arizona is leading the movement right now, having introduced a bill in the state Senate. Other states working on similar legislation include Texas, Pennsylvania, Montana and Georgia.
Obviously, the precipitating factor for all this legislation is Obama’s unrelenting refusal to release a legal copy of his birth certificate providing more fodder to those who question his true country of origin and birth. Because of Constitutional requirements of American citizenship, there are substantial doubts as to his compliance with this and he has never been mandated to produce the documentation. In fact, some have estimated that he has spent around $2 million to try to avoid “releasing” his birth certificate.
The logical question is if there is nothing to hide why is he trying to hide it?
The answer is also obvious: Obama does have something to hide - like his otherwise Constitutional ineligibility to be President. Maybe this is also why he regularly denigrates and trivializes the Constitution.
If these state bills are passed before the 2012 election, Obama may find it impossible to run for re-election or win just by the sheer loss of potential electoral votes.
The shooting of Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged 22 year old gunman has predictably but despicably precipitated a fusillade of culpatory attacks by liberals and Progressives, including politicians and the news media, who blame this tragedy on everyone important who holds conservative views including especially Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Parties. This assignation is reprehensible, irresponsible (particularly the news media and politicians), incorrect and ironic. We suspect that if the victim instead were a Republican, liberals would be insinuating that the individual had it coming to them because of their "Neanderthal" ideological views.
What we do know is that the perpetrator had clinically evident mental illness, possibly paranoid schizophrenia, was a pot head and heavy drinker of alcohol and a liberal with radical political views. The politician he shot was a Democrat and liberal. Thus, there is no conservative or right wing factor here though the Democratic politicians and the liberal Netroots and news media would have you believe that such was irrefutably the case.
The list of these contemptuous, disgraceful perpetrators is too long to list. Included among these are some of the anticipated suspects: Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, Wolf Blitzer, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, (Hanoi) Jane Fonda, Sen. Dick Durbin, former Sec. of the Defense William Cohen, Rep. James Clayburn (3rd highest ranking Democrat in the House) CNN and MSNBC.
In fact, in his NY Times blog, Paul Krugman wrote:
"You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers."
Where were all these individuals while the Left was relentlessly threatening President Bush and V.P. Cheney in some of the vilest ways and continue to do so particularly against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? We didn’t hear them complaining or calling for the cessation of such inflammatory attacks and language. Actually, they were among those who were spewing the Left’s incessant incendiary rhetoric. We also didn’t hear them complain about the film “The Death of a President” which was a depiction of the assassination of President George Bush and which won the International Film Critics Award (as a far left political statement) or even when he was depicted with Nazi symbols. There were no condemnations when John Kerry stated regarding President Bush that “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” They also didn’t complain that Obama was inciting violence when he declared at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008 regarding Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, a statement which he has often repeated.
Such is the irony of their present, unfounded accusations which the American public has been able to easily discern. For several reasons based on their corrupt moral algorithm, they don’t consider these blatant improprieties and transgressions to be as such. However, to rational and neutral observers, this is incontrovertibly a double standard.
Exacerbating the situation are the immediate attempts by the Left’s to use this tragedy in order to gain support for their liberal agenda of gun control and the restriction of free speech - prohibiting what they deem to be provocative (according to their double standards). As Rahm Emanuel famously posited:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
These are a continuation of relentless attempts to provide the government with ever increasing power over its citizenry while concomitantly abridging and restricting our rights, freedoms and ability to protect ourselves as explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
We must remain vigilant if we want to remain free.
In an absolutely outrageous move which further substantiates the Obama Administration’s anti-American and divisive philosophy, the State Department submitted a report to the UN that was critical of Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070.
Isn’t the President supposed to support and positively represent this country?
If he was so incensed with Arizona’s law, why didn't the federal government’s lawsuit against the state mention racism or abridgment of rights?
Even more reprehensible, he had the audacity to allow such a specious report to be submitted to an organization that is saturated with vile human rights abuses.
Interestingly, he also had the suit adjudicated in a District Court in Arizona where the judge was a known liberal appointed by Bill Clinton. This approach is constitutionally not legal and the ruling should be nullified.
Why? The US Constitution enumerates specifically that in cases where the Federal government sues a state, only the Supreme Court can hear and rule on such matters.
This is all part of Obama’s radical agenda to denigrate and destroy America and render it mediocre at best.
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
Brewer condemns State Department for mentioning Arizona law in human rights report to UN
August 27, 2010 Associated Press
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Arizona is at the vanguard of states addressing their untenable illegal immigrant problem with its enactment of legislation, SB 1070. It appears that at least 20 states are considering such legislation with many using Arizona’s law as a paradigm. Among these other states that are strongly pursuing this course of action is Florida which hopes to construct a legally bullet proof version.
A majority of Americans strongly support these measures and vehemently oppose the Obama Administration’s position of abdication of its responsibility to protect the borders and secure America.
Florida AG McCollum, Lawmakers Unveil Immigration Bill Modeled After Arizona's
Florida's attorney general and a group of state lawmakers moved Wednesday to push the Sunshine State into the forefront of the national illegal immigration debate with a bill modeled after Arizona's controversial law -- only, they claim, with a better shot of withstanding a court challenge.
Florida's attorney general and a group of state lawmakers moved Wednesday to push the Sunshine State into the forefront of the national illegal immigration debate with a bill modeled after Arizona's controversial law -- only, they claim, with a better shot of withstanding a court challenge.
State Attorney General Bill McCollum, following the lead of Virginia's top prosecutor, also issued an opinion saying state law enforcement already have the right to ask about immigration status in the course of their duties.
"This legislation will provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the ongoing problems created by illegal immigration," McCollum, a Republican, said in a written statement. "Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens."
McCollum helped write the legislation, though Florida lawmakers will be responsible for pushing it in the legislature.
The move comes after a U.S. District Court judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's law. The battle between Arizona and the U.S. government, as well as civil rights groups, could make its way to the Supreme Court -- but while that fight plays out, several states are putting similar legislation on the table.
The Florida proposal would, like Arizona's, require law enforcement officers to check the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant in the course of a "lawful stop."
It would require state businesses to use a national registry to ensure new employees are legal and would increase penalties for illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. The bill would also require non-citizen immigrants to carry immigration documentation or face a misdemeanor charge that could carry up to 20 days in jail.
Though McCollum's office said in a statement that the legislation was adjusted to "strengthen it" against a possible court challenge, the proposal would go beyond Arizona's by letting judges consider a defendant's illegal immigrant status during bond proceedings.
State Rep. William Snyder wrote the bill with McCollum.
The unveiling comes after Virginia State Attorney Ken Cuccinelli last week issued a ruling saying police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops. The move prompted an objection from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, which urged state police to ignore the opinion.
McCollum did something similar Wednesday, releasing an informal opinion to a state lawmaker saying "it appears that state and local law enforcement have the authority to inquire into the immigration status" of anyone detained under state law providing the questioning doesn't "prolong" the detention.
As Cuccinelli said, McCollum clarified that under current law, officers are not required to ask about immigration status.
Arizona is at the vanguard of the immigration debate and legislation. The bill which is generating such widespread attention, SB1070, is now being used as a template by around 20 other states that are considering addressing this alien invasion through legal means. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is aggressively pursuing a lawsuit against Arizona which runs counter to the sentiment of a significant majority of Americans - around 70%.
Why is Obama choosing such an action against a state whose legislation is nearly identical to the federal law and seeking to uphold it? This is a political gambit without a clear Constitutional basis. His actions are cynical, divisive, hateful and the arguments that he and his Administration have used are specious. This is all for political gain and for ideological goals.
The prime author of Arizona’s immigration legislation, State Senator Russell Pearce, discusses SB 1070, the severity of the illegal alien problem in the state including issues of crime and costs. Most people are not aware of the true severity of the problem which needs to be expeditiously, effectively and thoroughly addressed.
Arizona Immigration Law Author: Failure to Enforce Law Impeachable Offense
Jim Meyers 8/5/2010
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of Arizona’s tough immigration law, tells Newsmax that the recent court ruling on the law was a “huge win” for Americans fighting to stem the flow of illegal aliens in this country.
Pearce, a Republican who represents parts of suburban Phoenix, also says the law “scares” the Obama administration because it will lead to the enforcement of immigration laws — and agrees that Obama’s failure to enforce those laws is an “impeachable” offense.
A highly decorated former law officer, Pearce crafted and co-sponsored Arizona SB1070, the immigration bill that was passed in April. Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, but Pearce remains cheered by the results.
“It’s been a long battle,” he says. “I prepared for the fistfight. I knew it was coming, getting sued by the open border crowd, the left-wing folks who fight you on any effort to enforce the law. So I knew what was coming.
“But we won. It’s a huge win. We won everything we really needed to win.
“The main thrust of 1070 was [against] sanctuary policies” that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws in certain jurisdictions. “They’re actually illegal under federal law. But [federal officials] don’t sue them, they sue Arizona because we decide to enforce the law.
“The other parts that she blocked temporarily were important tools, but what did go into effect, people need to understand, is that sanctuary policies in the state of Arizona are now illegal. She didn’t block that piece. So law enforcement may enforce the federal law to the fullest extent of the law.
“And if they don’t, we the people will sue government — that’s also in the bill. If they block or interfere or limit the enforcement of these laws in any manner, we will sue.
“The other piece that stayed in there is on day laborer issues. It’s a felony to hire them. We’re going to stop the hiring of illegal aliens that take a job from Americans. If you pick up an illegal alien day laborer, you’re going to go to jail. Your car is going to be impounded for 30 days, mandatory. So some significant pieces are still in effect and are huge in this bill.
“This law has teeth. That’s what scares people. That scares the Obama administration, which has a non-enforcement policy.”
Pearce was asked how he reacted to Sarah Palin’s comment that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer “has the cojones that our president doesn’t have.”
“I reacted very well to that comment,” he tells Newsmax. “I appreciate the governor’s vigilance in defense of the bill.
“During the debate over 1070, a good friend of mine was murdered — right after [Janet] Napolitano, your Homeland Security director, said the border is more secure than ever. Simply not true.
“Fifteen Phoenix police officers, just to pick on Phoenix, were murdered or maimed at the hands of illegal aliens. Enough is enough. We spend $2.7 billion a year in Arizona to educate, medicate, and incarcerate. It’s the citizens that pay the price for this illegal alien invasion that can no longer be ignored.”
Pearce cited one Arizona family that has been terrorized by illegal aliens who come across the border, suffering “18 burglaries, three home invasions, multiple vehicles stolen. At night they hear a noise outside and they pray for daylight. They have their doors boarded, their windows boarded. And we have a federal government that stands by and thinks that’s O.K., that’s just collateral damage as they move forward with their agenda of amnesty. Enough is enough.”
Pearce says he is encouraged by other states that are following in Arizona’s footsteps and seeking to pass immigration legislation.
“Over 20 states are going to model legislation after 1070, so I’m extremely encouraged. In fact, I’ve talked to 34 states that would like to do it but don’t have a legislature or governor that would sign a bill.
“That’s what scares the Obama administration. They’re not worried about profiling. They’re not worried about anything but enforcement. What scares them is the fact that the laws are actually going to be enforced.”
He says the administration is worried about enforcement for two political reasons.
“First of all you have the open border anarchists who want to change the political makeup of America, and that’s through change in the demographics. Their best hope is open borders.
“Then you’ve got the other side, the corporate oligarchy, the profits-over-patriotism crowd. They want cheap labor. They don’t care what the cost is to America, and they have a stranglehold on Washington D.C., while 70 to 80 percent of Americans say close the borders, enforce the law.”
Pearce agrees with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham that the policy established by the 14th Amendment — that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen — needs to be changed because it was never intended to be applied to aliens.
Sen. Jon Kyl says that when he asked President Obama to secure the border, Obama’s response was that if he did, it would remove the incentive for Republicans to negotiate on comprehensive immigration reform. Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has called the refusal to enforce the law an impeachable offense. Pearce was asked if he agrees.
“Absolutely,” he declares.
“Five to ten thousand folks come across that border daily, and what’s coming across — 20 percent have criminal convictions — are gang members, drug smugglers, human smugglers, child molesters, rapists. It’s an invasion. It’s in violation of the Constitution. Yes, it’s impeachable. He not only neglects to do it, now he’s refusing to do it. It’s impeachable.”
As for reports that a Mexican drug cartel has placed a $1 million bounty on the head of tough Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pearce says “the silence is almost deafening from Washington, D.C.”
The illegal immigration situation is far more extensive and pernicious than most Americans suspect. This is a direct consequence of depraved, self-serving and reckless policies of and suppression of information by Obama and the Democratic controlled federal government. Complicit and abetting this is the intentional avoidance of the issue by a vast majority of the news media which constitutes malfeasance by the press. It is no wonder that Arizona, backed into a corner by the federal government’s willful abdication of its Constitutional responsibility regarding border security, was forced to enact its immigration legislation.
The following article characterizes the severity of the illegal immigration problem regarding both the scope and magnitude of the crimes and the politicization of the issue. It is a real eye opener.
Immigration enforcement union took a no-confidence vote in its leadership
Joel S. Gehrke Jr. 08/04/10
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents believe overwhelmingly that their department leadership has become so politicized as to compromise the effectiveness of ICE and the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.
In June, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — an AFL-CIO affiliate — and affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven. In a letter announcing the vote, the National Council criticized the directors for “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and said their leaders have “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”
Janice Kephart at the Center for Immigration Studies has the letter, which includes several biting indictments of ICE failures by ICE agents. For instance:
Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty legislation, than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, and the need for more manpower and resources within the ICE ERO to address it. ICE ERO is currently overwhelmed by the massive criminal alien problem in the United States resulting in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities.
Kind of puts the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement in perspective, doesn’t it?
While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.
The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.
Arizona is by no means is the only state that has considered or enacted illegal immigration legislation. Virginia and several other states are working on laws that are fairly similar to Arizona’s SB1020 in order to more effectively address the multitude of problems associated with illegal aliens. This all is in response to the federal government’s abdication of its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders and protect the citizens of this country.
Is Virginia the Next Arizona? State Lawmakers Fuel Immigration Debate
August 03, 2010 FoxNews.com
A handful of Virginia lawmakers may be positioning their state to be the next battleground in the immigration debate.
Virginia, one of nearly 20 states toying with the idea of an Arizona-style immigration law, hurtled onto the national radar screen this week after Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ruled that police can ask people about their immigration status during routine stops.
While a northern Virginia county has been at the forefront of the push for stricter local immigration laws for three years, none of this activity has prompted the kind of nationwide backlash -- in the form of boycotts and a federal government lawsuit -- that Arizona triggered with its law in April. Those behind the Virginia proposals, including a proposed statewide law, are hoping their state can avoid the kind of public relations and legal pitfalls that have, at least temporarily, ensnared Arizona.
"This is good policy. ... It's both constitutional and prudent," said Robert Marshall, the Republican state delegate who originally requested the ruling from Cuccinelli, who is also a Republican. "Our actions here can't be dismissed."
Marshall told FoxNews.com he has asked Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell to issue an executive order codifying what Cuccinelli wrote. He expressed doubt that any single piece of legislation will pass through the state Senate, but he suggested a carefully worded directive could help shape the national debate.
He said Arizona went astray by requiring law enforcement officers to ask about immigration status. Cuccinelli describes Virginia's policy as discretionary.
"Unlike Arizona, you wouldn't say every time you stop somebody, do this," Marshall said. "I think that was one of the reasons the Arizona law was (blocked)." Marshall said he's confident Virginia's policy would be held up in court if challenged.
Cuccinelli also cited that difference as a key distinction between the two laws.
"The difference, of course, is that the Arizona law enforcement officer is going to be under the cloud of the requirement of that statute," he said. "But the way we operate it here, we're in good shape."
A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the governor is reviewing her state's law to see if it can be refined in light of the court decision blocking key parts of it, but was not sure whether she was considering the possibility of making immigration checks discretionary as opposed to mandatory.
Though Cuccinelli's ruling drew widespread attention, it's unclear how much direct impact it will have on Virginia law enforcement.
Virginia Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, a Democrat, said most police forces won't change their policies in light of the opinion.
"Is it going to affect a single thing? The answer is no," he said. "A majority of the police forces won't bother with it."
Saslaw noted that per Cuccinelli's opinion, state officers are still advised against arresting anyone for a civil immigration offense. Saslaw said he doesn't see Virginia, a non-border state, becoming a focal point of the immigration debate any time soon, and he rejected the idea that McDonnell could issue an order codifying Cuccinelli's ruling.
"We don't have a dictatorship in Virginia," Saslaw said. "It would carry absolutely not a shred of legal validity."
McDonnell spokeswoman Stacey Johnson said Marshall was not specifically calling for an executive order. The actual letter to the governor asked McDonnell to "direct all appropriate law enforcement officers of the commonwealth to implement the policies referenced" in the Cuccinelli decision.
Regardless of how Cuccinelli's ruling is interpreted, a few Virginia lawmakers are pushing hard to keep their state in the middle of the immigration furor. Though it's not anywhere close to a border state, Virginia's illegal immigrant population, concentrated mostly in the north, has been pegged at about 300,000 by the Pew Hispanic Center. Any crime connected to that community has the potential to feed the debate.
Just as the killing of rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant fueled the push for border security in Arizona, a recent killing in Virginia has stirred emotions over the issue. An illegal immigrant on Sunday was involved in a crash that killed one nun and injured two others -- he reportedly had a prior drunk-driving record and was going through deportation proceedings.
The crash happened in Prince William County, which is ground zero for immigration controversy in Virginia. Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart seized on the incident, as he continued to push a proposed immigration law similar to Arizona's.
Stewart said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com that Virginia will "adjust our course" in light of the Arizona case and said he hopes the federal government decides to sue his state too.
"Virginia has shown in the past that people care about this issue even 2,500 miles away from the most porous parts of our southern border. Especially in Prince William County, we are very close to the nation's Capitol. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama can't ignore what is happening in their own backyard," he wrote.
Prince William County, which Marshall represents, has a local law that requires police to ask about the immigration status of anyone they arrest. Stewart said Cuccinelli's ruling doesn't dramatically change anything there but that "it is good have the Virginia AG on board."
Stewart is pushing for a statewide policy to require police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. He claims the proposal anticipates the legal pitfalls that trapped Arizona. He has launched a political action committee to raise money for a public campaign in support of the bill, and he has a started a website, www.virginiaruleoflaw.com, where he is trying to collect 100,000 signatures.
Saslaw ridiculed the push.
"The bill ain't gonna make it through the General Assembly," he said. "It won't even get to a law."