The very name attributed to this action, "The United States Versus Arizona," howls with untruth.
Once again, the despicable conduct of the Obama Administration compels us to do a "reality check," this time in regard to the lawsuit filed by Eric Holder's Justice Department against the State of Arizona. Put aside, for the moment, the abject hypocrisy of his selective devotion to the law, wherein criminal actions are ignored or dismissed if committed by such thugs as King Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panthers against common citizens attempting to vote, while decent and honorable efforts to maintain the integrity of one's country or one's state are targeted for legal dissolution.
Of course the ruling was going to be against Arizona. Susan Bolton, the Federal Judge "deciding" the case, was a Clinton appointee. Enough said. From the start, this proceeding never had anything to do with the defense of United States law, nor any other constitutional consideration. It was predetermined on the basis of political ideology. Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, is a leftist. And his judicial appointees, without exception, have been likewise.
Yet Holder's duplicity and corruption go much further than even this abominable event, and aside from the immediate danger posed to the people of Arizona, they represent an enormous breach in the structure of this nation's entire legal system. An out of control Justice Department not only fails to provide safeguards for all decent Americans; it stands as a threat to the preservation of "domestic tranquility," their birthright. And that should be its real goal and purpose.
For starters, the very name attributed to this action, "The United States Versus Arizona," howls with untruth. The foundations of this nation, based in the principles of a constitutionally cohesive federation of sovereign states, would suggest that if the United States Department of Justice were ever to engage in legal activity under such a heading, it might require a shred of support from "We the People" across the nation. But aside from the elitists of the liberal political and media establishment, no such support exists.
Instead, Americans overwhelmingly support the actions of Arizona, and desire to see the law implemented and carried forward to success for their own sakes as well. Arizona's fate depends on it, as does that of all America. The very argument that Arizona is "usurping federal law," on which the Holder case was fabricated, lends credence to the fact that, at one time, national concern over the illegal invasion was sufficient to establish and implement federal statutes to accomplish the very thing Arizona is now attempting to do.
Were federal officials determinedly and diligently confronting the influx of illegal invaders, Arizona law enforcement operations in this jurisdiction might well be perceived as an unnecessary interference. But of course nothing of the kind is happening in the Grand Canyon State. Federal enforcement has been purposefully nonexistent. And it was for that very reason that Arizona took upon itself the task of dealing with the invasion. Holder, in his flowery opposition to SB 1070, engaged in the most blatant degree of deceit imaginable. In a purely political venture, the head of the United States Department of Justice sent his team of lawyers into a courtroom armed with outright lies, but comfortable nevertheless with the fact that such would be sufficient for Bolton to "rule" in their favor.
Did the citizens of the other forty-nine states really want to declare war on Arizona for attempting to protect its borders and restore its legal and cultural integrity? Yet that fallacious supposition was precisely what this federal lawsuit represented. In reality Holder, or more specifically his boss and ideological kindred Barack Obama, no more speak for the rest of this nation on illegal immigration than on socialized healthcare, the economic destruction of the Gulf Coast (not by the oil spill, but from the unwarranted drilling moratorium), nationalization of banks and manufacturing industries, or the fanatical effort to outlaw and suppress free speech prior to the upcoming elections.
It is worthwhile to ponder the degree to which the function of our nation's government has been debased and corrupted, leaving us at this abysmal milestone. Rather than allowing the State of Arizona to "secure the blessings of liberty" to its current generation and their posterity, the ability to do so, formerly unquestioned, has now been thwarted by the action of a single Federal Judge who simply chose not to uphold the law as already written.
In other words, the veracity of state sovereignty is under attack. Once the Obama cabal managed to get their case before the right individual, they summarily declared Arizona unable to defend its own citizens from the criminal destruction and taking of their state. And worst of all, this abomination was committed ostensibly in the name of the rest of the American people.
Arizona's ability to maintain a worthwhile social structure within its own borders is foundational to its proper functioning as a state, and along with similar action from other states, is critical to the future of the nation. If it can be dismissed and revoked with such ease at the whim of a judge, at the bidding of a "Justice" Department that has repeatedly exhibited its contempt for true, even-handed justice, no aspect of real America remains immune to the burgeoning menace.
Selective "enforcement" of the law is a sure sign that those in power are using the nation's entire legal apparatus to their own ends. Holder has engaged in such behavior on multiple occasions, for the expressed purpose of advancing his own perverse, leftist, and by definition, anti-American ideology. That he would do so to stop SB 1070 is an attack on the good people of Arizona. That he would presume to do so in the name of this United States is an enormously greater affront, and in fact a crime, against every decent citizen of this country.
Christopher,
“Selective “enforcement” of the law is a sure sign that those in power are using the nation’s entire legal apparatus to their own ends.” This is exactly what DoJ does when it sues Arizona but not San Francisco.
“For starters, the very name attributed to this action, “The United States Versus Arizona,” howls with untruth.” While most would agree with that statement; you wouldn’t find anyone in the White House that will. As far as the Narcissist-in-Chief is concerned HE is the United States.
“From the start, this proceeding never had anything to do with the defense of United States law, nor any other constitutional consideration. It was predetermined on the basis of political ideology.” Correct. Just as the President said to Senator Jon Kyl; “If we seal the border you won’t have any reason to favor comprehensive reform.”
Now that this law is being shuffled through the court system; the Obama administration has three years to get immigration reform shoved down the throats of the American people. He needs these illegal immigrants by 2012 to ensure his reelection. This legal battle gives him the opportunity.
Remember; while this administration may publically call them ‘undocumented workers’ that is code for ‘undocumented democrats’. They could not possibly care less about these people beyond what they can do for the progressive cause. 13 million newly minted citizens will skew elections toward the progressive camp for at least a decade. That decade will be all that is required to seal the fate of the country.
Adding 13 million people immediately to the new health care plan will collapse the system quickly, requiring the government to save us all with a ‘single payer’ system. 13 million immigrant workers will skew the economic opportunity so far toward the lower economic class that it will be redefined as the new middle class; reducing the acceptable standard of living for all immediately.
All this plus the fact that illegal immigration, will now, most certainly accelerate. With this law blocked by court battles for at least a year; which is what it will take to wend its way to SCOTUS. More illegals will be willing to bet on amnesty. So get ready for those thousands of crossings per week to grow into the tens of thousands soon.
The most disastrous part of all this is the fact that the American people can no longer expect apolitical legal support from DoJ. The office, through its actions has proved itself to now be a political entity of the executive branch instead of an even-handed watchdog on that branch. There is no longer equal justice before the law. There is only social justice for the politically connected.
If “real America” doesn’t want Arizona sued for attempting to enforce the federal laws that the federal government will not, then “real America” should have thought better before it stormed the polls in November of 2006 and November of 2008 and gave fringe left Democrats the trifecta of federal political power.
To find out where “real America” stands on this issue, Arizona should refuse to comply with the federal injunction, begin enforcing the full letter of their new state law, and then see whose side “real America” takes when federal law enforcement has to use police powers to stop it. If “real America” really supports Arizona and not the really crappy federal government they elected, then the administration would face sure political annihilation if it were to enforce the court’s injunction and would be forced to either commit political suicide or back down from the highest profile confrontation of state vs. federal government in the last century. Such a confrontation would be a welcome opportunity to find out just where “real America” stands, and just how totalitarian our real big federal government has become.
Good idea Pat
I wonder what the result would be if an officer stopped a van full of people racing across the border and asked them for ID?
Would it be US vs AZ or US vs the cop? If the later then I’m sure the public would support the legal fees. I suppose that if AZ tells the cops not to do it, then they would be in the clear. I wonder if there is an AZ cop that wants to get his name mentioned with Paul Revere.
Forget about legal fees. What can the federal government do if it sues an officer of the state of Arizona for violating an injunction of the federal court if the officer doesn’t show up and comply with the court’s demands? The idea here would be to force the government to do out in the open what it hopes to do in the far more comfortable confines of a court room: invoke the only remedy available to it – force, coercion, violence – in order to enforce a ruling prohibiting the state of Arizona from doing what the federal government is already supposed to. Not only would this serve as a great indicator of where the “real America” that put this administration in office stands and force the federal government to expose itself for what it really is, but it would also invoke the most meaningful discussion of federal power and states’ rights probably since reconstruction, along with fast-tracking these legal challenges to the Supreme Court rather than tying them up in appeals for another decade.
Oh, I never forget about legal fees and I can’t imagine an officer will. I’m just saying it would be easier to form a defense fund for an individual than the state of AZ. And that would get more people involved. As far as not showing up in court, I think that’s a bad idea. That’s contempt and instant jail. No, it would be better to fight them directly, with the people behind you. Don’t get me wrong. I’m with you. It is just tactics now.
But that’s precisely my point. If you want to grab headlines in every newspaper in the country, start a political excrement-storm, and get just about every person in America involved in a serious national debate for once, a state police officer being arrested and booked into jail by his federal brothers-in-arms is a powerful image. The officer’s already broken the law by ignoring a federal court injunction, why not make a real public spectacle out of it and make the issue very black and white? Contrast the arrest of a state police officer by federal agents with the thousands of illegal immigrants walking free because of the federal government’s refusal to enforce its own laws and you both personalize and publicize the hypocrisy and force the federal government into the untenable situation of having to truly “walk the walk” of its irrational double standard. Like I said, the entire point of the exercise is to force the federal government to bring to bear its police power in order to enforce an ostensibly unpopular legal “victory” for the administration. If I was the hypothetical cop in question I’d make them break down my door and tear me away from my children with the cameras of every major TV news network stationed outside to capture the event. It doesn’t get any more direct than that.
OK, that sounds good. I especially like the kids part. I wonder if it’s possible to get some fed cops to do a fake beating for the cameras. I would recommend one of those wacky pool noddles for beating their fellow cop.
I personally would think it a grand idea if Arizona were to begin enforcing the law and ignore the federal court injunction. They could claim privilege under the Tenth Amendment. I’d like to see what the Obama Administration would do then.
Just finished reading an interesting article regarding US District Judge Bolton’s ruling on the Arizona Immigration Law. The entire essay on this US District ruling may be found here.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=185349
Anyway; it says the US Constitution recognizes the right of the sovereign states, upon invasion, may choose to defend themselves without federal authorization. Judge Bolton’s ruling claims this constitutional provision is pre-empted by the federal government’s refusal to enforce existing federal law. “In effect, this doctrine of pre-emptive dereliction replaces the rule of law with the lawless abuse of authority. It aims to force the states to accept whatever damage the federal government chooses to inflict upon their citizens by its neglect of duty.” Nice; huh?