It’s a travesty that a state would come under attack for echoing a federal law that makes it a crime to be in this country illegally.  It’s all the more a travesty when the federal government is attacking the state.

But wait!  This is the country that has taken “Dumbing Down” to the level of official policy and law throughout all aspects and facets of life.  Because the federal government cannot (or will not) enforce border security no state should be allowed to presume to do so.

I applaud Governor Jan Brewer.  She is right… it’s no laughing matter.

But, it’s that “laws of the land” that is the crucial bit here: Legal immigration.  Legal, by whatever the law of the land happens to be.  Anyone who is here illegally falls outside that crucial parameter.  Whatever color or nationality they happen to be.  I don’t live in a “border state” so I can afford to be magnanimous.  Would I feel differently if my state dealt with a large population of illegal immigrants?  Probably.  Oh, we have our share of illegal immigrants, and it seems that the population grows with every passing year, but they are mostly innocuous and hard working.

Arizona has come under fire from the Left-leaning for its new law (SB 1070)making it a state crime to be in the state if they are in the country illegally.  In other words, there are people who have the belief that Arizona does not have the right to protect their citizens and legal residents from those who are, in fact criminals by the very fact that they are in this country illegally.

The hew and cry is that the Arizona law will allow, if not out right require, racial profiling.  My response to that is two-fold: there are illegal immigrants in this country of every race… white, black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Asian.  Even an aunt of President Obama is in this country illegally and awaiting a ruling on her deportation hearing (link).  Secondly, it’s the Left-leaning that invokes race, even President Obama in his calling upon “… blacks, Latinos, and women.”  The Arizona law does not say anything about any particular race.

America is a nation founded on the Rule of Law not the Rule of Men.

Hey!  I don’t agree with many of the laws of the land either!  Does that mean I get to ignore them?  What if it benefits my well being and social status?  What if I just feel like ignoring them?  What are the lines of division or criteria for laws we are allowed to ignore versus those we are not?  And who gets to decide what those lines of division and criteria are?

That’s the difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of Men.  The Rule of Law governs all equally.  The Rule of Men allows for special interests and arbitrary decisions.

The Federal government has FAILED to enforce the federal immigration laws.  They have, in fact and deed, been arbitrary.  And that has cost the state of Arizona and its citizens and legal residents real dollars as they have struggled with all of the inherent costs associated with a large population of people who do not participate in the greater society and its financial support.

As for the calls for boycotts: That is an economic threat and tactic that cuts both ways.  On the way home from work this evening I heard on the radio calls for counter-boycotts.  Stop eating at Mexican restaurants.  Do not visit cities such as San Francisco or L.A. who call for boycotts on Arizona.  Why not.  We are already in a political “war”, why not an economic one as well?

America is no longer the Land of the Free and Home of the brave.  We are a country of “us” and “them.”  On many levels and fronts.  So, those that support Arizona and its new law are saying to those that don’t “Bring it on.”  And just like in a real guns and bullets war: the innocent non-combatants will suffer… collateral damage.  Oh well.  Too bad.  Too bad as long as politicians can score their political points and/or pander to their constituents, but do nothing to solve a very real and costly problem.  Costly in dollars.  Costly in human lives.

What I don’t accept is a lie meant to deceive the public when the public has every right to know the truth.

Grassley Slams GM, Administration Over Loans Repaid With Bailout Money

[Via: FoxNews.com]
A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors’ loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.

A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the Obama administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors’ loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout — also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.

“It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle,” Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Continues…

But what I haven’t completely made up my mind about is whether Vice President Biden is unfortunately ignorant, or whether he thinks the American people are stupid.

[Vice] President Biden on Wednesday called the GM repayment a “huge accomplishment.”

My husband, son, and I have only ever purchased new American vehicles, and we’ve taken a certain pride in that fact.  I will never buy another GM vehicle and I will go out of my way to make sure I explain why I think it’s a bad bit of business for anyone else to do so in the future.  Yes, I know… the taxpayers own the majority of GM, but frankly, with this stunt they’ve demonstrated they do not deserve to remain in business.  They certainly don’t deserve taxpayer money to do so.

In fact, I think the SEC should look into filing charges against GM and the administration for lying to shareholders, the American taxpayers.

Is this video documenting the death of the Fourth Estate?  Via a “public assassination” no less….

(video courtesy of John Aravosis)

Transparency?

The most open White House ever?

The really frightening thing about this is the blatant contempt this demonstrates for the Fourth Estate.  Say what you will about our press, but “the press” — if you’ll pardon the sweeping generalization in this time of partisan journalism — is our watch dog, our first line of defense.

Politicians are more apt to act in honest and honorable (please don’t laugh) ways with the ever present eye of the press peering over their shoulder.

The press is the average citizen’s window into the wider world.  The actions recorded in this video demonstrate, with concrete certainty, that the public no longer has the right to know what goes on at the “People’s House.”  Or in this case in front of the People’s House.

There hasn’t been a president to occupy the White House in my entire adult life that hasn’t made me angry over some “this or that,” but NEVER have I feared the man who held the office.  I never feared that they didn’t have the best interest of the country at heart, even if they were occasionally “misguided idiots”.  Some more often than others to be sure.  Tonight, however, as I watched that video, I was… fearful.

The current administration doesn’t give a flying [expletive deleted] about what “we” think, and they don’t give a flying [expletive deleted] that we know they don’t.  In fact, one could posit that this was a calculated demonstration: The gloves are off and this is no longer the America “of record.”

After all, as expressed on the video: It’s one thing to chase off “the public,” but it’s something entirely different to chase off the press.  In order to do THAT, there has to be a really, really, really extraordinary reason.  An extraordinary reason that is generally accepted as being extraordinary and the reasons for the extraordinary nature clearly defined… and stated openly for any and all to hear [or read].

The only thing I’m holding out hope for is that there is an extraordinary reason for the actions documented in this video.  It’s not a great deal of hope, but perhaps… just perhaps… there is a valid reason.  The rational grown up in me says there isn’t, but the naive idealist says there MUST be.  PLEASE LET THERE BE.

“I did a little bit of research just before this show – it’s on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.”

I don’t know about anyone else but I, proud Tea Party Enfant, agree with Mr. Klein on the “rub right up close” bit.  At least in a general – “rub right up close” kinda way.  And, again, perhaps just me, but I find that particular turn of phrase somewhat – salacious.  “Salacious Sedition“… it has a pleasingly concordant ring to it, especially in my symmetry loving, overly fond of alliteration, mind.

But back to my topic:

I’m new to the Tea Party movement, though I’ve been a staunch Libertarian for a couple of decades now.  And, I admit, I have a wee bit of the rebellious Anarchist deep down in my soul that peaks out every now and again, usually when my government presumes to be able to disallow me something or otherwise infringes upon my Unalienable Right of my pursuit of happiness.

One of those “pursuits of happiness” I hold precious is my Right of Free Speech, and I tend to get right het up about any — and all — attempts at curbing that constitutionally guaranteed Right.  Even speech I find infuriating in all its “wrong-headedness.”  That said, I also have a well developed appreciation for that decades old Rushism – “words have meaning.”

Some of the rhetoric being tossed casually about does “rub right up close to being seditious” in my very non-expert opinion.  But “rubbing right up close” is not the same thing as being seditious.  And until it is seditious, it’s constitutionally guaranteed Free Speech.

To belabor the point: I always cringe internally when I hear or read the phrase “the world can support [insert any of various figures from 500,000 to 2 billion] people.”  Turn that phrase around and it means we have X number of excess people for the world to be “healthy.”  The reason I cringe internally is because I’ve long worried that one day some environmental nut-job is going to attempt to rid the earth of the “excess” 4 billion+ people.

Does the concern that there might be some environmental nut-job out there mean that we should demand, and legally enforce, that all speech on over population cease?  Should we have banned Professor James Lovelock and his beliefs, protecting the fringe nut-jobs from his potentially dangerous beliefs?  Let me be presumptuous and answer that: No.

Galileo was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day.  Gandhi was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day.  The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was once viewed as a danger to the authorities of his day.  I’m not saying that the Tea Party is equal to these great men of history.  I’m saying that perspective can be nothing more than a reflection of the needs of the authorities, or those who feel compelled to protect the authorities.

But we, the Grand Collective We, are not here to serve the needs of the authorities, despite what they may think to the contrary.  They are here to serve us, despite what they may think to the contrary.

And when the Grand Collective We are unhappy with their service, we are constitutionally protected in our right to passionately express our displeasure and disagreement.  Even former First Lady, former Senator, current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agrees with me…

Senator Hillary Clinton 2003: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’ “  [My thanks to Rush Limbaugh]

American politics can be “a bit raucous” at times, and always has been.  Frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Thomas Jefferson once said that lethargy was the forerunner of the death of public liberty.  True when Senator Clinton spoke the above words back in 2003 and true today.

So, while I actually do agree with Mr. Klein’s general point, it’s a point we freedom loving, constitutionally protected, Americans live with.  The fact that dissent is sometimes dangerous is nothing new.  If we took the coward’s way out in an attempt to protect us from the potential of inflaming the nut-jobs we would just repeal the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It was the “taking the coward’s way out” that our Founding Fathers specifically and purposely unambiguously protected against in the First Amendment.  It is also probably not a casual happenstance that freedom of speech is within the First Amendment.  They knew that free speech can be a dangerous thing and all too tempting a thing for a government [in the hazy future of all those years ago] to want to disallow.

Of course, there is always the Jaded Snark in me who is quietly wondering if this is simply a tactic change up because the “Racist, homophobic, misogynist, ignorant, hate-filled” tactic has been so roundly demonstrated as false.   I pat that internal Jaded Snark within on the head and remind her, gently, that I too invoked [elsewhere on the net] the memory of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in my defense of the FBI’s raid on the Hutaree the day after it occurred, long before President Clinton made the public connection.

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing,” he [President Clinton] said. “But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”

Unlike some who stand in opposition to the current Democratic agenda and the direction President Obama is taking this country, I believe it’s a valid and natural connection… and reminder.  But what do I know… I also believe Professor Lovelock’s statements should come with a “Nut-job disclaimer.”