Welcome to Arizona. May I See Your Papers, Jose?

Arizona has a passed a new law. Police Offices now have the authority to stop anyone that they feel are not legally in this country. No other qualifiers. If you do not have proper documentation, you will be arrested. Even if it is later determined that you are a US Citizen or an authorized alien. This law is obviously requires that police use racial profiling. Moreover, it requires that US Citizens be fully aware of everyone’s US Status. Allow me to explain:

If you, a US Citizen, have a friend who is not a US Citizen, and lets say you did not know this person was illegally in the country. Now if the police profile your friend and pulls you over. Not only will your friend be deported, but you will now be guilt of transporting illegal aliens. As that stands, every US citizen who is in Arizona, MUST know the status of every person you run across.

Here is an excerpt of that law:

“A Law Enforcement office, without warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes that person removable from the United States”

The argument is based on the actual language. Supporters of the law still contend that an Officer still requires a “just” cause to engage a suspect, and that language is actually in the bill as well. However, if there is a law that states : “… that makes that person removable from the US”,does this not require a Law Officer to have already determined that the person is at least NOT a US Citizen? If the activity that the suspect is participating in makes him “removable”, he is obviously not a Citizen. I know I can break any law on the books, and I am NOT Removable. Question is, how does a Law Enforcement Officer reach the conclusion of REMOVABLITY”?

Opponents of the Law see huge opportunities for infringing on civil rights. A Law Officer can now approach anyone, anywhere and challenge their right to in the US. If there are officers who would misuse such a rule, they clearly are now empowered to harass anyone under the guise that the Officer thought the suspect was participating in a public offence that would make the suspect removable. In other words, if an officer sees a Hispanic person working at any place of employment, the officer is within his/her authority to arrest that person for illegally working in the US. The assumption was that the suspect was removable, and therefore in violation of actually working while in the US. The underlining fear could be, perhaps the officer just thought that the suspect was really a Drug runner, or seller. But rather than follow the formal practice of getting a warrant and due process, this new law affords an officer to suspect that person of being “removable”. Once the officer uses that rule, they are now able to apply "probable cause" to engage the suspect beyond the original suspected violation. The officer would no longer be obligated to follow those other processes to initiate a search.

If someone like me can invent this type of scenario without ever having worked in any type of law enforcement, how many methods of abuse could a creative and bright officer of the law come up with. And I am not calling out all officers as abusive. Unfortunately, it only takes one. And we know they're out there.

Another opposing view to be considered is this: As Law enforcement has established a working relation with the Hispanic communities throughout AZ. Can we begin to measure what damage has already been established simply by the existence of this law? Will the Hispanic community want to risk any engagement with Law Authorities? If there is any risk that the engagement has any level of complexity to it, I believe they will shy away. This breakdown in communication will continue to grow. Especially if any story of abuse occurs.

Equally, now that the law is out there, the illegal aliens will certainly run a much lower profile. The criminal element of smuggling and transport have just raised their rates. I will venture to guess even more hostile & ruthless criminal elements may now see a profitability model that will get their attention.

Arizona has now forced immigrants into darker and more abusive environments. They have created a more profitable black market, established a clear path for abuse, and have alienated the Hispanic community across Arizona, as well as the rest of country. They have created a hostile environment for the tourist coming out of Mexico and other South American countries.

People all over the country are standing up and taking action. Conventions have been cancelled, Mexico has announce alerts to warn against visiting AZ. Truckers are circumventing traveling the state. State Governments have already made policies to stop all transactions with AZ. More states are working on more legislation to do the same.

I strongly agree with and will support any and all boycotts of any Arizona based business. With that said,. please be sure to do your research. For Example: AriZona Tea, is made in Brooklyn NY. As with any bad diet. If this is important, please read the labels, or look up companies on the WEB. click on the "ABOUT" statement or the "CONTACT US" statements and find out where the company headquarters are located. Send an email to the State Board of Tourism of AZ. Tell them you will not vacation there. You will not buy any products based in AZ. Even if you have no plans to visit AZ, let them know this can not stand.

FEEL THE RUSH - Cause he can feel for you.

Friday, Rush Limbaugh wrote and Op ED for the Wall Street Journal: (See his article below. )

As I was reading it I started to write little comments to everything that I found to be inaccurate, simple opinion or hypocritical. But I soon came to realize I was commenting on almost every statement he made. So I stood back and rethought how to best address this article. I quick noticed three themes that run throughout this article. Rather than attack each line, lets take a broader look at the Rush Limbaugh message.

Theme 1: It’s all about Rush. I found this to be a very insight view into the Rush mind set. Rush is not a politician or an otherwise elected or appointed official. He is an entertainer. He has a Talk Radio Show that appeals to the far most right leaning aspects of the Republican Party. As a syndicated broadcast, Rush is obligated to secure ratings in order to bring in advertising dollars. Rush is not looking for compromise. That would be bad for business. Rush needs to keep the fire raging. The more controversial he is, the higher his numbers are. The higher his numbers are, the more advertising money he brings in. And that’s all good. But don’t just blindly trust that Rush is some sort of spokesmen for the Republicans. He has already flat-out turned that job down. He doesn't want that position. I think he demonstrates that quite well in this article. He also took a few occasions to let us know what a great contributor he is to worthwhile charities. When you are out blowing your own horn for the charity work you have done,. I tend to think that the horn blowing was the only reason you were out there.

Theme 2: Hateful Words. When you have a point to make, there are several ways you can tell your story to convey the idea. In this article, just as on his show, Rush make a number of general statements and sprinkles them with inflammatory language that can only be interpreted as hostile. “Most” Lefties” are.,… Most? I don’t think most are Angry. I believe that most of the anger we are seeing is being generated from the Right. And the term “LEFTIES” What does that mean? Because my political party sits on the left side of the congressional chamber, that somehow translate that I am not or less of an American than Rush or the others who site on the right side of the chambers? The way Rush delivers this term"lefty" it's almost as if it were a disease. How about “RADICAL” Agenda. We must agree that The Right & the Left are in opposition for most topics, but does that mean that if my party wins the Whitehouse, the policies we implement are “RADICAL”? And lets not leave out “REGIME”.

If we think these terms over, there are several, professional, descriptive and appropriate terms we could inserted so as not to inflame. Rush is a professional speaker, it would be unrealistic to suggest he has not chosen his words very carefully. Especially if he is writing for the WSJ.

Theme 3:” I know your soul.” In this article, Rush spends a great deal of time telling his readers how I , a lefty, thinks. He says, I hate my government we the Dems are not in power. He says I treat my allies like enemies and my enemies as allies. He suggests that the Democrats employ “draconian” methods of regulation. He states that those who has spoke out against him, are the same people who “Condemn” this society.

There are the three Themes worth discussing. I have intentionally left out the hypocrisy theme because , as you read the article, you will see it in all its glory as it is perforated throughout this article, or you will not. For those who will not see it, I would never be able to convince you otherwise and will save that energy for more worthwhile discussions.

As your read his article, think of the themes I have mentions. Each time you see a general opinion, remember that is just what it is. While you have the right to an opinion, unless your are trying to insight your readers, why would you feel the need to lace it with so much hostility. Each time, he tells the reader what a liberal or lefty is thinking or how we think, or what we are planning. Just remember,.. he is making that part up. Rush is not included on the DNC strategy meetings, nothing he states here reflects any ideas, plans or sentiment that I carry. Since this is just "made-up"information, I can draw only two conclusions: Ignorance or misguidance. I don't agree with anything I have ever heard Rush say, but I would not call him stupid, and I cant believe someone could maintain a position such as his buy remaining ignorant of the issues you discuss ona national show. But ,. I am not going to tell you what he was thinking.

Now to the opening and closing of Rushes article. He stated that he has been falsely accused of sedition.

Sedition:

1. Speech or behavior directed against the peace of a state

2. An offence that tends to undermine the authority of a state

3. An incitement to public disorder

4. Revolt

While I will not accuse him of a clear act of sedition, based on the definitions listed above, one could see how such a claim could be made. When you fabricate a story to fit your political view, and you fill it with words that inflame, and you accuse the government of Radical policies, and and nationalizing institutions, where is your obligation or responsibility to your listeners? If a true believer of the RUSH doctrine were to take matters into their own hands, how much of that action should fall on Rush? While Rush did not make any "Call to Arms" here, or on his show, he has chosen to use language that is clearly divisive. He has uses a platform of Opinion Editorials or his own show to misrepresent the facts as well as opposing views. With over 3 million daily listeners, what responsibility is Rush burdened with?

And just for the record, compared to Beck,... I love this guy.

Liberals and the Violence Card

Conservative protest is motivated by a love of what America stands for.

By Rush Limbaugh / Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575199743566950622.html#printMode

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.

From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anti-capitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we're used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they're violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.

Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens. Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

Like the millions of citizens who've peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who've condemned this society?

I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world's problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America's great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-pedaling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?

Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio. At a speech delivered last Friday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., the former president said: [T]here were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problem was the federal government itself. And we have to realize that there were others who fueled this both because they agreed with it and because it was in their advantage to do so. . . . We didn't have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward was basically the right-wing radio talk show hosts and they understand clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time.

Timothy McVeigh was incensed by the Clinton administration's 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It's no coincidence that the bombing took place two years to the day of the Waco siege. McVeigh was not inspired by anything I said or believe and to say otherwise is outright slander. In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation.

Let me just say it. The Obama/Clinton/media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (doctors, insurance companies, Wall Street, talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society.

A clear majority of the American people want no part of this. They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country. They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.

END: