"The proof is in the pudding."
I have no idea where that phrase originates from but I do know in what context it can be used.
Let's talk Arizona immigration law. The Dept. of Justice, at President Obama's behest, filed a law suit against the state of Arizona. You might imagine that a critical component of the lawsuit would be the potential for discrimination. The DOJ, you might think, would enter the lawsuit because the law is a potential civil rights violation. That's what Obama has been telling us anyway. Remember his tear-jerking anecodte about how, now, a man and his son could be walking down the street to buy an ice cream cone and a law enforcement officer would come up and harass them about their citizenship status. Yeah, I shed a few tears over that one. Obama even stood in the White House beside Mexican president Calderon and blasted Arizona over this discriminatory law. So with all of that talk you would imagine that the DOJ is basing its lawsuit on that.
You would be wrong.
The lawsuit is based on the premise that a state hasn't the authority to enact a law that contradicts federal law in an area where the feds have jurisdiction. Well, whether or not Arizona's law DOES that is a worthy discussion. But if the issue is state and other localities enacting laws that contradict federal law then I'm sure the DOJ will soon be filing lawsuits against the following cities:
Anchorage, AK, Fairbanks, AK, Chandler, AZ, Phoenix, AZ,Fresno, CA, Los Angeles, CA
National City, CA, San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA, Sonoma County, CA, Evanston, IL
Chicago, IL, Cicero, IL, Cambridge, MA, Orleans, MA, Portland, ME, Baltimore, MD
Takoma Park, MD, Ann Arbor, MI, Detroit, MI, Minneapolis, MN, Newark, NJ, Trenton, NJ
Durham, NC, Albuquerque, NM, Aztec, NM, Rio Arriba County, NM, Sante Fe, NM, New York, NY, Ashland, OR, Gaston, OR, Marion County, OR, Austin, TX, Houston, TX, Katy, TX, Virginia Beach, VA, Seattle, WA, Madison, WI
This is a list of America's sancturary cities. Cities that have enacted policies that override federal law. Thirty-eight cities and counties that deserve to have a lawsuit brought against them based on the DOJ's reasoning for bringing the lawsuit against Arizona. Certainly the DOJ is working on lawsuits in these cases as well.
A very astute and bold WH reporter (who will almost certainly lose his/her press credentials now) asked WH spokesman Gibbs about this inconsistency the other day:
"Now there are dozens of so‑called sanctuary cities that have their own policies that might potentially conflict with federal law supplements like Governor Brewer. To say that if Arizona's in violation of federal law, then so are these localities. So my question is why did the president then ask DOJ to look at Arizona and not everywhere?"
Gibbs's response was jibberish: "Let me — I don't know the answer to that but I will try to seek some answer on — some answer on that."
Don't bother Gibbs. You've been exposed. Your boss and his administration want to play politics with this issue instead of doing what's right for the country. This is about protecting the democrats' hold on the Hispanic vote going into an important mid-term election.
The proof is in the pudding. Or lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is interesting is that the same DOJ just dropped charges against two Black Panthers who were standing outside of polls last election with uniforms and billy clubs. The were there threatening people and yelling at "crackers."
ReplyDeleteGREAT JOB they are doing!
But the real reason that Obama is pursuing this stupid AZ law is because as he is pushing more and more leftist crap through congress he is losing support fast. The only people left who are really still standing in support of him are the minorities. So, he is forced to look like their hero so he can get any support he can.
What a loser!
Obama's DOJ is so blatantly political in their motives it's disgusting. This whole bunch (the Obama administration) views their power as one of social engineering (this is a classically fascist, or "progressive" as the fascist movement in America was called in the early 20th century, tactic) and it is showing in the DOJ's recent moves.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I agree with the statement that minorities are the only people still standing with Obama. That's oversimplifying things and doesn't match up with the facts. I recently heard that 81% of democrats still support this guy. Now, not that many democrats support the AZ lawsuit but overall most dems still are with this guy. It's all politics though because in so many aspects Obama is doing much the same thing that Bush was doing. But since it's THEIR guy driving us into debt and half-heartedly fighting wars that have no clear victory in sight instead of THE OTHER guy - it's okay.
The first half of 2011 is going to be very telling. The republicans will regain the House and the democratic majority in the Senate will be greatly reduced. So Obama will either play like Bill Clinton and move to the center so he can get some things accomplished or he will continue to push full steam with his administration's progressive agenda. I'm afraid that Obama is no Bill Clinton when it comes to political savviness. Obama is a strict ideologue and will not relent. Clinton did. In fact, in 1994 (after the republicans regained both houses of Congress) Clinton admitted to a close advisor that, in order to gain the favor of the liberal base, he had moved so far to the left that he "didn't even recognize [him]self."