Obama doth protest too much on new AZ Immigration legislation

PHOENIX – Obama on Thursday criticized a pending Arizona law that would make it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and require anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to produce identification. The bill however requires all citizens to carry a federal id that proves citizenship such as a passport or birth certificate. (Will President Obama be required to show his birth certificate on his next trip to Arizona?)

Such legislation could “threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” the president said during a naturalization ceremony for members of the United States Armed Services.  The President is correct, but does he really mean what he says?

I think the Obama administration is protesting too much in an attempt to mobilize the republicans and tea party movement to support similar legislation in other states that would eventually be used against American citizens. After last years MIAC, and Homeland Security reports naming patriots, veterans, gun owners, Christians, Ron Paul supporters and other liberty groups as "potential domestic terrorists" It is clear who the federal government is declaring as its most important enemy (second of course to Iran). It has been recently suggested in the media that the Tea Party movement might team up with Al Qaeda to commit terrorist acts on U.S. Soil.

With Arizona blazing a trail with its police state legislation this will lead the way for other states to follow suit with full republican and tea party support. The legislation seems like common sense. Stop immigrants to make sure they are in the country legally.

The bill does not specifically single out illegal Latinos. What if someone leaves the house and forgets their "papers" should they be detained by law enforcement? This bill would make it possible for just such a scenario to occur. Although Americans have been desensitized to the suspension of probable cause, warrants, and habeas corpus since 9/11, this is one step closer to a totalitarian police state.

And what of privacy? I know reality TV and facebook have brainwashed people into thinking there is no such thing as privacy anymore, As a sovereign US citizen and more importantly a human being with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no one has the right to impose what amounts to warrantless searches or detention. And i certainly retain my right to privacy. We the people have become too accustomed to law enforcement stopping us at their whim and performing impromptu roadside interrogations.

Illegal and unconstitutional (the patriot act is an "illegal law" according the to constitution/bill of rights) the only reason the court doesn't overturn it is because they get paid off by the privatized prisons, for every "criminal" they send them. Anyone who thinks this law is to be used against illegals is naïve. The patriot act effectively makes EVERY person a criminal just because law enforcement says you are.

In 2007 two New York police officers interrupted a peaceful demonstration on a public sidewalk in front of the new WTC 7 Building to intimidate free speech, stating "Larry [Silverstein] doesn't want to hear it," before accusing Luke Rudkowski of having a bomb and that his cell phone was "a gun."

The officer was apparently responding to refusals to stop filming their faces as police attempted to impede free speech on behalf of Larry Silverstein, making slanderous and knowingly false accusations including:

"I think he's got a bomb in his bag. I saw wires coming out.  I think he's got a bomb in there."

Rudkowski tells him he is not a terrorist and that he is an American citizen. The officer responds, " You're right. But by the time the government figures it out, you'll be in the hole for 30 days ."

 

They laughed about it drunk on their police state power. The sick thing is, they were right. Law enforcement gets away with this stuff all the time. Section 802 of the patriot act says the government can EXECUTE a citizen, in secret, with NO trial.

My point was you don't violate the rights of 300 or so million Americans because of 30 or so million illegals. You don't let one apple spoil the bunch. They are the exception, not the rule. It is the job of law enforcement to protect our rights, not take our rights away so they can bust "criminals".

How I Learned to Love the New World Order By Joseph R. Biden

How I Learned to Love the New World Order was originally published in the Wall Street Journal April 23, 1992 on page A13.

Technorati Tags: New World Order,Joe Biden,Vice President,Wall Street Journal

Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon’s new strategy — America as “Globocop” — could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests — by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal’s endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.

American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking “America’s world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.

” Why doesn’t the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America’s proper role in the new world order?

Pat Buchanan’s “America First” preaches martyrdom: We’ve been suckered into fighting “other” people’s battles and defending “other” people’s interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.

But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions.

What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.

Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let’s prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.

The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail’s pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise.

The Senate has tried to force China’s leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China’s leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.

Weapons containment can’t be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let’s do our best — using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.

Why not an anti-proliferation “czar” in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?

Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies — Japan and Germany — and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs. For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don’t start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany “not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.”

How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn’t, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.

Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S.

defense spending the more they try to share the burden!

Fourth, collective security doesn’t rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I’m among those who want “Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee.” But no one advocates that we repeal the “inherent” right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn’t undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.’s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon’s strategy would spell “the end of the U.N.” Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.

Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.

If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security.