Shovel ready stimulus projects and Mexico's President Calderone...

 

Did you hear about what congress is trying to do now? 200-250 BILLION for "job creation" - I thought the stimulus was supposed to do that?

You remember the 1 TRILLION dollar package (over HALF which remains UNSPENT despite promises of "shovel ready" projects) that was supposed to save us and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%?

Mind you in California unemployment is hovering around 12% and if the long term unemployed are accounted for the real number nationwide at 17%+ is one Obama does not want to talk about. We cant even consider the numbers for black men between 18 and 35 which is so shocking at 40-50% Obama ignores the issue completely as he is more interested in political payback to organized labor foresaking his many campaign promises.

Why the black community seems to allow him this transgression of such monumental proportion is inexplicable.  This then provides us with the rationale for Obama;s current aversion to a real press conference these days.

After all he really is quite busy giving President Calderone of Mexico a forum for lecturing America on immigration law. I just wish Obama who obviously has not even read the law would take a look the 10 pages (plus 5 pages of amendments) that comprise AZ SB 1070. Its a light casual read compared to the almost 3,000 page health care "reform" that was fashioned in secret out of view of even the oft promised C-SPAN cameras. "Most transparent administration in recent history" indeed... But I digress...

It is perhaps just too much to ask that our chief law enforcement official - Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano ( and ironically frmr Gov of AZ) AFTER appearing on virtually every major network criticizing AZ's law and issuing opinions as to its constitutionality admitted that neither of the officials above had even bothered to read it. That Mr Holder is Attorney General and threatened A federal legal challenge of the law and THEN in a house judiciary hearing admitted not only he had not read the law but adding insult to ignorance and bringing his competence solidly into question told legislators he relied on the news media and what he had read about the law - yet not the law itself.

This is no joke... But our Attorney General! One can only wonder what a heyday the media would have had if a Bush administration official had perpetrated the same fraud upon the citizenry as the above Obama officials. But then similarly abhorrent examples of hypocrisy and overt incompetence abound within Mr Obama's fifedom.

Most have no doubt seen Calderone's comments, "... I stonrgly disagree with Arizon's new law..."

I'd suggest a correction or several alternatives:

1) I strongly disagree with America having laws like we do in Mexico
2) I strongly disagree with America enforcing its own Southern border with the tenacity we do in Mexico

I'm sure you can come up with several of your own...

I think at some point Mexican's themselves might begin to have some shame about this whole affair. Rather than govern Mexico and tackle the ubiquitous corruption Mr Calderone and so many before him aquiesce to a country in such economic and social dissarray that the only solution they can conceive is to encourage the wholesale exodus of their citizens. I just wonder what the might think if Obama or Bush had shown up in their capitol and lectured them on corruption, drug enforcement and how education beyond 8th grade should be mandatory if they expect to compete in a global economy.

Somehow I think the proud people of Mexico might react with far greater outrage then we have. That has been a problem for those "bitter clingers" such as you and I... we hold a live and let live attitude and tend to remain silent. I heard a new phrase that we would do well to take to heart amid the clamors that all who oppose Mr Obama's radical agenda are racist (BTW how insulting and childish can you get? I odnt care what race/color the man is its his POLICIES I abhor) - anyway here it is:

Not Racist
     Not Violent
         NOT SILENT ANYMORE

Show Me Your Papers!

Obamacare Requires You To "Show Your Papers"

William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY  blogging at Legal Insurrection

Remember when Democrats fell all over themselves trying to prove that Obamacare would NOT cover illegal aliens? When Joe Wilson shouted "you lie" about coverage for illegal aliens, Obama and Democratic leaders assured the nation that illegal aliens would be excluded.

Under the final Senate health care bill signed into law (unlike the earlier House version), illegal aliens are screened out. Only persons who can prove they are "a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States" get to participate.

In other words, when you try to buy a policy through an exchange, or seek a subsidy, or receive any of the other supposed benefits, you will be told "show me your papers."

Just like in Arizona now. If you are contacted lawfully by the police. And if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally. And if you cannot produce any of the specified common forms of identification. And in that case, the officer has to try to confirm your status with the federal immigration authorities.

The burden of producing identification under the Arizona law is no more intrusive than the documentation you need to fly; or ride an Amtrak train; or check into a hotel; or rent a car; or cash a check.

It certainly is less intrusive than the health care mandate, which forces people to spend money or be penalized, and requires that employers and taxpayers report to the government about insurance status. I find it quite interesting that the same people who insist that the federal government can control virtually all aspects of our health care find it so horrid when a state government seeks to protect its citizens by verifying immigration status.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could go through our lives without ever being told "show me your papers." And there would be no problems with foreign drug gangs and terrorist groups. And immigration would be controlled at the border.

But this is not a perfect world, as the people of Arizona can attest.

But it also is not the equivalent of being in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or apartheid South Africa, as is being claimed by opponents of the Arizona law. Anymore so than a molehill is a mountain.


If being told "show me your papers" under the Arizona law constitutes the equivalent of any of those evil forms of government, what does that make Obamacare? And the Democrats who voted for it? And the President who signed it? And the bureaucrats who will implement it? And the doctors who will provide services under it? And the patients who will participate in it?


Are they all now Nazis, and Communists, and Apartheidists? Just like the people of Arizona.


Byron York has an even longer list of things for which we already have to show our papers:


No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers.


We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who William A. Jacobson looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license.


Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny.