Monday, August 30, 2010

Obama Administration Tries Stealth Amnesty

The vast majority of Americans regardless of demographic group want the border secured and existing immigration laws enforced before considering any proposed reforms to the process. So in response, the administration is apparently going the way of backdoor amnesty for illegal aliens, those who are supposedly fit into the so-called "noncriminal" category, according to the Houston Chronicle:
The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts. Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients' deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases.
Reflecting the feelings of the average American, the Heritage Foundation had this to say:
 Obama shows a pattern of refusing to enforce laws (or refusing to permit states like Arizona to enforce them).  When he dislikes our laws, Obama forces change by dictate rather than seeking legal change through the political process.  Congress gets bypassed. Those benefiting can claim a new category of legal immunity:  FBO’s–Favored By Obama. Selective enforcement is being taken to new extremes.  Furor would follow any straightforward official announcement that Obama is forgiving thousands from deportation, so the new amnesty policy is coming to light gradually, memo by memo and place by place.
In a related development, the Washington Post reports that the union representing ICE officers have issued a vote of no-confidence in ICE Director John Morton over his lackluster at best approach to enforcement.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Appeals Courts Issue Rulings on ACORN, Gay Marriage

Just when you lost all faith in the judicial system, two reasonable appeals court decisions surface. In the first, the Second Circuit upheld the ACORN funding ban:
A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a decision that had barred Congress from withholding funds from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes.
The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a decision by a district court judge in Brooklyn that found Congress had violated the group's rights by punishing it without a trial.
Congress cut off ACORN's federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities. [AP]
Separately, the Ninth Circuit has put the trial court's Proposition 8 decision on hold while the appeal is pending. Even if you support same-sex marriage, courts often postpone enforcement of a ruling in high-profile cases during the appeal process. The Proposition 8 appeal is on a fast track, with arguments scheduled for December 6. There is also an issue of standing, i.e., which party has the legal right to appeal the judge's decision that overturned California's voter-approved same sex marriage ban:
But in what may become a crucial element in the case, the appeals court asked the ballot measure's lawyers to offer arguments on why they have the legal right to appeal when the state's top two officials, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, refuse to defend the law and say it is unconstitutional. Gay rights lawyers and San Francisco city officials have argued in court papers that the Proposition 8 campaign does not have legal standing to appeal, and Walker himself questioned whether they do in his order last week. [Mercury News]
Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate, favors civil unions but not gay marriage. She also supported Proposition 8 but has yet to take a position on whether she would defend it as governor.

Union Fires Worker For In-House Unionizing

An amazing instance of bad faith, but apparently it's not the first time this has happened:
In a move of stunning hypocrisy, the United Federation of Teachers axed one of its longtime employees -- for trying to unionize the powerful labor organization's own workers, it was charged yesterday.
Jim Callaghan, a veteran writer for the teachers union, told The [New York] Post he was booted from his $100,000-a-year job just two months after he informed UFT President Michael Mulgrew that he was trying to unionize some of his co-workers. 
..."This is the exact antithesis of what they preach, and Michael Mulgrew is the biggest hypocrite out there," Callaghan fumed.
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has a great column about Craig Becker, the corrupt union lawyer installed as a recess appointment on the National Labor Relations Board.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Judicial Tyranny Coming Soon To A Court Near You

The U.S. is generally a live-and-let-live country in matters of personal behavior. No one really cares or should care what people do in their private lives (assuming no lawbreaking) as long as nobody is forced to do anything against their will. Knock yourself out, as long as no innocent person is harmed, is the prevailing it should be.

Thwarting the will of the people when it comes to SB 1070 or other validly enacted laws, or seeking the imprimatur of the state for certain activities or lifestyles, is entirely different. Writing at, Erick Erickson notes, among other things, that 39 states have already banned same-sex marriage
A majority of the American public and three-quarters of the American states have been overruled by one federal judge in San Francisco. To be fair, the ruling only affects Northern California. It will be appealed. The odds are, for now, that the judge will be overruled.
But again and again the political elites in this country think they know best. From the mosque at Ground Zero to gay marriage to Obamacare, the majority of the people and states are forced to deal with a minority that does not respect them and democratic and legal institutions that oppose them.
If a minority of political elites and liberals can impose their will and values on a majority sufficient enough to amend the constitution, it is time for the majority to respond with constitutional force.
In Thomas Jefferson’s words, “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
Something to think about as members of both parties prepare to confirm yet another liberal elitist to the federal courts, this time to the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Arizona Governor, American People, Want The Border Secured

It was disappointing but far from surprising that a Clinton-appointed liberal judge blocked key portions of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law. That the 9th Circuit was unwilling to hear an expedited appeal, and therefore won't take up the case until November, is also disheartening. Only in an upside world would the federal government prefer to spend money on lawyers than in securing the border. But ultimately Arizona and the American people will prevail, although the statute may be headed toward a 5-4 Supreme Court decision sometime down the line.

We've previously referred to Chris Christie as America's governor, but perhaps that honor also belongs to Jan Brewer. The Arizona governor, who is running for re-election to be sure, might not come across as the most prepared politician during television interviews, but she's unwavering when it comes to protecting the border. She's already said that she will be "relentless" when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. The vast majority of the American people logically want the border secured first before any legislative initiatives on immigration reform, so-called, should be considered. The media and the Obama administration (is there a difference?) are out of step with the American people.

Of Brewer, Sarah Palin said the following on Fox News Sunday:
She's going to do all that she can to continue down the litigation path to allow secure borders. Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have to look out for all Americans, not just Arizonans, but all Americans, in this desire of ours to secure our borders and allow legal immigration to help build this country, as was the purpose of immigration laws.
Last month, Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald sounded a similar theme:
The Arizona governor knows what she believes and has the courage of her convictions, making her a breath of fresh air here in Massachusetts where public officials cower at incurring the wrath of a politically correct lunatic fringe.
In town this weekend for a meeting of the National Governors Association, Brewer’s sure to hear from malcontents enraged by her state’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
They’d have us believe it’s hateful to suggest new arrivals ought to comply with America’s expectations.
Learn our language? How insensitive. Apply for citizenship? How inhospitable. Obey our laws? How mean-spirited.
Please. We’re sicker than they are if we pay any attention to them.
Fitzgerald's Herald colleague Howie Carr added the following:
It’s not about immigration. It’s about illegal immigration. You cannot have a society where one group is expected to obey the laws, play by the rules, pay taxes and speak a common language, and another group sneaking in and not asking, but demanding, to be given everything, for free, with no consequences whatsoever for any crimes they commit.
Last night on FNC, a focus group of Arizona voters, many of whom voted for Obama, spoke out on the situation in their state when it comes to illegal immigration:

"Whatever Works" Doesn't

[owing to other commitments, posts have been sparse lately, but we will attempt to get back on track.]

We recently watched the DVD of Woody Allen's 2009 film Whatever Works, starring Curb Your Enthusiasm star/creator Larry David. Curb has been a great show, so if the HBO series is considered a day job, David should keep it. David's embarrassing attempt to channel the neurotic Allen persona just appears as if he is reading lines without any real conviction. And what's with those shorts?

It's not just David's performance as the curmudgeon in chief, however, that is the issue; it is really the over-politicized and (if we can use this term) mean-spirited script itself, which apparently was written many years ago, but recently dusted off.

David, in a part that Allen likely would have played himself in his slightly younger days, is a repulsive brainiac professor who unbelievably hooks up with a beautiful young woman from Mississippi (Evan Rachel Wood). Her equally "unenlightened" parents arrive on the scene later in the film.

The main theme of the cliche-ridden film seems to be that conservative hicks from the south can only find true happiness if they give up their faith, family, and their guns and pursue a libertine/bohemian lifestyle ("whatever works") in New York City. While the the movie has a few (very few) funny lines, it's a poor substitute for Allen's classic comedies such as Annie Hall, Broadway Danny Rose, and Radio Days that were funny, touching, generally non-political, and sentimental all at the same time.

Stereotyping/demonizing people from the south may have been considered edgy in the 60s or 70s, but it's just comes across as oh so lame now. By the way, what about the millions of people who are happy in a Christian lifestyle; isn't that also a component of whatever works, too? Moreover, what about all so-called right wingers, many from the south, who served in the military and/or law enforcement to preserve the First Amendment freedoms that have allowed Allen to pursue a long career in the arts?

In earlier sequences in the movie, the script allows the red state folks to refute the Allen's/David's snobbery, so there could be an argument made that Allen is mocking both the phony New York intellectual and the ignorant red state hick. Based on the Allen's left-wing political pronouncements in many interviews, such as recently advocating an Obama dictatorship of all things, however, this seems unlikely.'s JohnNolte sums it up well:
Allen’s writing is shockingly lazy. The dialogue plays like something from a high school play with every on-the-nose scene stiffly performed as if over-rehearsed. The characters are worse; paper thin. Other than Rachel Wood, who summons more depth than the script deserves, the usually terrific Clarkson and Begley Jr. [parents] seem satisfied playing caricatures, which should come as no surprise. Hollywood bigots, never shy about granting terrorists, Nazis, rapists and child molesters some level of depth and dimension, refuse anything of the kind for us Wal-Mart shopping, Jesus-lovers.